In Washington. That's the idea of newly proposed ballot measure.
This measure would prohibit state use of public money or lands for anything that denies or attempts to refute the existence of a supreme ruler of the universe, including textbooks, instruction or research.
If I was living in Washington, I'd be very tempted to vote yes on this. I'd also be lobbying to make sure the language gets cleaned up so that it can't be struck down on the grounds of some dumb-ass technicality.
Eventually, not long into the future, this act will be struck down by the US supreme court (or some lower court) on basic separation grounds. That will then form a much more direct and easy to use precedence.
Then, the money comes off the bills, the commandments come out of the court rooms, and the creationists are arrested at the door of the school board hearing room.
At the very least I want to see this ballot question go far enough to be heavily covered and debated in the public square.
Oooh! That's a purty pikshure! I waaaant hat like Lakshmi haz!
"This measure would prohibit state use of public money or lands for anything that denies or attempts to refute the existence of a supreme ruler of the universe, including textbooks, instruction or research."
Does that include anything written by those pesky evilutionists?
I agree with Greg on this. Use their own stupid law to get them permanently shut down.
In theory, I agree that government money should not be used to promote atheism, the same way it should not be used to promote religions. As far as I know, this is already the case. However, the people who support this stuff are probably too dumb to realize that evolution or any other science does not deny the existence of a supreme ruler. It seems like this is more of an anti-evolution thing, and it's a shame that this person is unaware that many Christian churches have officially accepted evolution as being compatible with their faith.
I'm with catgirl on this one. Also, the way it's described, since neither "public money or lands" could be used, wouldn't that prevent atheists from exercising their free speech rights on public property?
I think by their definitions, just the fact that some of us are still breathing denies the creator... I personally think that their in-bred, web-footed babies deny the creator.
Hmmm... Is this about deifying He-Man? I mean, because he is the leader of the Masters of the Universe wouldn't that make him the SUPREME master of the universe?
Hmmm... a Church of He-Man... Would that mean that the priests need to work out in order to look good while wearing a loincloth, stylized man-corset, and fur-trimmed calf-boots?
I vote for Guan Yin, the thousand armed goddess of mercy.
I rather like Kali or Dionysus.
First of all, let me say that Krishna is the PRETTIEST man ever!
But seriously, now I want to understand something...Does simply having a conversation or being in the company of people or documents that acknowlege GOD (any religion) make you -or other athiests you know- uncomfortable?
I have many friends who are atheists and agnostics. They know my spirtual position and I know theirs. To my knowledge we aren't uncomfortable by these facts.
I am for separation of 'church' and state, but I don't think simply saying God or Lord counts as supporting a religion.
Give me some feedback for understanding.
I posted this over at Pharygula; sorry for the cross-post, but I'm too lazy to type the whole thing over again in different words:
When I saw the Dutch name I kind of figured she was from Lynden. It's a weird little Calvinist enclave, sort of like the town in Footloose.
This is the result of an intiative we passed in November, which makes it much easier to set up an initiative campaign (basically anybody or their dog can do it now) BUT...now you have to gather a number of signatures equal to 20% of the number that voted in the last general election instead of 10% like before. That's why Tim Eyman * was so virulently opposed to it (and why I voted for it).
Problem is, if it goes on the ballot, it'll be in an off-year, non-general election. The fanatics can always mobilize their troops to vote in these things, but most people can't be bothered. So if it gets the requisite signatures, it might well pass. It wouldn't have any effect in Western Washington if it did, and Eastern Washington couldn't get any worse, anyway, so I'm not really worried.
* Tim Eyman had already been mentioned in that thread, so I didn't elaborate. He's our version of Howard Jarvis, and has more or less singlehandedly destroyed the state government with one anti-tax initiative after another. We'll go down a couple of months after California, because we've adopted the same model.
Does simply having a conversation or being in the company of people or documents that acknowlege GOD (any religion) make you -or other athiests you know- uncomfortable?
That rather depends on the precise details and context. I'm fascinated by mythology of all kinds, so I'm certainly not uncomfortable reading about or discussing all sorts of different concepts and conceptions of "God" (or whatever). I have texts from many different religious / mythological traditions on my bookshelves.
However, when people start using their God-beliefs to justify bigotry and injustice, start threatening me with eternal damnation, or start trying to get their personal religious beliefs made into law, then it becomes a rather different matter...
The measure is written so poorly it could never be law. For one thing, it explicitly bans discrimination against atheists, while requiring such discrimination. ("No person shall be ... discriminated against ... on account of their personal beliefs...")
But just in case, let's just say we are devotees of the true Rulers of the universe: Entropy and Chance.
All hail Eris! Discordia forever! fnord
ah, noel: you naivete' is always refreshingly horrifying.
"The measure is written so poorly it could never be law."
Read the Paatriot act lately, or anay of its warrantless/unwarranted provisions latly, much less that after-legislation, all but obliterating individual rights and supplanting them with corporate "protections"?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but...
The whole idea of science is to form a hypothesis and attempt to verify it through empirical research...Popper's conjecture and refutation right? I'd like to hear a testable hypothesis for disproving the existence of God. Anyone? You can't disprove something of a nature that is not defined. You can disprove someone's definition, but interpretation and hermeneutics will evolve to redefine the understanding of God. Throwing money at any research in this regard is not wise.
Upon further reading the legislation is definitely an exercise in intolerance. However, I still hold to my comment above even though it doesn't apply to the legislation in question.