I think some atheists are making the lives of public officials much harder than they should be, especially with non-atheists fighting back through their own court actions. People should take care that they don't try to elevate their supposed rights over the rights of anyone else. The courts shouldn't have to deal with cases where one person (using the banner of their own rights) has clearly trampled on the rights of another. The courts should hear cases where the question of where one person's rights end and another person's rights begin are not as clear.

As this was prompted by religious cases (I hope to find a link to a relevant story soon), let's review some facts (especially regarding rights and religion in the US).

1. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say, "Separation of Church and State". The 1st Amendment in fact says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

2. The exercise of religion as a private citizen (be that citizen in public employ or otherwise) is further protected as free speech, press, and assembly. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble".


I think the largest failures among the people that want religion and state to have nothing to do with each other are that they believe in a separation of church and state which can be found absolutely nowhere in the US Constitution and that they fail to recognize that public officials are also private citizens. A teacher is a teacher only during the school day and at school sanctioned events (though not even always if a school has sanctioned participation in an event).

For example, religions should be allowed to assemble on public property (with the right permits) and to participate in festivals on public property. If a teacher's church is hosting a booth at the festival and so is their school, that teacher cannot be barred from participating in their church's booth.


I understand that not all Earthers are American and therefore our Constitution does not apply to all of us. I further welcome the adoption of this debates in terms of the Canadian Constitution or any other constitution.

Good luck debating these points when a police officer is casually OC spraying you in the face for "threatening him via protesting for your rights" or some other such BS.

officers are people too. might want to watch what you say to them. can't just run around mouthing off your head off at them and not expect to get a response out of them.

maybe it doesn't, but it probably should.

"not all Earthers are American and therefore our Constitution does not apply to all of us"

'I think some atheists are making the lives of public officials much harder than they should be'

With great power comes great responsibility

&

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen

1. You are correct, it doesnt feature in the 1st Amendment, however you can read a bit more about it here and it is quite clear that the US legislation does indeed have a "separation of church and state".
(http://en.wikipedia.org/...ation_of_church_and_state)

In the United States, the term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads: "... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.[7] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947.[8] The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states until 1947; when they did, in Everson v. Board of Education, all nine justices agreed that there was a wall of separation between church and state, but a majority held that the present case (a local authority paying to transport parochial students to school), the benefits to the children outweighed the Constitutional objection

2. Yes agreed absolutely, and the freedom of speech is very important.

Apart from that I must say that I would totally disagree with you regarding letting various religions use public space for whatever they want to do. They can do whatever religion or praying to whatever sky god(s) they believe in on their own accord in private. It doesnt belong in a public space. After all whats to say that your specific sky god outranks mine?

Praise be the His noodly appendages!

Oh and since its almost Xmas time and a lot of Xtians are whining about us Atheists not "respecting Christmas" here is some viewing fun for you all:
http://richarddawkins.net/...644212-to-xmas-and-beyond

(if you're using "X" to abbreviate "Christ", it should be "Xians". Just sayin'.)

Ah indeed, good point! I must remember that for next time. :)

If that is so, then why do I keep hearing about religious functions in public places being blocked by activist judges because one or two ppl go to these and suddenly get "offended" by them? If there is no legislation against such functions, then there should be no judicial action taken against these functions. If there IS legislation against these public functions, then either our Constitution is moot, or nobody's bothered to call the government out on it.

EDIT: When I say "religious functions" I mean anything from using public buildings to hold religious "social-gatherings" to a replica of the 10-commandments in a building lobby to those triple crosses on the side of the highway.

argh. Richard Dawkins doesn't like my PSP.
i'm just whining about the ones who organized themselves into a political lobby that has more financial power than me. how can i afford to protect my rights against them if they gang up on me like that?

Good question Dibs, I suspect there arent people watching every public space and see how many times someone breaches the Separation of Church and State. Perhaps the local government wherever it happens to be will finally take a hint though and stop doing something that is illegal. Although I suspect it migh take some considerable time and probably differ hugely where in the US you are. Ive only been to the east coast myself for a visit and they seem pretty good about things there. From what I have heard its a bit further inland and south'ish that people are abit more religious. :)

If Dawkins site didnt work for you then give this a go, its the same thing:
http://www.youtube.com/...mbedded&v=7T8Y1-VLjGQ

hehe. thanks, but youtube doesn't work on it either. if i get really curious, i'll turn on the computer.

i don't think it's illegal though. the mere suggestion that there might be a God being displayed? how is that violating someone's rights?

You may suggest that there is a god, or you may suggest there is 100 of them that is perfectly fine with me and most definitely within your rights by freedom of speech and whatnot. However what you do when you put up a display on government owned property is openly saying that "this specific god is endorsed by the government" which is really the crux of the matter. The government should not involve itself with religion, they should be neutral on the matter and let all its citizens pray to whichever god or gods as they please.

Hope that makes sense, there are many others that can probably argue this better than me. :)

It is a matter of passive vs. active.

You have the right to believe whatever you want, but when you subject that believe onto others (via activity scenes on public property etc.) you are actively pushing your rights at the expense of others who are passively expressing theirs (others are passive because they are not attempting to subject others to their beliefs, they are just minding their own business).

So the legality of the issue revolvers around this active vs. passive dynamic.

The Christians are the instigators by placing activity scenes etc. on public property, thus they are the ones activly negatively impacting the rights of others, which is why they go into the case on bad footing.

See I knew someone could explain that better than me! :)

Thanks H4x. :)

i'm not suggesting such a concept. merely passing along information that was handed down to me from my ancestors.

are you stating that if there is a public bulletin board that is setup for the community to share information, that i can't post a message on it about church services in the community?

I don't think anybody was suggesting that...


One problem with america and religion and "separation of church and state" and all that, is that there are a large number of americans who assume that "church" means Christianity specifically....


The best non-faith-based argument I know of is for the libertarians out there: we shouldn't spend government dollars in the attempt to indoctrinate people in this or that religion. It is not only wasteful, it's *not the government's business*



The crazy thing is that the US has all these laws and things about stuff like this, and as far as I know Canada doesn't, yet we don't have *nearly* the issues you do over it.

wait, what? those naughty Christians and their display of their beliefs on church property?

i'm also a bit concerned about the news reports concerning vandalism of churches. you're not required to share their beliefs... why persecute them? are you an American citizen? err, wait, no. probably just a juvenile deliquent who doesn't actually have the same rights...

clearly I meant public property!

yes, but are churches on public property?

Churches tend to be built on land owned by the church. Often they are even excluded on paying property tax on said properties purely based on them being religous (this however differs on where in the world we talk about). On your private property (church owned or otherwise) you can do whatever you want and pray to whichever god you chose to pray to. On public property however you have no right to do so.

Vandalising churches I find apalling, generally speaking I find churches very nice architectual pieces and very interesting to look at. Vandalising anything like that is a crime and should be punished accordingly.

I'd like to see some legislative documentation about having no rights on public property (in the context of religion/religious activities).

Im sure you can dig up quite a few court verdicts on internet regarding issues like this in the US. There has been plenty of verdicts in favour of the Separation of Church and State when it comes to displays on public property.

You can easily find this for yourself and then look up if you want how they came to those verdicts. There is one example in my first post somewhere further up where the Supreme court takes this very same position.

OMG! Somebody is wearing a cross necklace in plain view on da public properties!!!!
you have the right to get offended. use it.

LOL they can wear it on their own person as much as they like. Thats not public property, likewise I could wear a horns and paint myself red and Xtians shouldnt get offended by me trying to dress as the devil.

damnit, vilse, Xians.

LOL. it is still being displayed on public property. so, what's the difference between that and a sign being displayed? or the 10 commandments?

I said NOTHING about judicial 'verdicts' made by 9 people in a COURTroom, backed by nothing more than the vapid mis-interpretation of what some dead guy wrote in a letter a couple hundred years or so ago. I want to see documentation, by the legislative branch of our (U.S.) government (EDIT: state or federal) (i.e. a LAW), that says that I do not have the right to use a public building for religious purposes, stick crosses on the side of a highway, hang a 10-commandments replica in a public building somewhere, etc.

Also, show me where any religious scenario happening in a public place constitutes making a law out of that scenario. I know that even if I do condone such practices in a public building or whatever, that doesn't make it a law to do it.

I don't really care much but I think that a lot of stupid things happen in an attempt to "separate church and state"... One example that comes to mind is the Pledge of Allegiance that we used to say every morning before we started school. Now I hear they don't do that, at least in my area, anymore because "...one nation under god..." I think it's all stupid.

People in general are stupid anymore.

Also this really has nothing to do with the post but when people are trying to be all politically correct and say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Mary Christmas" that is also annoying, to me.

i stand at the bus stop, or i walk down 47, and people pull over and try to hand me a Watch Tower. i just tell them "No, Thank You". don't even have to yell at them, let alone sue them.

"under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954. Originally there were no religious references in the pledge despite being written by a Baptist minister.

ahh, a ploy to bring the Communists out into the open because they wouldn't dare pledge to God.

Well murder should be legal since "Thou shall not Kill" is one of the ten commandments it is obvious it only is law due to a religious founding

Public property such as parks, and the land around courthouses is just that, public. It belongs to the public (all the public). Refusing any organization the use of land that belongs to them just as much as it belongs to anyone else because they are religious in nature is discriminatory at best and persecution at worst. Persecuting all religions is much the same as persecuting just one. Allowing a church, mosque, temple, etc. to use public property in a peaceful assembly is in absolutely no way endorsing that religion. Offended by religion? Get the right permits and peacefully assemble on public property yourself. No one should stop you simply because you are anti-religion anymore than religions should be stopped.

Does the government endorse the Nazis when they allow them to march down streets (the Nazis organization having aquired the proper permits)? Do they endorse the Republicans or Democrats when they have rallies on public property? The government does not endorse any organization simply by permitting its presence on public property.

NukEvil: Court decisions are based on interpretations of the laws. In this case mainly the 1st Amendment. I am sure there is much more to it than that but thats generally what they do in courts. Seriously mate, if the SUPREME COURT decides on something they are pretty sure to have thought about it pretty seriously. I would say thats pretty solid that the separation of church and state has legal standing.

Requiem: Surely you see there is a difference between a public place and your private person? You can wear whatever you want (unless you are in France and want to wear a burka) but you cant place a Xtian cross in a public space such as a school or park.

Oceana: Dont be silly, you dont need religion to know that you shouldnt kill someone. But if you are really confused and need to be told if you are allowed to such a thing or not you can start reading the laws of your country. But usually normal common sense works great in these types of things.

Angel1: Its one thing having a person holding a demostration with proper permits, this is not in any way comparable to putting up a permanent fixture for ONE specific religion in a public space. Your comparison is invalid and quite silly.

well, in the tribe of cannibals that i was brought up in, not only was it appropriate to kill people, but we also had to eat them for dinner.

Angel1 +1 and ViLSE -1. You tried to twist her words into something she wasn't suggesting or endorsing. As I read through this thread, several folks suggested people shouldn't be allowed to voice religious speech or engage in religious activity on public property -- she was responding to that, and accurately.

A person engaging in their right to free speech on public property is not, IMHO, illegal in and of itself.

However, when the government entity (not an employee, but the agency, institution, etc.) is the one engaging in religious speech or practice, that, IMHO, DOES violate the endorsement clause. I am vehemently against the inclusion of Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance and In God We Trust on our currency. Those are not individual citizens practicing their right to free speech, those are state endorsements of religious belief.

A courthouse displaying the ten commandments has always been a bit tougher for me as they are historically speaking, an early document in the realm of law regardless of their religious origin. However, if they are being displayed, I would prefer other similar documents be displayed as well and some educational value be included. I do not appreciate sessions of congress, the Supreme Court or local school board meetings being opened with official prayers, especially denominational prayers.

I respect that private organizations can make certain choices based on religious grounds, as the Boy Scouts of America do, but I won't support them in their discriminatory policies.

Yep Atryn, I agree with you, I was trying to answer to too many people at the same time to properly address each answer (I wanted to go to bed so didnt spend much time on it). :)

the country was founded so that people could do as they pleased, not run the risk of getting thrown in jail by the catholic church and the monarchy's they controlled.

the good will to man, you disagree with this, vilse? you don't believe people should be good and honest to one another?

I assume that you will answer that you do :P

Why does it being stated in the bible make it not true, make it not worth listening to, or abiding by?

If your mother or parents teach you to love and respect, why is the church doing the same thing offensive to anybody?

nobody is putting a gun to your head and demanding you believe three old men walked across a desert to a cave that everyone knows as a manger.

besides the bible can be fun; i'll bet anybody twenty dollars that it was not dehlilah that cut off samsoms hair? takers?

Can't we just go back to the Code of Ur-Nammu and call it a day?

I think the official pledge should be amended as to declare the pledge without "under god" to be as perfectly valid as the pledge with it, but the words themselves I have no issue with. Were I a teacher saying the pledge with my students and one student did not say "under god", I would teach that such a decision should be respected.

I do not believe that either phrase constitutes a law respecting an establishment of religion. I don't believe that either having "under god" or the national motto "In God We Trust" constitutes endorsing religion or any particular religion.

There have been incidents of athiests crossing out "In God We Trust" on currency and stamping that the line violates the US Constitution. The Federal Reserve reportedly does not pull these altered bills out of circulation and the Secret Service does not consider such actions as being with the intent of making the currency unfit to be reissued. Honestly, I think the Supreme Court would probably rule this to be a "political issue" and say that they have no jurisdiction over the matter.



I really agree the the Ten Commandments should be considered in the light of why they were placed in the public place. A legislature or court displaying the Commandments among other examples of law would be displaying them not for their religious significance, but for their legal significance. If they were the only display allowed, then that would indicate a religious purpose that endorses the Judeo-Christian faiths above others. In other words, the test with regard to the commandments is of motivation, not the document itself.

I think we more or less agree, except on one issue...I'm a guy.

Bahaha! the fact that you called Angel a girl is the best part of this thread.

Also - I know it's not the point of the conversation, but in the OP Angel said that teachers are only teacher while in class? BS. As long as I'm anywhere close to the community in which I teach I comport myself with a lot more caution and reservation than I would if I were farther away. The last thing I need is for a parent to see me drunk at a bar on a Friday night. School hours or not, I'm still the person that they trust with their children. There certainly are jobs where you're in a fishbowl 24 hours a day.

How does that not specifically endorse religion in general or a subset of religions with a God? Like I am Christian and I completely want religion removed from government. I don't want the government in any way involved with any level of religion. Just because the government in some ways supports my beliefs now does not mean a government which has its hands in religion will always support my beliefs. I do not want my beliefs of a single God thrust upon others in the same way I do not want other's beliefs thrust upon me. Religion has historical contexts and should absolutely be taught from the view of religions exist and have influenced the world in various ways. There should be no "under God" in any pledges in the same way there should not be "without God" or "under gods" in the pledge.

I agree with Detmer

Yes, Jefferson dis write the Conn. church his opinion in those terms , but what is written in the constitution is clearly only a Limit on the Government, The Congress actually. There is NO Limit on the free exercise of religion by the people in anyway as long as they are not violating the rights of other people. But yes history says that the Court has taken Jefferson's writing as the definitional context of What the 1st Amendment "means". Obviously a more Liberal reading of the amendment. Funny though who those who typically support that expansive definition based on his personal writings want to ignore his writings when it comes to the Second Amendment

Its a very good thing to have Laws so that we can punish the lawless .............so what God was it that makes all men-----whats the word im looking for----the same--no thats not it...... anyway, If church is to be removed from the state, freedom will have to be removed from the people of the church...YOU WILL HAVE NO GODS if your pay comes from the people nor will you act like there is no god or you will be removed from the pay roll.
In the same turn if you have a god you will send no pay to the people. {tax free }nor will you by force of arms make others mind dead followers of the state err umm -I mean- joboo.

Sounds like crazy old man jargon to me