Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
You may remember the case of Judge James DeWeese of Richland County, Ohio. He's another Ten Commandments judge who has been losing in court for the better part of a decade now, yet persists in trying to gain the authority (not the right - he is the government in the official conduct of his courtroom, so he has authorities, not rights) to display his religious views in a courtroom owned by the people.
The ACLU of Ohio has been fighting on this since 2002. In 2004, a federal court ruled against the judge and he had to take down a display of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. Then he put up a display that had the Ten Commandments on one side and "humanist precepts" on the other. The display was labeled "Philosophies of Law in Conflict."
After he hung the second poster, the judge in the original case refused to find DeWeese in contempt of court for violating the injunction. The ACLU then filed a second suit against the new display and the court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and issued an injunction against the new display as well. See the full ruling here (PDF).
The ruling was based on the Lemon test because, the ruling says, that test "has been criticized in a number of Supreme Court cases, it has not been expressly overruled and continues to be applied in the Sixth Circuit." But as with most rulings these days, it also blended in the endorsement test and ruled that on either standard the display was unconstitutional.
Judge DeWeese tried to pretend that he had a secular purpose in putting up the display:
My purpose in creating and displaying this poster was to express my views about two warring legal philosophies that motivate behavior and the consequences that I have personally witnessed in my 18 years as a trial judge of moving to a moral relativist philosophy and abandoning a moral absolutist legal philosophy.
But the court saw through this rather obvious pretext, noting that the "absolutist legal philosophy" he is advocating is a clearly religious one. As he himself stated in a letter to the local paper:
Ultimately there are only two views: Either God is the final authority and we acknowledge His unchanging standards of behavior. Or man is the final authority, and standards of behavior change at the whim of individuals or societies.
But for a judge in a court of law in this country, where the constitution is the final authority and not the Bible or any other book of alleged revelation, such a position is clearly inappropriate to post in a court of law. The message to anyone who does not believe in that God or those alleged divine commands is clear: Do not expect justice in this courtroom.
The court rightly notes that the 6th Circuit had already ruled on a virtually identical case several years ago. In ACLU v Ashbrook the appeals court ruled:
The district court concluded that "[a] state actor officially sanctioning a view of moral absolutism in his courtroom by particularly referring to the Ten Commandments espouses an innately religious view and, thus, crosses the line created by the Establishment Clause.". . . Accordingly we find that the district court properly applied the first prong of the Lemon test and did not misapply the teaching of Stone v. Graham, as appellant contends.
Thus, this was an easy case for the district court to decide as circuit precedent is quite clear. And I expect the court of appeals to again uphold this ruling. The question is whether the Supreme Court, should it get that far, uphold it. I think even with the current configuration, it would simply deny cert and leave the lower court ruling in place, as it did in 2004 with the Ashbrook case.
Politics
Comments
I assume this judge has lots of local support. The same folks who cheer John Freshwater are no doubt marching for this religious loon in a robe too. Damn shame that American legal education can produce a judge so profoundly out of sync with the law.
Posted by: MikeMa | October 15, 2009 9:46 AM
The Ten Commandments do not represent any warring legal philosophy. They represent a failed legal philosophy. They were vanquished long, long ago, as demonstrated by the fact that the 1st amendment clearly contradicts the 1st commandment and there has never been a legitimate legal question in this country as to which of the two has force of law.
Posted by: DaveL | October 15, 2009 9:53 AM
This stuff confuses me. Why have the ten commandments diplayed in front of a courthouse if yuo don't want them enforced as law? Anyone who isn't a jew/christian/muslim has broke the law, work on the sababth (nurses, military, police etc) you have broken the law. Anyway isn't there really 613 commandments?
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | October 15, 2009 9:59 AM
Mike,
I don't know that this judge is necessarily anything unusual. The guy probably practiced criminal law, DA, etc., so likely did what was necessary to be successful in whatever constitutional law classes were required, but concentrated on criminal code/criminal justice.
He was, as a person, likely rather conservative to begin with, probably a social/religious conservative. As he has progressed through time, often dealing with the crappiest elements of society (police and lawy.. *cough* criminals), his foundational ideas were likely confirmed, his original biases strengthened, etc. Also, given his position within the system, he likely didn't see much evidence of the declining crime rate, etc., so likely feels that old nostalgic, "the world used to be a better place" is valid which probably makes him even more firmly believe that his sky sugar daddy needs to be invoked to fix this "broken world."
Annoying, wrong, but not unusual.
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 15, 2009 9:59 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | October 15, 2009 10:03 AM
It would be interesting to see what his notion of "humanist precepts" was. Can someone supply that info?
http://thelunchtimeobservers.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-there-any-point-to-this.html
http://www.stevespeer.com/words/aclj/judge_de_weese_framed.htm
Posted by: 386sx | October 15, 2009 10:05 AM
Tangential to Ed and DaveL's fine points, the higher courts often fail to accurately point out and condemn what this judge is doing.
In this case Judge DeWeese is making a documentary argument that he is in direct revolt against the Constitution of the United States. IANAL, so I humbly argue as a matter of principle that I would hope either the Judiciary or the Congress have both the power, the legal obligation, and the will to remove this judge - I assume through impeachment proceedings. Mere removal of the display is in no way adequate relative to the contempt against the Constitution being committed here. It would be great to get the perspective of constitutional scholar on my point.
I can think of no more egregious acts by a judge than open revolt against the Constitution as we see in this case - twice.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 15, 2009 10:07 AM
Either God is the final authority and we acknowledge His unchanging standards of behavior.
Unchanging standards of behavior? Has this guy actually read the Old Testament?
Posted by: Taz | October 15, 2009 10:09 AM
Wow, 386sx, thanks for the links. Those were the worst strawmen "Humanist Precepts" I think I've ever seen collected in one place. The nerve of that man!
Posted by: Shygetz | October 15, 2009 10:14 AM
Yeah, it's no wonder they are two warring legal philosophies!
Ironically, the ten commandments look they are the least constitutional of either one of them though! Lol.
Posted by: 386sx | October 15, 2009 10:20 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | October 15, 2009 10:26 AM
So, checking the link provided by 386sx at #6, it appears that the "humanist philosophies" list was cherry-picked by this asswipe of a judge in order to give the most moral relativist picture of humanism/secularism possible.
First of all, that's wrong because many of us (myself included) are not moral relativists... There are other fully non-arbitrary places to get one's morality besides the damn Bible.
But what I really want to say is, I think they should allow this display, but instead of the Ten Commandments, an atheist gets to cherry pick ten statements from the Bible as well as from well-known Christians. We'll see just how well this "absolutist legal philosophy" fares under those conditions...
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." --Psalms 137:9
Posted by: James Sweet | October 15, 2009 10:33 AM
Ed has posted some recent stories about the success of The Innocence Project. Seem that we need a Constitution Project to shine a harsh light on judges, rulings, and laws that fly in the face of the true ultimate law of the land. Judge DeWeese and ex-judge Roy Moore are good starting points.
The idea would not be to try the offender but to build educational material for wide distribution based on the adjudicated rulings showing how the constitution was violated. This might help thwart the fundie claims of a biblical constitution. It might also help raise the bar for future judges and lawyers.
Posted by: MikeMa | October 15, 2009 10:35 AM
Or a state sanctioned and sponsored execution.
Posted by: chris | October 15, 2009 10:48 AM
Weren't "activist judges" supposed to be a bad thing ?
Posted by: Chris | October 15, 2009 10:53 AM
"'Either God is the final authority and we acknowledge His unchanging standards of behavior.'
Unchanging standards of behavior? Has this guy actually read the Old Testament?"
You need to understand how it works. There's some doublethink involved.
God always supports the current standards of the time, and always has supported them. Let's take slavery as an example. Before abolition of slavery, God supported it - the slave-owners said so, the bible supported them.
Then, slavery became unacceptable. Not just unacceptable, but considered one of the greatest immoral practices in history, something abhorrent to all right-thinking people. At this point God didn't just no longer support slavery, but *had never supported it in the first place.*
All those slave-owners? They were just wrong. All those bible verses? Misinterpreted, obviously.
The same thing applies to womens' rights, heretic burning, free speech, etc. God can never change, being incapable of error - so every time standards change, those who claim to follow an absolute moral code just change their 'absolete' code and claim it was like that all along.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | October 15, 2009 10:55 AM
Not exactly - actually God always supports the standards of fifty years ago: that hazy, shifting, magical Golden Age when the crusty old bastards of today were young and almost happy.
Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | October 15, 2009 11:13 AM
Personally, I'd like to see LOT more stuff that tweaks the nose of religion. I for one am sick and tired of being the polite atheist.
About 20 years ago the Detroit Free Press published a photo spread of modern fashions, some of which was shot in a local church. A picture of a model sitting playfully atop a pew, with her bare feet propped up on the seatback in front of her sparked massive outrage from the religious community. The Freep actually apologized for the picture, but I wish they'd actually stepped it up a bit.
I've had too many years of biting my tongue and "respecting" religious goings-on. And lest we forget: all the stupid god-quote billboards, church PSAs on television, religious TV programming, street preachers run amok, while we're expected to simply suck it up and take it. FFRF puts up a milquetoast "gee, there might not be a god..." sign on a bus, and the idiot driver refuses to do her job.
I'm done playing nice. I want to see billboards with real, attributal quotes by actual people speaking their minds, such as:
I'd love to see that 20 feet high over the freeway! Howsabout we start a collection for billboards and bus signs like THESE?
Posted by: TGAP Dad | October 15, 2009 11:29 AM
Either God is the final authority and we acknowledge His unchanging standards of behavior. Or man is the final authority, and standards of behavior change at the whim of individuals or societies.
Of course, the latter has always de facto been the case, as anyone who has actually paid attention to history should know. Even in explicitly theocratic societies, God tends to turn out to be merely the enforcer for the PTB and their interests.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | October 15, 2009 11:46 AM
The judge's roman numeral 'V' is in quotes because
it was said by former SCJ Sandra Day O'Conner.
Posted by: Rip Rorem | October 15, 2009 11:50 AM
No thanks on the billboards. As an atheist, I'll happily leave people to their delusions, so long as they leave me to mine, and I'll save the religion jokes for company where I know they'll be appreciated. I'm willing to be "militant" when the religious folks won't agree to the aforementioned bargain, but I'm also plenty willing to shrug and say, "Whatever floats your boat." Religious folks thrive under persecution, to the point that they'll invent it if they can't find it. No good actually providing them with some for real. Also,tolerance is always most attractive to the minority, and that's us.
I think of atheism as a sort of gospel, the Good News that you don't have to be religious and we don't need to submit to religious tyranny. Leave your religion out of the schools and courts, and I'll happily leave you to hold your church pew as sacred as you like.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | October 15, 2009 12:02 PM
The religious right pulls this bullshit all the time, and I find it extremely frustrating. Even casual observation confirms that people (not "man") really are the final authority on standards of behavior, and these standards really do change at the whim of individuals and societies. Like it or not, that's how it works, and anyone can read a history book to see that it's true.
Posted by: Wes | October 15, 2009 12:05 PM
I've read Orthodox Jewish sites that claim the Ten Commandments are only for Jews. They claim non Jews only have to follow a subset, referred to as the Noachian laws, and which include one saying you should not eat the flesh of a living animal, which I suppose is covered for Jews in the dietary laws that Christians generally reject.
Posted by: rnb | October 15, 2009 12:18 PM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | October 15, 2009 12:21 PM
Egads: the judge didn't just 'cherrypick' poor humanist precepts, he appears to have distorted them beyond recognition by interpreting what he thinks they mean, when filtered through his own biases and religious views. Nowhere in the Humanist Manifesto I or II does it state "there is nothing higher than man." Higher how? The term is meaningless, because the entire concept of the universe as a moral hierarchy where everything is either objectively good, or objectively evil -- or of the universe as a social hierarchy where everything is either an authority, or under an authority -- is an explicitly religious way of looking at the cosmos. The religious universe is person-centered society.
What it does state is "Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process." Nowhere in that statement is it implied that this process had a teleological aim towards man as the perfect and final result. The religious put that in themselves, because that's how they envision humanity: the last worldly link on the chain leading up to God.
As for the judge's claim that Humanist Manifesto I states that "Ethics depend on the person and the situation," I can't find this statement, or anything like it, at all. I'm not saying there isn't a reasonable case to be made for it, within parameters, just that he appears to have pulled it out of his butt. It's not that long a document, fer crissake.
Posted by: Sastra | October 15, 2009 12:29 PM
MikeMa wrote
Richland County borders Knox County (where Freshwater taught) on the north. The hoorah about the judge has had much less local publicity than Freshwater.Posted by: RBH | October 15, 2009 12:53 PM
The prayer of the Angel of Fatima:
O God, we believe, we adore, we hope, we love you. We ask pardon for those who do not believe, nor adore, nor hope, nor love you. Most holy trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we adore you profoundly. We offer you the most precious body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world in reparation for all the outrages, sacrileges, and indifferences by which he himself is offended. By the infinite merits of his most sacred heart, through the intercession of the immaculate heart of Mary, we pray for the conversion of poor sinners.
Posted by: tom | October 15, 2009 1:03 PM
Thanks tom! Thanks for the oogedy boogedy, dude! That was some deep stuff.
Posted by: 386sx | October 15, 2009 1:24 PM
Prayer: Failing reliably since 10,000+ BCE
Posted by: DaveL | October 15, 2009 1:34 PM
@Tom -
Pineyman's Prayer:
Fuck off.
Short, not so sweet & to the point.
And no divine lightning bolts up my ass yet either....
Posted by: Pineyman | October 15, 2009 1:42 PM
Egads: the judge didn't just 'cherrypick' poor humanist precepts, he appears to have distorted them beyond recognition by interpreting what he thinks they mean, when filtered through his own biases and religious views.
Nice, eh? The best he can do for the "other side" is to lie about their views and vilify them. If I ever found myself charged with something in that jurisdiction, I would make sure my lawyer knew to avoid this judge at all costs, as I don't believe I would receive a fair trial. I have the feeling the minute I refused to swear on the Bible, he would find me summarily guilty and impose the death penalty.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | October 15, 2009 1:48 PM
Tom I don't understand. Does God only read prayers if they are posted on the internet? Why do we have to know that you prayed for us? Does the prayer only work if we read it? So if you say the prayer at home for us but we never see it will God not answer it?
I mean it seems like you are the type that wont donate money unless someone sees you doing it. I see no other reason for you posting that prayer on this site. You really don't want us to convert as much as you want others to see how much you love God. What does that say about you? And What does that say about your religion? That it promotes conspicuous faith.
Posted by: Harknights | October 15, 2009 2:06 PM
Piss on your Jebus and your crazy ancient teen mom!
And pick up a science textbook, moron.
Posted by: Katharine | October 15, 2009 2:09 PM
Tom,
I second Pineyman's prayer.
and add - it's all bull, start to finish.
You can free yourself from the yoke of stupid this puts around your neck or you can sink lower into the mud under it's weight and hypocrisy.
Posted by: MikeMa | October 15, 2009 2:16 PM
Infidel tom badly needs the Prayer of Repentance, Qur'an 39.53-58:
"You slave, who has been prodigal to your own detriment! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah, who forgives all sins. Turn to Allah repentant and surrender to Allah, before doom comes upon you, when you cannot be helped. Follow that revealed to you from Allah thru his Prophet, before the doom comes on you suddenly, unexpectedly. Lest your soul say, "Alas, I was unmindful of Allah and I was indeed among the scoffers!" Or, when you see your doom, "Oh, that I had but a second chance, that I might be among Allah's righteous!"
Posted by: Foggg | October 15, 2009 2:19 PM
God is the final authority, but changes his standards. Evidence for the latter is in the Bible.
A whole pantheon of gods are the final authority, and they vote on what goes, which may or may not change over time.
Man is the final authority, but his standard never changes (poorly evidenced).
Something other than God or Man is the final authority. Angels? Leprechauns? Cockroaches?
God is the final authority and his standard doesn't change, but once in a while Man gets together to elect a new God who brings in a new code of behaviour: Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Krishna, Yahweh 1.0 (the bloodthirsty God of the Old Testament), Yahweh 2.0 (the peace+love God of the New Testament), Yahweh 3.0 (Joseph Smith's version), et al.
Just another jerk who insists his religion must be taken seriously, but refuses to grant the same to others.
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | October 15, 2009 2:29 PM
Foggg, that's not fair. Now tom has to counter your magic with even more stronger magic!
Posted by: 396sx | October 15, 2009 2:31 PM
In tom's prayer:
Okay, I see the concept of the Trinity (Jesus, God, and Holy Ghost are the same being).
Wait, what? Did he just offer the Trinity's OWN BODY BITS to the Trinity as an appeasment? WTF.
Posted by: Monimonika | October 15, 2009 3:09 PM
A man full of faith is simply one who has lost the capacity for clear and realistic thought - H L Mencken
Monty Python has inspired me. Here's my version of Mencken's saying:
Once a man is full of faith, even a wafer-thin mint of reason will make him explode.
Posted by: eric | October 15, 2009 3:14 PM
If I were an attorney (first assumption contrary to fact) in a case before this Yahoo, I'd be tempted to move for recusal on the grounds that the Court denied the authority of the United States Constitution, statutes, and case law.
If any such motion were to prevail on appeal, he might continue to draw a District Judge's salary, but he'd have damn little work to do.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | October 15, 2009 3:26 PM
This guy, like all state court judges in Ohio, was elected directly by the voters. This is just more evidence that all judges should be appointed for life (and removable only by impeachment), not elected. Justice and the protection of rights should not be subject to majority vote. One of the foundational purposes of the US Constitution, and of state constitutions, is to preserve certain principles of individual liberty and the rule of law against majoritarian tyranny. The only way to achieve this is to have a judicial branch that is completely insulated from electoral politics - otherwise you get idiotic hacks, like this guy, abusing judicial office as a venue for stupid religious/political publicity stunts.
Posted by: Walton | October 15, 2009 5:09 PM
Might be wasting my breath here, but...
TGAP Dad: For the second time, that Hemingway quote is incredibly disingenuous. Hemingway was Catholic and a relatively devout one at that. I called you on that the last time, and you obviously didn't learn your lesson.
Posted by: Mr. B | October 15, 2009 5:15 PM
Mr. B: While I agree with you that the quote should properly include A Farewell to Arms to indicate that it is a quote from fiction, not a personal statement by Hemingway, I have to argue with your assertion that he was a devout Catholic. While it's true that he converted to Catholicism, it was to marry his second wife, who was the devout Catholic.
Posted by: ildi | October 15, 2009 5:53 PM
So, I need advice from Tom or another of the acolytes:
Is Jesus' jism "Kingdom Cum?"
Posted by: Woody | October 15, 2009 6:41 PM
The judge's roman numeral 'V' is in quotes because
it was said by former SCJ Sandra Day O'Conner.
Actually, that's Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority in Lawrence v. Texas. (Justice Kennedy is Catholic and anti-abortion, by the way -- hardly the "humanist" strawman that this judge implies him to be.)
Posted by: Tom | October 15, 2009 7:12 PM
Foggg@35 - Thanks. I always have wanted to post counter quotes from other religions, but have never been able to get around to doing that. Nice one, and that'll be copied down. I really got to get off my butt and do that someday soon.
Posted by: Badger3k | October 15, 2009 7:17 PM
the entire concept of the universe as a moral hierarchy where everything is either objectively good, or objectively evil -- or of the universe as a social hierarchy where everything is either an authority, or under an authority -- is an explicitly religious way of looking at the cosmos. The religious universe is person-centered society.
Reminds me of one of my favourite lines on the religious viewpoint, from Richard Feynman:
"The stage is too big for the drama."
IOW, why this extraordinarily vast and empty universe, apparently largely devoid of and indifferent to life and 'morality', with us puny humans sitting on a small rock at the outer edge of an average galaxy, in no special privileged location, all just for playing out the great moral drama of all time, the whole point of life, the universe, and everything, according to religious folk?
Why, indeed.
Posted by: WotWot | October 15, 2009 7:43 PM
The copy from the poster, provided by 386sx above, says:
Did Adams really say that? Or anything of the kind?
I ask because I know that there have been a great many incidents of "quotes" fabricated from whole cloth and attributed to the founders by the "America is a Christian nation" crowd.
Posted by: Douglas McClean | October 15, 2009 8:32 PM
Douglas McClean,
Positiveatheism.com, which has a strong motivation to point out if such a quote is fake, says it's real. This is from their website:
You'll note, however, that he is referring to the religion of the people. He is not saying that the Constitution is a religious document or that the government should be religious in nature.
Adams was a Unitarian, and very skeptical of claims about miracles and the divinity of Jesus (both of which he rejected). But he believed that religion played an important and necessary role of reinforcing morality in the private sphere. He was also more willing to mention religion in an official capacity than Jefferson or Madison, who were more staunchly in favor of church/state separation.
Posted by: Wes | October 15, 2009 8:45 PM
ildi:
In looking up information the last time, I recall finding evidence to suggest that Hemingway took his newly adopted religion fairly seriously, but since I can't find that evidence again, I will gladly concede the point. Still, even if there isn't any clear evidence suggesting that Hemingway was devout, that still doesn't mean (as you seem to agree) that Hemingway was speaking his "true beliefs" through this character in Farewell to Arms, nor is there, I think, any other more reliable evidence to suggest that he held these beliefs at the time (or maybe ever).
It's not even like Hemingway would be a great spokesperson for atheism (although he was a superb writer) or that there aren't plenty of well-known individuals who did hold these opinions, so I don't know why this keeps coming up.
Posted by: Mr. B | October 15, 2009 9:21 PM
Posted by: llewelly | October 16, 2009 12:23 AM
Ilewelly said, 51
"'religious precepts', obviously, are precepts designed by humans, to favor the desires of humans. That is, they are designed in complete ignorance and rejection of the Law of God. As such, they are necessarily 'atheistic', and hateful toward God. Furthermore, they hew to the foul precepts of Communism, Fascism, and Anarchism. The true author of such 'religious precepts' is the Devil; Satan; The Lord Of Lies, who lurks in the hearts of all men, and who finds expression in those who do not submit themselves to the Will and the Law of God."
Fixed
Posted by: Pacal | October 16, 2009 7:27 AM
What the hell does this kind of statement even mean? Was he a great spokesperson for the oblate spheroid shape of the Earth?
Posted by: ildi | October 16, 2009 7:30 AM
I think there has been a misunderstanding. That
wasn't E, Hemingway, famous author, who said that.
It was me.
Posted by: Earnest Hemmingway | October 16, 2009 7:56 AM
I thought that "spokesperson for [group of individuals or cause]" was a fairly well-understood notion, but I'll clarify what I mean: generally, when you use someone's quote to make a point or support something you're saying, you want to make sure that the individual who provided the quote is a reputable person, respected as a thinker or as a representative of the position that you're trying to support. Hemingway, despite all of his talents, was not exactly a prime example of the heights of human accomplishment and even less of the virtues of atheism, so I don't see why it would be so desirable to use a quote of his (actually, not even a quote of him, merely something that he penned) to support atheism when there is no evidence that his life reflected the sentiment. Well, other than the fact that people recognize his name, but that doesn't seem a sufficient reason.
Think about it: when you have a large number of people who already have a low opinion of atheism, do you want to find the best example of someone who is both an atheist and has lived a rich and fulfilling life in an admirable profession (I'm thinking Sagan right off the top of my head) or someone who is well-known but who could be easily attacked (e.g., "The best representative you have of atheism is an alcoholic writer who committed suicide?")?
Posted by: Mr. B | October 16, 2009 8:51 AM
This guy, like all state court judges in Ohio, was elected directly by the voters.
Are these lawsuits costing the taxpayers any money? If so, whoever runs against him next time should be hammering that point.
Posted by: Taz | October 16, 2009 9:13 AM
I read somewhere that there's only like three other countries in the world that elect their judges, and IIRC they were not very nice countries to live in...
Posted by: James Sweet | October 16, 2009 9:44 AM
Well, I would say many people respect Hemingway as a thinker; his qualities you deplore (alcoholic, suicidal) have nothing to do with whether or not Hemingway accepted the existence of any deities, though it may have affected the choices he made, which is an entirely different issue.
This just means that they don't understand what atheism means. Sagan wasn't a spokesperson for atheism; he was a spokesperson, if you will, for critical thinking. His likeability and skills as a science communicator were a bonus. The fact that you keep using phrases like "representative of atheism" and "the virtues of atheism" indicates to me that you may be experiencing the same confusion. Sagan was but one face of many; isn't the idea to educate people that there is no stereotype that can be attached to atheists?
You may interpret these lists of quotes to be trying to indicate "look, many nice, moral people you'd love to have as your neighbor don't believe in any deity, including your Jesus"; I see them as lists of critical thinkers who have examined the "evidence" for gods and found it lacking, put out there to support the contention that there are a lot more of them out there than the religious are led to believe.
Posted by: ildi | October 16, 2009 10:01 AM
"they hew to the foul precepts of Communism, Fascism, and Anarchism"
How the hell can anything hew to the precepts of Communism, Fascism, and Anarchism at the same time? They are opposed, hostile belief systems that frequently war with each other.
Attention right-wing, junkies like Glenn Beck and Rush are not good sources of political information
Posted by: History Punk | October 16, 2009 10:37 AM
As has been pointed out: there's the First Commandment and the First Amendment. Only one is the law of the land.
Posted by: lauram | October 16, 2009 4:49 PM
Wes, @49:
Thanks. I tried to Google it, but I must have chosen poor search terms.
Posted by: Douglas McClean | October 16, 2009 6:31 PM
This is like saying:
they hew to the foul precepts of Jesus, Mohammed, and Satan!"
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 16, 2009 6:40 PM
Sorry to dredge up an old post, but since I'm linking to it:
But when you use his quotes to support the idea of atheism, he becomes a de facto spokesperson. People will look at a Sagan quote about atheism and perhaps go, Hey, if a guy that smart comes to that conclusion, maybe there's something to this atheism thing... (And for the record, I like Sagan in general and agree with what you have said re: critical thinking.)
Except that there's no evidence that Hemingway was such a person. He had a character who said this. Hemingway did not say this or express any similar statement in a matter that unambiguously implies that this is his position - and his Catholic faith is counterevidence without evidence to suggest that his faith was a sham or an act made merely out of convenience.
Include all the other quotes that you want, but be honest. This isn't honest, and that's why I'm calling you (broadly speaking, not just you specifically) out on this.
Posted by: Mr. B | November 23, 2009 4:40 PM