FirmhandKY
Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW
quote:
This removes it from a separation issue.
However, because atheists wish to encourage their own beliefs, they are attacking the historical use. In effect, by not allowing such a usage, the US would be supporting one belief system over others. Which does make it a separation issue if their wishes are granted, because atheists are attempting to use the power of the government to enforce their particular world view and belief system on others who do not wish to share it.
Yes, atheism is a belief system, and I (and others) classify it as a religion.
I'm sorry, but this is a specious argument. Historical Use can be used to -retain- existing symbols already in place on government buildings, but citing Historical Use to justify placing these symbols on NEW buildings is a perversion of the Constitutional right to freedom of religion. If you want to classify atheism as a religion, then that's fine -- however, that means that MY religion has as much right to prevent your religions' defacing of public government buildings as -your- religion has in attempting to deface them.
Religious Displays and the Courts
June 2007
quote:
In reaching these decisions, the Supreme Court has relied heavily on a close examination of the particular history and context of each display and has largely sidestepped setting clear rules that would assist lower courts in deciding future cases. One result is a great deal of uncertainty about whether and how communities can commemorate religious holidays or acknowledge religious sentiments.
The lack of clear guidelines reflects deep divisions within the Supreme Court itself. Some justices are more committed to strict church-state separation and tend to rule that any government-sponsored religious display violates the Establishment Clause. These same justices also believe that, in some circumstances, the Establishment Clause may forbid private citizens from placing religious displays on public property.
Other members of the court read the Establishment Clause far more narrowly, arguing that it leaves ample room for religion in the public square. In recognition of the role that religion has played in U.S. history, these justices have been willing to allow government to sponsor a wide variety of religious displays. In addition, they have ruled that the Establishment Clause never bars private citizens from placing religious displays in publicly owned spaces that are generally open to everyone.
A third set of justices has held the middle and, so far, controlling ground. This group takes the view that a religious display placed in a public space violates the Establishment Clause only when it conveys the message that the government is endorsing a religious truth, such as the divinity of Jesus. For these justices, this same principle applies whether the display is sponsored by the government or by private citizens.
and ..
Frequently Asked Questions About Our Issues
quote:
Under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, no governmental practice may convey the message that a particular religious belief, or religion generally, is favored or preferred. Notwithstanding this cardinal rule, courts have identified a discrete category of highly common, longstanding, and nonsectarian governmental references to religion that have, through time and use, lost religious significance — and that consequently, do not offend the Constitution. The courts often use the term "ceremonial deism" to describe these references.
Some individual Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have labeled the following as permissible examples of ceremonial deism:
* the national motto, "In God We Trust," appearing on U.S. coins and currency;
* nonsectarian legislative prayers;
* the announcement, "God save this honorable Court," that opens sessions of the U.S. Supreme Court;
* religious references in traditional patriotic songs, such as the National Anthem; and
* the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
quote:
ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW
The absence of something does not deny an individuals' right to believe in, follow, or be exposed to that thing in any private environment or privatized public environment that they choose. By denying the capacity to have "In God We Trust" inscribed permanently on a public building, I am -not- interfering with your capacity to believe in a god, to worship where you want, to pray to your god privately, or to inscribe on your private buildings with anything you choose. HOWEVER, by inscribing "In God We Trust" on a public building, you are -forcing- those who do NOT believe in a god to be included in a public declaration of religious belief in which we do not share. One choice takes -nothing- from anyone. It only fails to -add- an extraneous sentiment that can be fulfilled perfectly well through other media. The other choice denies members of the population with different belief structures (and you can include the polytheists, Buddhists, etc... in fact, any path that does not believe in either ONE god or -any- god) the right to be separately considered for their own beliefs and -not- be collectively trapped under the One God umbrella.
Irrespective of the legal issues, preventing someone from expressing their beliefs is a negative. Atheists have a belief in the lack of a God or Creator. By not allowing, or preventing all cases of any mention of religion, or the Diety, atheists are indeed encouraging their beliefs, and minimizing the beliefs of others.
Firm
_____________________________
Some people are just idiots.
|
RE: Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol ... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread