bigmanbt wrote:Wrong. Freedom of religion does not allow for religious displays on government grounds. It implies that NO religion should be displayed when it has to do with the government and you can practice any religion you want. This display is as unconstitutional as displaying the ten commandments in a court room.

I respectfully disagree. Implies? From how it is written, I don't see where it denies a public display if allowing others to due the same. Does a picture, statue, monument, etc make a law?

From what i read, aslong as its part of a holiday display and not there all year, its constitutional. ALLEGHENY COUNTY v. GREATER PITTSBURGH ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/alle_v_aclu.html

For being the side of the coin that claims to be enlightened and tolerant, this is pretty much a dick move.

^^^This

bigmanbt wrote:

jmog wrote: Only someone who doesn't really understand what the Constitution says about religion would say the displays there are violations of the Constitution.

Wrong. Freedom of religion does not allow for religious displays on government grounds. It implies that NO religion should be displayed when it has to do with the government and you can practice any religion you want. This display is as unconstitutional as displaying the ten commandments in a court room.

Lets take a look at the 1st amedment again. It appears quite clear to me if you do not read anything into it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What law has congress made that establishes a national religion or prohibits the free practice of ones religion? Answer is none. Where in the 1st amendment does it say it applies only to private property. Does congress not make the laws that govern federal public property? So how can they prohibit its free practice? They can't make law so they divert to the unconstitutional use of the judicial branch to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Read the 1st amendment one more time. It treats the freedom of religion, speech, press, peaceable assembly, and redress of grievances equally. Congress has no authority to legislate on the aformentioned matters. So if "freedom of religion" as you say, can not be displayed on public grounds, how can speech? peacable assembly? Are you implying that someone can't go to the mall in Washington and set up a display redressing their greavances? The 1st amendement does not allow religious speech to be treated any differently than political speech.

So the federal government's role is defined. "Congress can make no law". Considering the matter at hand is in the state of Washington, the 10th amendment allows the people of Washington to decide what is best for their state. It states the following:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If you are not residence of the state of Washington why do you care if they allow the two to be displayed side by side? If the people of San Fransico want to put up a display to the earth god on their public square I could care less. Are we now a national government imposing its will on the use of all public property (local and state) by judicial fiat? How is this freedom?

majorspark wrote:

bigmanbt wrote:

jmog wrote: Only someone who doesn't really understand what the Constitution says about religion would say the displays there are violations of the Constitution.

Wrong. Freedom of religion does not allow for religious displays on government grounds. It implies that NO religion should be displayed when it has to do with the government and you can practice any religion you want. This display is as unconstitutional as displaying the ten commandments in a court room.

Lets take a look at the 1st amedment again. It appears quite clear to me if you do not read anything into it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What law has congress made that establishes a national religion or prohibits the free practice of ones religion? Answer is none. Where in the 1st amendment does it say it applies only to private property. Does congress not make the laws that govern federal public property? So how can they prohibit its free practice? They can't make law so they divert to the unconstitutional use of the judicial branch to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Read the 1st amendment one more time. It treats the freedom of religion, speech, press, peaceable assembly, and redress of grievances equally. Congress has no authority to legislate on the aformentioned matters. So if "freedom of religion" as you say, can not be displayed on public grounds, how can speech? peacable assembly? Are you implying that someone can't go to the mall in Washington and set up a display redressing their greavances? The 1st amendement does not allow religious speech to be treated any differently than political speech.

So the federal government's role is defined. "Congress can make no law". Considering the matter at hand is in the state of Washington, the 10th amendment allows the people of Washington to decide what is best for their state. It states the following:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If you are not residence of the state of Washington why do you care if they allow the two to be displayed side by side? If the people of San Fransico want to put up a display to the earth god on their public square I could care less. Are we now a national government imposing its will on the use of all public property (local and state) by judicial fiat? How is this freedom?

Class dismissed.

Yeah, M-Sparks has a pretty goooooood argument, here!

It is less about Christmas and more about respect and tolerance for others. Certainly nothing wrong with Kwanzaa or Hanukkah displays. Quite the opposite with a sign attacking religion(s). I'm amazed at the number of people who preach 'tolerance' actually supporting an attack on religion on public grounds. If the atheists want to commerorate the winter solstice in a positive manner that would be acceptable....but that is not what is being done here.

I think as stated in the article:
"Asked whether he was bothered by the atheist display next to his Nativity scene, Wesselius said, "I think the Nativity scene will speak for itself."

That pretty much sums up the difference...one aspires to peace and harmony, the other to negativism and intolerance....on display for all to see.

Both sides need to stop being babies.

And the mass generalizations in regards to one group or another being "intolerant" is hillarious.

Even on these boards, i've seen evidence of Christians and Atheists being incredibly intolerant of one another, i.e. Cats Gone Wild on the "Serious Business" forum.

But, if it makes you guys sleep better at night thinking that all liberals/atheists are intolerant, or that all Christians are nuts, go right ahead. But know that you're being completely irrational in doing so.

But, i don't think Believer should stop, as he seems to get off pointing out that "the party of tolerance is intolerant" comment, etc., etc.

I don't know. I think I can be pretty nuts in a stand alone situation. My faith has nothing to do with it! haha

bigmanbt wrote:

jmog wrote:
Only someone who doesn't really understand what the Constitution says about religion would say the displays there are violations of the Constitution.

Wrong. Freedom of religion does not allow for religious displays on government grounds. It implies that NO religion should be displayed when it has to do with the government and you can practice any religion you want. This display is as unconstitutional as displaying the ten commandments in a court room.

You are 100% wrong. The Constitution says in the 1st Amendment, and I quote...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

They can not make a law that either promotes a religion or prohibits a religion, or the free exercise of a religion.

NO WHERE does it say that a religious piece of equipment can NOT be on government land.

Heck, by your assertations all of our courts, and all of our federal oaths all the way up to the President himself, are unconstitutional.

CBus wrote:
"And the mass generalizations in regards to one group or another being "intolerant" is hillarious."

No mass generalization was made as I was talking about this specific display/ sign. Intolerance is, unfortunately, rampant on both sides of the political spectrum...and on display this forum ...although usually it is the left that claims the high ground on tolerance and diversity. That is neither here nor there in specific reference to this story. Speaking of mass generalizations... I didn't realize that all atheists are liberal...hilarious.

jmog wrote:

bigmanbt wrote:

jmog wrote:
Only someone who doesn't really understand what the Constitution says about religion would say the displays there are violations of the Constitution.

Wrong. Freedom of religion does not allow for religious displays on government grounds. It implies that NO religion should be displayed when it has to do with the government and you can practice any religion you want. This display is as unconstitutional as displaying the ten commandments in a court room.

Heck, by your assertations all of our courts, and all of our federal oaths all the way up to the President himself, are unconstitutional.

Hey, hold on a minute, We may have something here!

I'm going to get murdered for saying this, but "One Nation, Under God"

I understand rights, freedoms, etc. But...

ernest_t_bass wrote: I'm going to get murdered for saying this, but "One Nation, Under God"

That saying was forced into the pledge in 1954.
There's a reason it wasn't in there for the first 175 years.

HitsRus wrote: CBus wrote:
"And the mass generalizations in regards to one group or another being "intolerant" is hillarious."

No mass generalization was made as I was talking about this specific display/ sign. Intolerance is, unfortunately, rampant on both sides of the political spectrum...and on display this forum ...although usually it is the left that claims the high ground on tolerance and diversity. That is neither here nor there in specific reference to this story. Speaking of mass generalizations... I didn't realize that all atheists are liberal...hilarious.

I didn't say that all atheists are liberals, sorry, i know the slash probably made it look that way. Was referring to atheists and liberals as distinct entities. And that i always here how these groups always claim to be so tolerant when they are actually not, when that isn't representative of either group as a whole.

My apologies, i understand and agree with your observation about this particular incident.

ts1227 wrote:

ernest_t_bass wrote: I'm going to get murdered for saying this, but "One Nation, Under God"

That saying was forced into the pledge in 1954.
There's a reason it wasn't in there for the first 175 years.

Why "In God We Trust" on our money?

ernest_t_bass wrote:

ts1227 wrote:

ernest_t_bass wrote: I'm going to get murdered for saying this, but "One Nation, Under God"

That saying was forced into the pledge in 1954.
There's a reason it wasn't in there for the first 175 years.

Why "In God We Trust" on our money?

https://treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

Muchas Gracias

I don't personally believe that a group of people are tolerant or intolerant. Each group has sections of both. I will say this however, most athiests I know are very tolerant, until pushed to the point where they have to become intolerant. And it seems to me that athiests tend to know more about the other side (christians) than christians do about the athiest beliefs.

One example: A church in my community placed a packet of information on our door handle where we lived (more than likely because we carved a Darwin fish on our pumpkins for Halloween). This pamphlet had some of the most gross, misrepresentations of the athiest/evolutionist beliefs in it. The pamphlet claimed that Satan uses education, among other things, to turn people away from God. Then as the picture for the caption, they had a teacher in front of a blackboard with a picture of a monkey head on the blackboard, and underneath the picture was the word DADDY. First of all, I have no idea how this church could view education as a bad thing, even attribute education with Satan and basically make it look like a sin. And then to try and portray the evolutionary process as they did was even more mind-boggling. It was obvious that they felt education was a sin because they had obviously never learned about evolution as it pertains to man. Even if they don't believe in the evolution of man, to portray it as people who do believe in it believe that monkeys are our "daddy" is a horrible thing to do. Anyone who has actually taken the time to learn about the evolution of man knows that Darwin and the like don't claim we came from monkeys, but that we had a common ancestor (which is why humans and some species of primates have something like 99% the same DNA).

Now this is just one example, and I am sure that there are examples both ways, but my point is why can we not be tolerant of each other and learn to live together. I believe in freedom of religion and you can practice any way you like, but you shouldn't force your ideas on anyone else (which I would include displays on government land, though it appears the government does not agree with me). I just find it strange that Christians need to put billboards up claiming "Hell is Real" (if you've driven south on 71 from Columbus to Cincy you know which billboard I speak of) and think it's ok to do so, but if someone put up a billboard that said "Hell isn't Real", I am sure we would have to hear about it in the news. Just a double standard I think.

ts1227 wrote:

ernest_t_bass wrote: I'm going to get murdered for saying this, but "One Nation, Under God"

That saying was forced into the pledge in 1954.
There's a reason it wasn't in there for the first 175 years.

Yet no one is forced to say it.

Evolution and Christianity(and /or other religions) are not incompatible. Catholicism itself allows for evolution as well as the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. These concepts are not uniquely 'atheist'. That some Christian sects follow strict literal interpretations of the bible should not be taken as an indictment of christianity as a whole.

jmog wrote:

You are 100% wrong. The Constitution says in the 1st Amendment, and I quote...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

They can not make a law that either promotes a religion or prohibits a religion, or the free exercise of a religion.

NO WHERE does it say that a religious piece of equipment can NOT be on government land.

Heck, by your assertations all of our courts, and all of our federal oaths all the way up to the President himself, are unconstitutional.

By placing religious items on government premises it is an endorsement of religion(s). Thus, a violation of the Constitution. And yes, the 1st Amendment basically guarantees a freedom from religion when it comes to government.

ernest_t_bass wrote: Why "In God We Trust" on our money?

Because Christians after the Civil War thought they knew better than the Founding Fathers.

Captain Cavalier wrote:

ts1227 wrote:

ernest_t_bass wrote: I'm going to get murdered for saying this, but "One Nation, Under God"

That saying was forced into the pledge in 1954.
There's a reason it wasn't in there for the first 175 years.

Yet no one is forced to say it.

I think you may have missed the point.

eers wrote:
"By placing religious items on government premises it is an endorsement of religion(s). Thus, a violation of the Constitution. And yes, the 1st Amendment basically guarantees a freedom from religion when it comes to government."

That is an opinion.
It is a stretch to say that a religious item on government property is an endorsement. It is an giant leap to say that it is an 'establishment' especially when no one is being forced, even passively to accept/worship/pay homage to that religious item.


eers wrote:
"Because Christians after the Civil War thought they knew better than the Founding Fathers."
Maybe the founding Father's knew better than some neo-constitutionalists?

evidence below:
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights

HitsRus wrote: eers wrote:
"By placing religious items on government premises it is an endorsement of religion(s). Thus, a violation of the Constitution. And yes, the 1st Amendment basically guarantees a freedom from religion when it comes to government."

That is an opinion.
It is a stretch to say that a religious item on government property is an endorsement. It is an giant leap to say that it is an 'establishment' especially when no one is being forced, even passively to accept/worship/pay homage to that religious item.


eers wrote:
"Because Christians after the Civil War thought they knew better than the Founding Fathers."
Maybe the founding Father's knew better than some neo-constitutionalists?

evidence below:
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights

No, it isn't a stretch. Government should have no role in religion whatsoever. Why do people feel it is necessary to have government involved in any type of religious activity?

We've already been through the Declaration and took apart the myths from the Christian right who claim this is some type of religious document. It is a secular document that encompasses all beliefs including those who have none.