Atheist Group Takes on the States
An atheist group — the Secular Coalition for America — is opening a Texas office in January to lobby for "a strong separation of church and state," and hopes to open similar offices in the rest of the states. Organizers say they find more "egregious" laws and legislation at the state level than in Washington, D.C.
“We’re seeing the most religiously infused laws come from the state level,” said SCA spokeswoman Lauren Youngblood. Laws like these, she said, are “so unconstitutional and so discriminatory.”
The SCA, a coalition that includes 11 other groups as members, cites an example in the ...
Comments (3)
Norman Allen
I wonder why there should be any conflict with the Higher Power clause. Power is potential energy which started with the big bang, what all scientists seem to believe in, given the current state of matter in the expanding universe. In that sense, atheists are in conformity with the clause. If we take the bigots out of interpreting the clause, those who think their imaginary gods are the higher power, then there is no problem. The issue is not in the constitutional clause in this instance, but with the mindset of proponents and opponents. One day, I hope, we will all be exposed to the same field of general knowledge that will help us no longer fight about words but substance of politics: who gets what why how and how to make the production and distribution more equitable.
Sam L. Archer
Norman Allen makes a very helpful point. Frankly, when I scrolled down to read the comment, it was with apprehension that I would be met by the usual ignoramus bilge, but his is a very thoughtful reflection. There are more efficient ways to win battles than frontal assaults.
Okay, just for the record, I am a believer in God, but that should have no place in the secular government. The Constitutional language in question sounds more like lawyer talk designed to sew legalities together, such as the "so help me God." clause in witness swearing-in ceremony. Much like the reasoning behind spousal privilege, there are assumptions underlying. The higher power reference and the God reference do not really jibe, though. Maybe people could start exercising a religious freedom right to affirm his/her intention "by the origin of the Universe." It would be equally effective.
Steven Schafersman
First, I don't understand the comment references above to a "Higher Power clause." The Texas Constitutional clause in question requires acknowledgment of the "existence of a Supreme Being," not a Higher Power. If Higher Power was written, belief in gravity would suffice for compliance. Of course, the Supreme Being requirement is federally unconstitutional and thus certainly "void." The Texas Constitution's "no religious test shall ever be required" and "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being" logically directly conflict and therefore one clause must be ignored or voided or removed. The latter clause is in error since it violates the Federal Constitution's Establishment Clause, just as the article states.
Second, the title and first sentence of the news article are in error. The Secular Coalition of America is a secular group and not an "atheist group." While most members are no doubt atheists by some definition of atheism (there are several, the simplest being non-belief in a deity), in fact most of the various members identify themselves as humanists, secularists, agnostics, philosophical naturalists, and freethinkers rather than atheists. The term "atheist" is subject to much distortion and misrepresentation by the sectarian opponents of secularism, who often claim atheists say God does not exist (atheists almost never say this, contrary to popular opinion). Please remember that secularism is the middle ground between proponents of religion and non-religion, favoring or inhibiting neither one nor the other. Secularists simply want governments to be neutral in the conflict between religion and irreligion, as the U.S. Constitution requires.