“And if an Atheist accepts 1st amendment rights for religious protection under the constitution does that make Atheism a religion?”
The First Amendment, in case you haven’t read it lately, states, “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.”
So what this says, quite plainly, is that this is NOT a Christian nation. Y’all are free to practice whatever version of idol-worship you see fit, and we’ll let you, but you may not legislate your own thoughts into the law for anyone else. “ . . . No law respecting an establishment of religion, . . . “ means just that – not having a religion is called objectivity, and objectivity is not in and of itself a religion. Nice try to warp the facts though. The part about “ . . . or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . “ is not, in the context of the balance of the document, a pure protection of religion – the free exercise of your idol-worship is subject to a set of conditions, and unlike in medieval times we held out the option of not allowing anyone to hide from the law by taking refuge in their church – we’ll enter your temple and drag you out without losing a moment of sleep. Your ‘religious protection’ is conditional on your religion also obeying the lawful authority of the non-religious laws of the land, rather than only those laws contained in your own imaginative and fictitious Book.
I guess that makes Objectivity (which you prefer to call Atheism) somewhat less than a religion, and actually an anti-religion, designed to keep the more zealous among you from trying to force everyone to see things your way. Odd, huh? They had your number even then.
“The act of aggressively and religiously attacking, working against, striving to abolish all of those that do believe, is a religion.”
Again, nice rhetoric, but is this anything more than paranoia? Who, exactly, is, “ . . . striving to abolish all of those that do believe . . . ?” Got any credible thoughts? Granted, the various believers are striving actively to wipe EACH OTHER out, and are taking down thousands of innocents with them. But this looks from the outside like little more than gang warfare, and if you’d limit it to each other, and leave the rest of us out of it we might actually encourage it. The fewer of you there are the better. But all the Objective Non-Believers (Atheists) are doing is sitting by the sidelines and pointing out to you how very silly you look. We’re not killing anyone. If our criticism gets under your skin and provokes a paranoia and fuels a persecution complex, as though WE are the ones striving for total control, then perhaps you have something worthy of feeling guilty about. Not our problem.
“History proves nothing of the sort and I challenge you to lend credibility to your statement. “
I do not remember that the statement included ‘violence,’ though in the end that is often the result, especially where the three ‘dominant’ religions are concerned. You haven’t demonstrated that even the minority, ‘peaceful’ religions do not also try everything within their power to spread, in an attempt to become dominant. History, and current truth demonstrates that to be the case. Attempting to find an exception is little more than weaseling and denial of the overwhelming truth of the behaviors of religions, which have paralleled those of governments, kings, emperors and pharaohs – ideology is immune to truth, and represents nothing more than a thirst for power and control – largely a quest for wealth, as the impressively expensive, gold and gem encrusted entrapments of religions invariably display. Try it out – stand inside your cathedral, surrounded by millions of dollars worth of trappings, and explain aloud your humility, and dedication to the poverty and common-man appeal of your pulpit-teaching. See anything wrong with this contrast?
Don’t be blind, and please don’t come into THIS forum and be silly – religion, by definition, is governing. Telling you that is not creating a new religion, as you accuse – it is merely telling you. Nobody needs to ‘abolish’ belief – it has done that all by itself, every single time throughout all of history, simply by running out of credibility and the means to control the ‘believers’ from the bully-pulpit. In other words – they learned better than the elders taught, and walked. Thinking it won’t happen to your own congregation is foolish.
(BTW – bullethead – post #125 – WOW! Excellent homework!)