Tony, please cite one, ANY one example of government promoting atheism. Won't be any, I guarantee you.

Your claim is pure ignorant bigotry.

Anthony writes:
"Since I entered academia"

One of these days, you're going to have to fess up and tell us how that happened. Broke the door down with a club? Had the goods on someone? Promised to limit your painful braying to WaPo?

Got an idea. How about doing something faith-based? That is, in the interest of those who have faith that minds can grow even in the currently depleted soil of which your presence gives evidence. Why not donate your salary to a scholarship fund? You can get another job to pay your bills, thus sparing your colleagues over-exposure, and re-affirming the "natural order" which places you outside, at a far distance from classrooms in this country, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Africa, the Equator, etc.

For the love of peace, could we please make some effort to reserve commentary on the Catholic natural law tradition (and by the way it is a tradition of discourse, not a "theory" or "prinicple") to some one who knows more about it than the name of a single representative of the Jesuit version in late 16th/early 17th century. Why not Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Gratian, Innocent IV, Aquinas, Henry of Ghent, Bonaventure, Scotus, Okham, Gerson,Cajetan, Vitoria, Suarez, every Pope of the modern era etc. Plus my list leaves out the many influential contemporary interpretations.

And by the way Carstonio, Catholics are very aware of what "sectarian" means in the history of law in the United States. It means "Catholic". (See Blaine Amendment).

People think that the concept of natural law comes from science. But that is not true. Science does not recognize any such phenomena as natural law. Natural law is a philosophical concept of the Anglo - Fench Enlightenment that sought to explain the successes of science from the 17th century onward.

Today, there is no scienfitic formulation of natural laws, only impressions of order in the universe, which can be seen to have predictable patterns associated with them, whose nature is, ultimately, unknwn.

There is no scientific formulation of a natural law, or what it might be. And science does not need such a concept as natural law in order to operate as it does. Natural Law is philosophy, which is a step away from religion. It is not a scientific truth that all people can agree upon.

This whole line of thinking is flawed.

The problem here is that the term 'Natural Law' has a bad history of being used by bigots to claim that their bigotry *is* 'natural law' rather than referring to any understanding that the very *concept* of 'natural law' should mean that it's *unnecessary* for human institutions to try and go about it indirectly through interpretations of sacred texts, and all the ugliness that comes of that.

I think both 'sides' have abandoned the concept cause it tends to turn into just another marketing bit in power games.

People will say homophobia and oppressions therfrom are 'natural law'.... cause they have some infantile need to justify hurting others in the name of calling their conditioned hatreds and discomforts 'natural.'

Pagans, of course, have long tried to live up to the characterization 'Natural Philosophers' as once termed by ancient logicians. The respect for Nature and love of knowing have to come hand in hand, though, not one concept being subordinated to another, much less to a 'Scripture.'

It's to be careful about, all this.

For starters, you need to know what Nature and Law are *both,* before you start claiming some idea of both as 'authority.' This can be turned to *unreason* and *injustice* as readily as to reason and Justice.

Any US dollars given to Religious Groups runs contrary to the constitution, regardless of how evenhanded President Obama may be. What about the next administration? This,"Can't we all get along," idea of natural law is a really bad idea for our democracy. This is the kind of thinking that allows the religious views of the majority of voters to be imposed on a minority, by referendum, as in Proposition 8. By this same sort of thinking Christians could vote to close all synagogues and deport all Muslims by a majority vote.
I am a devout Christian and I count on the separation of church and state to protect my beliefs from other Christians of a deferent bent.

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the,"wall of separation of church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."
~Thomas Jefferson: Author of the Declaration of Independence; Third president of the United States of America; Co-author of the United States Constitution..............

Any US dollars given to Religious Groups runs contrary to the constitution, regardless of how evenhanded President Obama may be. What about the next administration? This,"Can't we all get along," idea of natural law is a really bad idea for our democracy. This is the kind of thinking that allows the religious views of the majority of voters to be imposed on a minority, by referendum, as in Proposition 8. By this same sort of thinking Christians could vote to close all synagogues and deport all Muslims by a majority vote.
I am a devout Christian and I count on the separation of church and state to protect my beliefs from other Christians of a deferent bent.

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the,"wall of separation of church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."
~Thomas Jefferson: Author of the Declaration of Independence; Third president of the United States of America; Co-author of the United States Constitution..............

BO should require that all religions correct the flaws and errors in their history and theology before they will be considered for taxpayer support.

usapdx,

Hmmm, another attempt by you aka Farnaz to break your promise not to make commentaries on this blog ???

"Promoting Atheism" - rather an ox-moron, no? The government needs to do nothing to promote atheism, and I have heard of no 'secular' people who have asked for the government to promote atheism in any way what so ever. What we don't want is the government promoting religion. Taxing me for my land and not taxing the church next door promotes religion, period.

"I know of no secularists who make such an argument. That's really a straw man created by the religious right, and Steven-Arroyo may not realize that."

Stevens-Arroyo has a pathological hatred of atheists (just read some of his past opinions).

He is the typical theist who thinks that if the government is not actively promoting his religious views, it must be promoting atheism.

WHY IS IT THAT SOME WHO VIOLATE THE TAX EXAMPT I.R.S. RULES AS WE HAVE SEEN IN THIS PAST ELECTION SEASON WILL FILE TAX EXAMPT FOR 2008 AS THEY HAVE IN THE PAST AND WE THE PEOPLE WILL TRUST THEM WITH OUR TAX MONEY? SOME ARE NOT COMPLYING WITH OUR LAWS NOT TO SAY THEIR OWN FOR THE SAME EVENT. ASK QUESTIONS ALWAYS.

"I also reject the argument from secularists that separation of Church and State means that the government must promote atheism."

I know of no secularists who make such an argument. That's really a straw man created by the religious right, and Steven-Arroyo may not realize that. Keeping government from taking a sectarian stance does not equate to atheism, and secularists understand that.