Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!porges From: porges@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Bible & Const. reply promised-an - (nf) Message-ID: <191@inmet.UUCP> Date: Fri, 15-Jul-83 05:41:24 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.191 Posted: Fri Jul 15 05:41:24 1983 Date-Received: Fri, 15-Jul-83 16:04:13 EDT Lines: 21 #R:rabbit:-168300:inmet:7800006:000:932 inmet!porges Jul 14 12:51:00 1983 I think it's true but incomplete to say that "athiesm is not a religion, but describes the absence of religion". If "religion" is "belief in God", the usual interpretation, this is OK. But the statement "There is no God" is as much a *religious statement* as any other; that is, it is a statement about the nature and meaning of ultimate reality. The statement is, "There is none". This is connected to, but not the same as, the *political* statement "religious statements should not be enforced upon others against their will". >From this point of view, the claim that teaching athiesm is denial of religious freedom is quite defensable. The claim that not teaching belief in God is teaching athiesm, is less so. And now, welcome to the creationism-in-schools debate... Agnostic (I think), -- Don Porges ...harpo!inmet!porges ...hplabs!sri-unix!cca!ima!inmet!porges ...yale-comix!ima!inmet!porges