Too much religion in Sioux City politics?

Is there such as a thing as too much fun? What about too much good health? Some say there is too much faith in Siouan City politics. Anytime an issue pulls passionateness from both sides and is earnestly debated in the presence of our elective officials, it's worthwhile. Why should the subject of faith be excluded from lively treatment and debate?The recent proposal before our City Council of spoken supplication was a thorny one. A recent Diary article by regarding the council’s ballot on the substance quoted Councilman Ferris n “I don’t believe I’ve ever had an issue where I’m on both sides.” Iodine couldn’t hold more.One of our cardinal rights as Americans is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Unfortunately, freedom from faith is exactly what have been subjected upon us (Christians particularly) ever so methodically since the ill-conceived Supreme Court opinion that manufactured a “constitutional” separation of Christian Christian church and state.Expectedly, I was offended when the issue of whether to back up having voluntary spoken supplication before council meetings was being shouted down with the words “separation of church and state." As if merely stating those words ended the argument. As if the separation of Christian church and state is a universally agreed upon and settled matter. Just as the cause of planetary heating is debated within the scientific community, the separation of Christian church and state is debated among constitutional scholars. So, finding oneself on the side of supporting voluntary spoken supplication is not an unreasonable choice.Finding oneself on the side of keeping the minute of silence policy is also not unreasonable. There is even treatment within Christian circles as to whether public supplication have scriptural support. Some point to Saint Matthew 6: 5-6 which states, “And when thousand prayest, thousand shalt not be as the dissemblers are; for they love to pray standing in the temples and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of work force … when thousand prayest, come in into thy cupboard and when thousand have close thy door, pray to the Father which is in secret …” Most would construe this transition as denouncing lip service rather than public supplication and would reason there are many Biblical mentions to public prayer. The point being that even some Christians believe private supplication is preferred over public. It's possible that retaining the minute of silence may not demo discourtesy to our Creator.The very left-of-center '60s coevals adopted a motto of “challenge everything” and they went about the concern of doing just that. For too many years, those on the right were just as passionate about what they believed, but did not fit the left’s activism. That pendulum started to swing back the other manner in recent years. How makes that use to the recent and controversial populace supplication story? Just as the 1860s coevals challenged bondage and the 1960s coevals challenged everything, this coevals can dispute the impression of whether public supplication is a constitutional misdemeanor and whether the impression of separation of Christian church and state is even constitutional.Too much faith in Siouan City politics? You can’t have got too much argument of any issue, including a spiritual one, in the hallways of government.Michael McNeil is a free-lance writer from Dakota City, Neb. You can compose to him in attention of the Diary or at

"End of Faith" Author Sam Harris Says We Should Not Call Ourselves Atheists

After the success of his best merchandising book "The End of Faith," writer Surface-To-Air Missile Townsend Townsend Harris is now calling for the end of atheism.

"I'd wish to seek to do the lawsuit that our usage of this label is a error -- and a error of some consequence," Harris said Friday night, Sept. Twenty-Eight to a crowd of more than than 300 at the Atheist Alliance International conference in Northern Virginia.

"I believe this whole conversation about the struggle between faith and reason, and religion and science, have been, and will go on to be, successfully marginalized under the streamer of atheism," he said. "So, allow me do my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not name ourselves 'atheists.' We should not name ourselves 'secularists.' We should not name ourselves 'humanists,' or 'secular humanists,' or 'naturalists,' or 'skeptics,' or 'anti-theists,' or 'rationalists,' or 'freethinkers,' or 'brights.' We should not name ourselves anything. We should travel under the microwave radar -- for the remainder of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destruct bad thoughts wherever we happen them."

Though he is now one of the public voices for atheism, Townsend Harris said that he never thought of himself as an atheist until he was "inducted" to talk as one. He did not utilize the term atheist in "The End of Faith," which is his most significant unfavorable judgment of religion.

"As I argued briefly in 'Letter to a Christian Nation,' I believe that 'atheist' is a term that we make not need, in the same manner that we don't necessitate a word for person who rejects astrology. We simply make not name people 'non-astrologers.'" he said. "All we necessitate are words like 'reason' and 'evidence' and 'common sense' and 'bullshit' to set astrologists in their place, and so it could be with religion."

In order to be consistent, Townsend Harris said those who label themselves atheists would have got to blow their clip opposing all irrational religion claims equally. Instead he said those who make not believe in Supreme Being should concentrate on ambitious resistance to issues like stem-cells on the evidence of reason. Identifying as an atheist "squanders the trust of people who would otherwise hold with us on specific issues."

Many audience members at the atheist conference were taken aback by Harris's talking and expressed offence, daze and confusion during the inquiry and reply session. Afterwards, one adult female who identified herself as an atheist vowed to throw away her transcripts of the author's books.

On Saturday, Townsend Harris spoke with Humanistic Network News (HNN) and other newsmen in the conference mass media room.

"As a substance of philosophy, godlessness is not a worldview. And yet it is being construed as one by its oppositions and attacked as a worldview. And people have got many inaccurate associations with what is entailed in not believing in god. And I believe we join forces in that misunderstanding by labeling ourselves in resistance to religion," he told HNN. "We're falling into a trap in some sense set by spiritual people because godlessness as a term is so sick dignified in our culture. It have got got such as bad praseodymium that to reply to the name of atheist in some sense already wins the statement for your spiritual opponent...We have a awful praseodymium problem."

Harris said he's not certain what atheists should do if they all suddenly agreed with him.

"We'd have to change some websites and concern cards," he said, referring to atheist organizations.

Harris prefers organizational statute titles like the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason, which lets Dawkins to openly dispute spiritual claims on the evidence on scientific discipline and ground rather than atheism.

"Atheism is nil more than the sounds people make when in the presence of undue dogma. It's just ground in action," Townsend Townsend Harris said, adding that the term atheist will no longer be utile if atheist organisations accomplish their goals.

"Maybe there is a function for being vocal as atheists, self-labeling, astatine the moment," Harris said, musing on the topic. "Maybe there's some transitional importance to this."

Other noteworthy conference talkers included Prof. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Saint Christopher Hitchens. Along with Harris, these writers have got been branded "The New Atheists" by the media.

Also speaking to newsmen in the conference mass mass media room, Dawkins said of Harris: "I believe he was making a very interesting point, and I'm calm thinking about my reaction to it."

Dawkins, writer of "The Supreme Being Delusion" said that he looks forward to a clip when atheist organisations are no longer necessary, but they are necessary now, especially in the United States.

Dennett, writer of "Breaking the Spell" told HNN: "I believe Sam's right that the term atheist is a hazardous term in some ways because it minimizes and marginalizes what the existent issue is: which is unreason and a failure to esteem reason. Belief in Supreme Being is just 1 facet of that.

On the other hand, Dennett said that people necessitate labels and that "atheist" is a good term that demands to be rehabilitated.

Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists, takes Dennett's sentiments one measure further.

"We give ourselves a name because we are proud of who we are," Samuel Samuel Johnson said of atheists. "A grouping necessitates to be identified in some way. And we desire to be a 'group.' We aren't just against something. We are something."

Hitchens, writer of "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" spoke with HNN in the hotel barroom on Saturday night. Hitchens said he acknowledges that the term atheist is unsatisfactory and that he prefers to name himself an "anti-theist."

"I believe the confrontation with the term (atheist) is inescapable. One is going to be asked -- either out of wonder or ill will -- 'Are you an atheist?' And the term have a common understanding...where to state 'yes' intends 'I make not believe in a Godhead God or an intervening god.' Thus, I believe it's idle to anticipate that one can dodge the question, as it will be presented in that form. And I'm perfectly contented to state 'yes' to that inquiry in whatever tone of voice it is asked of me.... I believe any effort to duck the inquiry is doomed."