Should atheism be illegal?

[Marsha_Adams]

Enforcement would be extremely difficult, as would pinning down a penalty. But it being illegal, regardless of levels of enforcement or penalty, would serve as a deterrent and result in less atheists. Which is a good thing, right?

It would not result in fewer atheists because if a person does not believe, he does not believe, period. He simply would keep his unbelief to himself to avoid penalties. A Catholic could not successfully do that, nor would a Catholic want to, because it would require denying our Lord and we would die first. But an atheist has no one to deny by keeping silent and no prohibition against lying to prevent him from saying he is not an atheist. Ergo, your logic does not follow.

 

[D_M]

The first commandment would appear to suggest that atheism is already illegal from the perspective of the law of God. Wether we should consider enforcing this within our own society I think should be relegated in the same manner to which we would enforce any other moral law.

The church today, considers, for instance that Gay marriage should not be legal as it is a moral corruption… if that should be illegal than so should atheism, or idol worship for that matter as they are just as much a moral corruption.

 

[crowonsnow]

Is there some study that backs this up? Maybe you could provide a link.I do not think that atheists are less likely to be loyal or decent human beings, just because they are atheists. But I don’t think that they are better then most people either.

Atheists certainly are decent folk. I associate the word atheist with freethinker.

 

[crowonsnow]

Jews are Atheists?

Muslims are Atheists?

I meant in the sense that they don’t recognize the Jesus Christ god. That would mean they don’t recognize the basis of Christianity.

Likewise, for example, Hindus. The Jesus Christ god isn’t real to Hindus, so calling Hindus theists isn’t really accurate because Christians don’t recognize their gods as real.

Or maybe they’d just be false theists because of their false gods.

But from a Christian perspective, aren’t followers of false gods atheists? If not, how not? If the god isn’t real, how can the followers be considered believers? They’d have to be atheist, wouldn’t they?

 

[Sheeniac]

Some of God’s prodigal sons and daughters are former atheists. Would you deny Heaven this joy?

A prodigal daughter, thrilled to be Home

 

[BlaineTog]

I meant in the sense that they don’t recognize the Jesus Christ god. That would mean they don’t recognize the basis of Christianity.

Likewise, for example, Hindus. The Jesus Christ god isn’t real to Hindus, so calling Hindus theists isn’t really accurate because Christians don’t recognize their gods as real.

Or maybe they’d just be false theists because of their false gods.

But from a Christian perspective, aren’t followers of false gods atheists? If not, how not? If the god isn’t real, how can the followers be considered believers? They’d have to be atheist, wouldn’t they?

No. They believe in generally the same God we do, they just have the specifics mixed up.

 

[markomalley]

Atheism is quite possibly one of the worst sins in the eyes of the Church. It includes a complete rejection of Jesus, the authority of the Church, the love of God - almost every single Catholic doctrine about the divine. It most certianly is a mortal sin, if the other two conditions for a mortal sin are met.

Other grave sins are illegal, such as murder, rape, theft, etc. Atheism, which is just as bad (if not even worse) than those sins, ought to be illegal too. Also, it would be a deterrant to conversion to atheism and most likely result in significantly fewer atheists.

So, why shouldn’t atheism be illegal? Where is my logic wrong?

You’re kidding, right?

 

[deb1]

Atheists certainly are decent folk. I associate the word atheist with freethinker.

We Christians are pretty decent folk also. that is why we don’t want to make your beliefs illegal.

It would be interesting if Exalt put the same question on an atheist board, asking if Christianity should be illegal. Hopefully, the majority of atheists don’t wish Christians to be persecuted either.

 

[deb1]

I meant in the sense that they don’t recognize the Jesus Christ god. That would mean they don’t recognize the basis of Christianity.

Likewise, for example, Hindus. The Jesus Christ god isn’t real to Hindus, so calling Hindus theists isn’t really accurate because Christians don’t recognize their gods as real.

Or maybe they’d just be false theists because of their false gods.

But from a Christian perspective, aren’t followers of false gods atheists? If not, how not? If the god isn’t real, how can the followers be considered believers? They’d have to be atheist, wouldn’t they?

You are working with a definition of atheism that others of us do not share. Also, I think that you are not aware of Catholic beliefs such as invincible ignorance.

 

[Just_wondering]

A good leader does not give orders that he cannot enforce, because it leads people to believe that he does not need to be followed. Similarly, a good government should not pass laws that are impossible to enforce, because they lead to civil unrest, not obedience. Not to mention that belief comes from within, and cannot be imposed upon someone.

Even imagining that the majority of Catholics believed that atheism is the worst possible sin (which they almost certainly don’t, given that Jesus himself had doubts in his faith), it would be foolish for them to try to make atheism a crime. It would merely result in the Catholic Church looking bad, and losing power because people would realize that it would be impossible to follow its laws.

Could you imagine, if you were having a bad day, mentioning to a trusted advisor that you doubted that God was really up there listening to you, and having someone show up at your door to put you in chains? Those that doubted would be pushed even farther away from the Church, and would have no one to turn to in their hour of greatest need.

 

[vern_humphrey]

A good leader does not give orders that he cannot enforce, because it leads people to believe that he does not need to be followed. Similarly, a good government should not pass laws that are impossible to enforce, because they lead to civil unrest, not obedience. Not to mention that belief comes from within, and cannot be imposed upon someone.

Exactly. Such a law would be unenforceable and unconstitutional.

Why even debate it? It’s like debating a law that would require all citizens to be able to teleport or to fly by flapping their arms.

 

[daeve]

I meant in the sense that they don’t recognize the Jesus Christ god. That would mean they don’t recognize the basis of Christianity.

Likewise, for example, Hindus. The Jesus Christ god isn’t real to Hindus, so calling Hindus theists isn’t really accurate because Christians don’t recognize their gods as real.

Or maybe they’d just be false theists because of their false gods.

But from a Christian perspective, aren’t followers of false gods atheists? If not, how not? If the god isn’t real, how can the followers be considered believers? They’d have to be atheist, wouldn’t they?

No, because Yahweh is not a false god. He’s the same God we worship. I believe Allah is the same God we worship too, but I don’t want to start any rants about Islam.

Now we’re talking about legislating anything except Christianity out of existence. That makes us the same as the Communists who tried to legislate religion out of existence, to the Muslims who kill Christians.

And what if the majority of Congress are Baptists? Catholics will be on the block! Those who do follow false gods, think our God is false. What happens if they get in power? BTW, I’m not saying Baptists follow a false God…two separate thoughts in one paragraph.

Freedom of/from religion is a natural right, given by God. Sometimes we call it Free Will. Without Free Will, faith cannot exist. We would be puppets who can only do what the Creator wills us to do.

 

[crowonsnow]

No, because Yahweh is not a false god. He’s the same God we worship. I believe Allah is the same God we worship too, but I don’t want to start any rants about Islam.

Maybe under such law Jews and Muslims would pass, but wouldn’t Hindus still be considered atheist?

 

[daeve]

Maybe under such law Jews and Muslims would pass, but wouldn’t Hindus still be considered atheist?

First, that’s not what you said…you said anyone who wasn’t Christian.

Second, atheism is the denial of any God or gods.

Atheism - That system of thought which is formally opposed to theism. This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Ironically, the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn’t define Theism.

newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm

As for Buddism, Catholic Encyclopedia defines it this way:

Buddhism - The religious, monastic system, founded c. 500 B.C. on the basis of pantheistic Brahminis.

Brahminism - Religion and social system which grew out of the polytheistic nature-worship of the ancient Aryan conquerors of northern India.

See the words Pantheisitc and Polytheistic in there? Many gods.

I think in general, we all consider Atheists to be those who do not believe or worship any God or gods. Here’s what you said:

“It is my understanding that from a Christian perspective all non-christians are atheist.”

I don’t think this is really too germane to the discussion, and nobody except you and me are even still talking about it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let me point out that we were charged with athiesm at one time – because we refused to worship the Graeco-Roman pantheon. We were blamed for every calamity that occurred because we wouldn’t worship pagan gods.

 

[daeve]

Let me point out that we were charged with athiesm at one time – because we refused to worship the Graeco-Roman pantheon. We were blamed for every calamity that occurred because we wouldn’t worship pagan gods.

I think that’s the exact point that many of us are trying to make. Letting the “powers that be” determine what religion or lack of religion will be allowed is a very bad idea.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think that’s the exact point that many of us are trying to make. Letting the “powers that be” determine what religion or lack of religion will be allowed is a very bad idea.

A horrible idea.

The more I study it, the more I am awed by the Constitution of the United States. What a wonderful, wise and good document it is.

Too bad we don’t follow it any more.

 

[Steve40]

As defined by the Declaration of Independence it is US Government policy to believe in God because this is the Source of our freedom.

Without belief in a Higher Power where rights come from, all human rights are in jeoparty. In this respect promoting disbelief in a Higher Power is sudicious and treasonous.

 

[goofyjim]

As defined by the Declaration of Independence it is US Government policy to believe in God because this is the Source of our freedom.

Without belief in a Higher Power where rights come from, all human rights are in jeoparty. In this respect promoting disbelief in a Higher Power is sudicious and treasonous.

But we are not only governed by the Declaration of Independence. We are governed by an everchanging Constitution which explicitly prohibits the establishment of a state religion, meaning one is free not to believe. And I haven’t yet met a treasonous atheist. They can love their country just as much as the next guy.

 

[Steve40]

But we are not only governed by the Declaration of Independence. We are governed by an everchanging Constitution which explicitly prohibits the establishment of a state religion, meaning one is free not to believe. And I haven’t yet met a treasonous atheist. They can love their country just as much as the next guy.

An aitheistic religion is still an established religion so the Government is prohibited by the Costitution of adopting aitheism. The Constitution requires 2/3 majority vote and radification in every state in the Union to change. Attempts to modify the Constitution by Judicial decree is a subverting of the Constitution.

One can love their country and still act teasonously and sediciously. Working to eliminate freedom through aitheism is one way this is done.