Atheists Say that Public Prayer Literally Makes Them Sick
Washington, D.C. – Briefing is nearing a close in a high-profile case challenging prayer at Presidential inaugurations, currently before the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The lawsuit, filed by hundreds of atheists and atheist groups, led by frequent litigant Michael Newdow, was thrown out by the lower federal court. The two ministers who offered prayers at President Obama's inauguration, Dr. Rick Warren and Dr. Joseph Lowery, are named defendants in the lawsuit and are being represented by Pacific Justice Institute.
In its Opposition Brief filed last week, Pacific Justice Institute countered the legal arguments of atheists who said public prayer traumatized them to the point of illness. Among the more dire claims, one plaintiff declared, "[W]hen Chief Justice Roberts asked the President to say, 'So help me God,' I felt threatened and sick to my stomach." Another plaintiff stated in court documents, "As I watched this inauguration, I cringed with disgust as I witnessed this special secular event again being poisoned with sectarian religious nonsense."
The plaintiffs in this case include numerous individuals, and groups such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation, The American Humanist Association, Atheists United, Atheists for Human Rights, and Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers.
PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider, who authored the opposition brief submitted last week on behalf of Drs. Warren and Lowery, commented, "Prayers designed to solemnize public events have a long and venerable history in our nation.
The Constitution simply does not demand that our public institutions be amoral or atheistic."
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, stated, "The First Amendment cannot be divorced from common sense. While atheists, humanists and freethinkers are a tiny minority in America, they are free to express and practice their lack of faith as they please. That does not mean, however, that the vast majority of God-fearing citizens and public officials must be silenced in order to appease them."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
This title and specific mention of ONE plaintiff that exaggerated were obviously put in there to make atheists look like whiny complainers that are overly sensitive. And from the looks of the comments here, some have fallen for it. I'm sure many more have as well.
Um, is there anyway this could be a less objective article?
I mean, this whole thing is silly in more way than one, but why is this group getting free propaganda for their case?
At least they have toned down the Rhetoric, though the equation of athiesm to amorality is disengenuous at best.
Thomas Jefferson would be an athiest by even Unitarian standards these days (though he was not one, he was far to reasonable about his religion for the modern standard in the US).
Not that TJ was the moral compass for this issue, but if they want to disect the bill of rights or bring up tradition, let's really get down to details. Like defining "common sense".
Commone sense is what tells a person that the world is flat.
Could someone please explain to me how a public prayer is forcing religion on anyone? Please. This is the crap that drives me crazy. No one is being forced to beleive anything. So how does a prayer offend you? Are people really that shallow, that paranoid, that mentally unstable that a public prayer, regardless of the situation, is somehow going to morph into the establishment of a National religion with everyone having to proclaim adherence? If that were the outcome, believe me, it would have happened long ago. It did not, so relax. You don't want to believe, that is your choice. The unfortunate thing that many misunderstand is that you do not, do not, have a right to be offended. So get over yourself already and stop wasting time and money on this idiotic stuff.
I'm not a religious man, but this is why I hate atheists with a flaming passion. It seems that they won't stop until they make everyone with a higher meaning in life miserable.
That's a pretty obvious generalization.
As and atheist-agnostic I'm almost offended.
To say that you hate me and that I want to make you miserable for believing in a higher power is _____.
I would like you to look at your own beliefs and let that be your guide not what someone tells you to believe, but I don't want you to be miserable.
Ride the pink cloud. (higher power sounds like AA to me)
I'm an agnostic also, and I dig what you say about AA, but I stand by what I say.
I make the generalization because I know a ton of people who consider themselves hardcore atheists , and the vast majority act a damn fool when confronted by a situation in which (God [or god ] forbid) someone is either relying on their faith or simply talking about their faith.
I've known people (atheist of course) to go up to two complete strangers talking about s religious topic and getting into the thick of things simply to let the others know that their wrong.
Let me clarify my position. I don't hate atheists, I just hate arrogance aimed at people with faith, be it to make them feel bad or try to dissuade their views.
Most of the atheists I've met fit the description above.
That said, I don't like people trying to push religion onto me, or anyone else. I've had religious folk do that. I didn't like it, so I walked away.
But back to the issue of prayer at the inauguration. If the atheists in attendance didn't like it, tough. The majority of the people there (including the President) wanted to partake in a prayer. If it really bothered them so much they could've done something else to pass the time. I hear sudoku is a great time-passer.
I don't fault atheists for their views, but I do fault them for the things they do sometimes.
Yeah, religious people try to force their views onto people, but at least they truly believe that they're doing good. Speaking solely of Christianity, it's part of their religion to bring Christ to as many people as possible. That's how people are saved according to their faith. It seems that atheists are doing it to put people down, or just to start a fight.
Athiest's (especially those brave enough to admit to the label in the states) are a small portion of the 15% or so people in this country that are not in religion .
If you know that many, you are in a wierdly concentrated pocket. I would guess a college campus or something like that, based on the behavior you describe.
But there is a real breakdown in understanding here in this comparison.
Religion has no valid (by valid in mean in the sense of consistent definition of terms and with respect to any acceptable verification of a truth claim in epistemology) claim on morality or meaning that Atheist's lack, but there are certainly some important epistemlogical and existential philosophies that provide secular humanism in general, and atheism in particular (with respect of truth claims) a nuance and depth lacking the vast majority of religious dogma.
That is to say, every philosophical problem with meaning, metaethics, and truth have no solutions in theism that are not as valid in strict materialism, while athiesm forces humanity to work these things out on their own, so to say.
Even more simply put, the fact that there is no reason to believe in gods does not negate higher meaning being possible; in fact it is not truely possible without a humanistic appreciation.
It is very difficult for people to not get defensive and take things personally, but this is mostly due to the undue protection from critical analysis religion has exploited for most of human history.
Sorry if I'm only on page two of the dictionary to type to you, but I hope my simpleton ways will make sense.
This is my question to both the scientific(non-theist or atheist) and theist populations.
Where did God or The Big Bang come from? What was before that?
Now Buddhist religion makes more sense to me. Except the reincarnation. The search for nirvana and inner peace to find "heaven" on earth.
Any logic in there submariner?
This is the quintessential fair question, in my opinion.
God = Big Bang? Or, What is the ontological root cause?
This is why all athiest's must in philosophy allow for some type of "supernatural" primum movum; that is at some point nothing comes from something, right?
This is exemplary of why the existentialists maintain that the universe is inherently meaningless.
It's a problem for theists except that the dogma typically maintains that the various Gods have always been around.
Buddhism is appealing to a great many for it's simplicity, lack of supernaturalism (fundamentally - there is a lot of supernatural activity in some variations, usually left over from indigenous mysticism. It's very parsimonious, for a religion , which gives it a lot of philosophical integrity.
Mostly, I appreciate the idea that we have to have discipline and compassion to make THIS life worth living. Heaven on Earth as you say.
Having to have discipline and compassion to make life worth living isn't entirely true. Some don't and get by fine.
Buddhist, I was more pointing out a "higher power" that makes the most sense to me.
God=Big Bang is as good of a theory as any I guess. I've seen science at least try to explain or figure it out though... String theory and Parallel Universe theory pop to mind.
God just was and always will be.
Side note. Could you imagine what would happen if we found intelligent life in the universe? That would through the mightiest of wrenches into religion .