It cannot make the US a religious free zone, but it does guarantee that religious laws cannot be imposed on non-believers. The establishment clause also means a lot more than simply disallowing the state from endorsing a single state religion. The establishment that it prohibits can also include effective and constructive establishment.
See, that's not right. If they believe in Martians, then they're probably dumb or nuts. We've examined Mars in great detail, and there's no one there. And that's why I certainly would respect the intelligence of an atheist over a theist, because the evidence against deities is tremendous. Someone who made real decisions about policy based on what he or she perceived as god handing out orders would bother me immensely, because that's kinda nuts to me. Bush defended the war in Iraq, back in 2004, by saying that he thought god had told him to bring freedom to Middle Eastern nations. Several of the Republican candidates in 2008 said that they believed that god had commanded them to run. Sure, some of them were just using religious rhetoric to pander for votes, but the ones that actually believe that there's a bearded old man up there who is taking an active part in our politics is scary. Paul Broun, a Georgia congressman, is on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, and condemns a lot of modern biology as "lies from the pit of hell". That scares me, a lot. I don't see how a person who thinks that science is a tool by an evil satyr to trick people is qualified to make decisions about laws pertaining to science. Just like I don't see how a person who thinks that god maintains the world in a constant state is qualified to make decisions about the environment or climate change. I don't see how a person who thinks that their religion requires them to conduct a holy war on Islam is qualified to be commander in chief, either.
Leaders who actually think this stuff is true are very dangerous and should not be elected into office. Obviously, I'm not saying they should be legally prevented from running because of it, but they should be laughed out of the race, because they are nuts and are dangerous. And so we should care what they believe. We shouldn't elect conspiracy theorists either. Or lots of people who believe crazy things.
And this type of hostility is what would make me seriously pause before I'd vote for an atheist. Politically active atheists often seem especially angry and hostile to religion. It would worry me that he'd want to outlaw my beliefs or something.
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run
Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.
Originally Posted by Wiseone
This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.
Originally Posted by Navy Pride
You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.
Originally Posted by Wessexman
See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
Originally Posted by CriticalThought
Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
Originally Posted by ernst barkmann
It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"
I never said he wasn't intelligent. However, I don't consider Sam Harris any more respectful of Islam than I consider Peter King respectful of Islam. He is prejudiced and favors discrimination. That is as impermissible to me as prejudice and discrimination against gays by many Christians. And no, I don't think challenging religion in public discourse is, in itself, disrespectful. As someone who rejects much of religion and finds devout belief in it to be nonsensical for a variety of reasons, such a characterization of me is laughable and reflects only upon your own sensitivities towards criticism of atheists.
He in no way favors discrimination. He is challenging the religion's radical nature, which is not practiced by all Muslims, but which we have seen practiced to the tune of 9/11. It is just as important that radical Christian practices should be challenged. Criticising any belief system which has the potential for violence should be paramount in public discourse. Religion has been shielded by a false belief that it is not allowed to be challenged. Every area of discourse known to man should be challenged and criticized. Open and honest discussion is the only way to progress as a society. And btw, I know nothing about you, so that first post of yours was very misleading.