So I really don't get these atheists.. if they don't believe in God,
why do the references to God get their hackles up so strongly?
"There's no war on Christmas, but there is a war involving the
entanglement of church and state at Christmastime, . . . and said they
don't believe religious or anti-religious displays should be allowed on
public property.”Um, when you are ok banning certain types of
speech, whether "religious or anti-religious" in a public forum, you
either a) clearly don't understand the first amendment freedom of speech
clause, or b) are a hate group out to shut down all speech you don't agree
with, or c) are waging a war on Christmas and religion and don't care that
you are also taking away your own freedoms in the process, or d) all of the
Atheists win again in defending the First Amendment.
Re: The Scientist"Atheists win again in defending the First
Amendment."More like the Atheist succeed in denying some peoples
right to First Amendment protection, over their right to First Amendment
protection!The lack of the Nativity scene being present in its
traditional setting, speaks as loudly as its presence!Me wonders
whose rights are more important? Guess the whiners win again!
It's all about winning...
What will good Christians do now that they can't promote their beliefs in a
Santa Monica public park?For one thing, they can display their
beliefs on church-owned property. In my metro area, one such place is called
Temple Square (and its environs). Or, there are tens of thousands of
homes with front yards where religious displays can be placed. One such area is
referred to as "Christmas Street." And, if I'm not mistaken,
aren't there additional tens of thousands of vehicles on which people can
attach bumper stickers with faith messages and where they can dangle crosses,
etc., from their rear-view mirrors? Oh, and how about all those big
privately owned downtown buildings: What's to prevent their owners from
placing the Ten Commandments on the walls or religious icons in the windows?Alas, that's not enough. What Christians want is public property to
promote their message--and they don't want any contrary points of view
spoiling the ambience.
>> "So I really don't get these atheists.. if they don't
believe in God, why do the references to God get their hackles up so
Ralph West Jordan,Bitter much?
Another Case of the LEFT, liberals, taking freedom away.Another Case
of LEFT, liberals, censuring ans banning speech, expression ans ideas from the
public square.And A Scientist thinks they are defending the
constitution, perhaps he should actually read it, and not use modern twisted
leftest interpretaitons.Historically religion and religious was
heavily in the public square and NO founding father had a problem with it.I am not sure how congress is respecting an Establishment of Religion
in santa monica.Christianity is not a religion but a religious
philosophy.Catholic church is an establishment of religion.Baptist church is an establishment of religion. Jewish Synague or temple
is an establishment of religion. LDS church is an establishment of
religion.Islamic mosque establishment of religion.A nativity
scene is not establishment of religion.More importantly the Freedom
to express, even religious thoughts and ideas, in the public square is a right
of the people by the 1st, 9th, and 10th amendments.The first
amendment does not limit certain speech in the public square. but
stops the congress from abridging.The government is of and by the
people, it is the people, the government is not limited.
I'm not a particularly religious person but I do not have a problem with
nativity scenes at Christmas. There is one right in my town that is lit up at
night and I think it looks very nice. I do not understand people who feel
they cannot be content in their beliefs (or lack of beliefs) unless everything
around them reflects those beliefs. People who feel so threatened by anything
that reflects a different belief.
What’s so hard to understand?There is no Constitutional
protection to do what you want on government land. No one is taking away
freedoms. You STILL have the right to put up your religious display, you just
have to do it on PRIVATE land. It’s not about IF you can, its WHERE you
can. The public forum cannot be used by ONE religious group on an
EXCLUSIVE basis ... either you have to provide access to ALL religious points of
view or NONE. That's equal protection under the law. Anything other than
that constitutes government endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint. Stop insisting your own particular point of view be allowed at the
expense of others ... open it up EQUALLY to EVERYONE or, better, CLOSE IT to
everyone ... everyone must live by the SAME rules. Put it up on church
property or your own property... no one is suggesting you can't do THAT
(which would be a violation of the 1st amendment). But NOT on property owned by
EVERYONE in the country, unless you are providing EQUAL ACCESS for EVERYONE.
That's democracy, and that's freedom.
the truth,How many words can you use to say nothing?Your
comment demonstrates positively that the Constitution is a completely alien
document to you.
Mr. Scientist:What you don't seem to recognize is that you
can't just reference the Constitution. Our laws are not simply the
Constitution as written. There are 250 years of case law since the Constitution
that establish all the points in my post (above), not once, but over and over
again. This case law makes it crystal clear that the Constitution is
interpreted to mean EXACTLY that ... that the government can not single out and
provide support for any one religion. (In many cases, such as public schools,
they can not provide support for religion at ALL, even if they provide equal
access to ALL religions).A Christmas display in the absence of
displays representing other religious or religious points of view is in
violation for that very reason. And that's why time and time again courts
have found such displays in violation. Its all over the news all over the
country; you can read about it if you care to.
Jpjp,What you don't seem to recognize is that a century or more
of judicial precedent supports my interpretation, not yours.The law
is on our side, not yours.Good luck with arguing otherwise.
You have only to read the news in the last few years to see that you could not
be more wrong. case after case is decided against religion (you do know about
Fox's Bill O'Reilly's War on Christmas rants on television every
time the religious right loses another case?) I am not going to spend the time
creating a synopsis of all the case law, but there is a lot of press and case
law information about such suits at the ffrf website.you must have
been arguing for slavery as well ... you can find some historical legal
precedent for that too, I suppose. but it IS the 21st century now, or
didn't someone tell you??
JPJP wrote:" case after case is decided against religion"Yes, isn't it wonderful that the religious hegemony is being