Apparently in Las Vegas pretty much anyone can get a license to perform weddings -- Elvis impersonators, faux Liberaces, etc. -- except atheists. The rules are that in order to get a license you need to have ties to a congregation. The congregation can be as small as two people. But still, that's the rule. If you're not willing to lie and invent some kind of pseudo-religion that you're a member of, as atheist Michael Jacobson was unwilling to do, then you're barred from performing weddings.
Seems like a clear entanglement of church and state to me. Here in San Diego anyone is allowed to be registered to perform weddings for a day. No religious affiliation is required. So my sister was able to sign up as the "minister" and conduct the ceremony for me and my wife.
Link:
Chicago Tribune
Comments
Of course, strictly speaking, atheists do not exist; Literally, "Atheism" measn "Without a belief systems" and since they *do* believe without solid proof that thier is no diety, they *are* believing in something. I prefer Andiest or Nondiest myself, but as has been discussed, I can be a condescending ass when it comes to being precise.
Still as NASA said about the Mars Orbiter, precise schemise.
Actually, literally it means "without god" (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist).
I was unaware that the linguists had dcided to muddy the waters between 'deism' and 'theism', but thne agian, they have also removed 'nun', 'minister' and 'abbey' from one dictionary as totally obsolete words for 10 year olds in England, and included 'database', 'lubricant' and 'attchament' instead.
Ah well, when I went to school, there were still some teachers bemoaning the change to a perfectly good legal term to make it a form of abuse - 'bastard'.
Still, it doesn't change my argument that atheists are a contradiction in terms, as most of them say they don't have *any* religious belief . . . And while the God part is true, they still maintain a belief system based on the idea that there is no afterlife or any of the trappings of religion, which therefore means they believe without proof . . . which is the very definition of faith itself.
I don't get your second point tho. If they lack belief in something, thats not the same as believing it isn't there. So what are they believing without proof.
Simple - not all belief systems are religious in nature as you seem to indicate. Believing in or accepting something without proof is not religion. Religions are generally typified by belief in or acceptance of the supernatural.
I can believe that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning. I can't prove that it will, but that doesn't make my belief a religious one as the rising of the sun is a comepletely natural and well understood phenomenon. The preponderance of evidence in our understanding of the natural world supports the idea that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning, so to believe otherwise would almost certainly require invoking supernatural meddling. On the other hand the complete lack of evidence for the existence of a deity coupled with the fact that we don't need one to explain the universe leads me to believe there more than likely isn't a supreme being. It's not that there can't be one, it's just that there doesn't seem to be a point to one. Adding a deity into the mix just makes things more, not less, complicated. Therefore I can continue to live my life as if God doesn't exist.
Now, while I don't think Dave F. Stuckey is a fundie, I will stand by my original assessment of him being a condescending ass.
http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?q=54786
Reverend Sindee - no, I do not perform marriages in this state at all.
Still, we certainly agree on one point I surmise: The state known as 'love' cannot exist.