Atheists Bash NASA for "Space Missionary" Program
An Atheist-First Amendment public policy group charged today that NASA is violating the separation of church and state by permitting a "space missionary" memento on the latest Discovery Space Shuttle Mission.
On board the shuttle is a piece of an airplane that crashed in Ecuador in 1956 that carried members of the Missionary Aviation Fellowship. One of the shuttle astronaut contacted the Idaho-based group proposing that the item be taken into space as part of a government-funded exploration project. The event has re-ignited enthusiasm by religious groups for "space missionary" proselytizing.
"This is an inappropriate and unconstitutional use of resources," charged Dr. Ed Buckner, President of American Atheists. NASA is a scientific and exploratory agency that is funded by taxpayers. Its mission should not include religious grandstanding, or efforts to use outer space as a pulpit for religion."
Coincidentally, Dr. Buckner's late father, Rev. James C. Buckner of St. Christopher's Episcopal Church in League City, Texas, collaborated with Apollo 8 astronaut Cdr. Frank Borman to insert religion on the first lunar orbital mission in 1968. That mission included a Christmas Eve religious service as the spacecraft circled the Moon -- and prompted an unsuccessful lawsuit by American Atheists founder Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Ed Buckner stressed that "I loved my father, though I disagreed with him then and of course now. I did not reject my father when I rejected theism nor became an Atheist out of rebellion. I became an Atheist because theism ceased to make any sense to me."
Dave Silverman, Vice President and Communications Director for American Atheists said that in addition to being inappropriate and illegal, using NASA to promote sectarian religion "could fuel international tensions and resurrect images of American-sponsored proselytizing in the Middle East and elsewhere."
"This is supposed to be a 'new era' for international respect and cooperation," said Mr. Silverman. How do you think the non-Christian peoples of the world react when they see Americans pushing Christianity even in outer space?"
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
NASA isn't promoting anything in regard to religion here. The real truth is one of the astronauts is taking it as a personal item which is allowed. He is also a member of the MAF which serves the desperately needy in 55 countries around the world with fleets of bush pilots.
The overall weight is negligible and insignificant, and is equivalent to arguing whether or not all the astronauts ate breakfast and took bowel movements prior to launch.
Each astronaut is allowed to take some personal belongings. The articles have personal significance to them. And, in the opinion of many at NASA, should be permitted for someone who is willing to risk their life in the advancement of the sciences.
Of course no "rational" atheist would complain about such a thing. Only those with massive amounts of anti-religious hate are complaining about this.
How do you think people of the world react when they see atheists over reacting about something as trivial as this.
Dont recommend yourself,that aint cool!
It is incidents in the media , like this one, that make it pretty clear that Christians are far more level-headed and accepting of others, than anti-theists.
Makes me want to go to a Church this Sunday, just because I know there won't be a mob of anti-theists trying to shove their not- religion down my throat there. Sanctuary, in the religious sense, just got a new definition.
I'm not so sure about that... what about the bus driver who refused to operate a bus with a pro-atheist ad on the side?
That is in the realm of personal preference. I can quit my job if I have to put up with a boss pushing his beliefs, no matter what they are, on me. In fact, that is all a religious person can do. Atheists can sue you for wearing a necklace and get your fired. But they are beyond recourse themselves. It is a complete double-standard. The religious have no rights, the anti-theists can do anything they want to anyone they want as long as it's NOT in the name of any god ....
Some people don't want to promote a contradiction to themselves. That's fine, too. But the article above is not anywhere near the same thing.
::sigh::
We could go back to feeding christians to lions?
Ya know what's indicative of the varying depths of this topic people are working at?
Some religion 's are athiest. Most are not, but it seems the deity based religions are ones up in arms about seperation of church and state . I wonder why that is? Probably because spirituality that does not rely strictly on scripted direction attracts people able to discern a body of beliefs, a collection of tenets, and single fact claims from one another; perhaps even those more able to evaluate them.
Can you cite an instance where an atheist sued a religious individual for just wearing a religious icon?
Remember that there are documented instances of atheists being discriminated against for their non-beliefs
( http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/pat_quotes/atheist_fired.htm )
( http://www.examiner.com/x-8776-Boston-Atheism-Examiner ~y2009m7d11-Cancer-patient-fired-from-job-for-being-an-atheist-now-needs-financial-help)
( http://www.komonews.com/news/archive/4074941.html )
( http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/atheist.soldier /index.html)
is irrelevant. I've witnessed it in the workplace dozens of times. I have even been fired, twice, just for talking to someone about it.
No, I can't cite it. Anyone can find a cite somewhere on the web. It doesn't prove anything. I can cite someone suing McDonald's because coffee is hot... What does that prove?
As I have said many times; I am not the fact welfare. If you were interested in finding fact, instead of supporting an agenda, you could find it yourself. But since it is just as available as what you have cited, yet you have ignored it... What good would spoon-feeding someone in denial be?
I NEVER cite. Period. I don't fall for that game.
“is irrelevant. I've witnessed it in the workplace dozens of times. I have even been fired, twice, just for talking to someone about it.”
So you say… but you present nothing to support your claims.
“No, I can't cite it. Anyone can find a cite somewhere on the web. It doesn't prove anything.”
Prove… perhaps not. It can offer evidence in support of an argument. If you claim that Oprah beat a guy with a baseball bat then providing a link to the story on a major news site would support that argument, saying “just trust me on this, she beat a guy” does not help your argument.
“I can cite someone suing McDonald's because coffee is hot... What does that prove?”
If your claim was that somebody sued McDonald’s because of the hot coffee… or that McDonald’s coffee was so hot that it could cause injury then citing a case where a person sued McDonald’s for hot coffee would be evidence in your favor.
“As I have said many times; I am not the fact welfare.”
So you are in the habit of making accusations without offering any support?
“If you were interested in finding fact, instead of supporting an agenda, you could find it yourself.”
I’m not here to argue your side, I’m here to listen to it... and provide counter arguments when I disagree with you.
“But since it is just as available as what you have cited, yet you have ignored it... What good would spoon-feeding someone in denial be?”
It may not help me at all… but it may help someone who is on the fence in this issue.
“I NEVER cite. Period. I don't fall for that game.”
If we do not have to base our arguments on facts then what is to keep us from making outlandish statements? If I said that atheists were being deported to Australia or that membership in a church was being mandated would you accept that based only on my post?
I think it is silly how viscous anti-theists have become. If the church were even 10% as crazy as anti-theists, it would be called a crusade.
I'm sure real atheists do exist, but the wacko anti-theists give them a bad name by using their name. How dare anyone do other than what the anti-theists want..... Stupid. It just isn't that big of a deal, but they make it into one in an attempt to eliminate from view anything they hate. What if one of the astronauts wore a cross necklace; grab your torch and pitchfork!