• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheists demand town remove church welcome signs

pinqy said:
Well, let's look at one of the signs: View attachment 67219068

Notice the dove, symbol of Christianity, and the Cross.

Now let's look at the Constitution, and I'll bold what I consider the relevant parts:
Freedom of worship; liberty of conscience; state religion; public funds. SECTION 18. [As amended Nov. 1982]
The right of every person to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any person be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, without consent; nor shall any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship; nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or religious or theological seminaries. [1979 J.R. 36, 1981 J.R. 29, vote Nov. 1982]

That only Christian churches are indicated and the signs are there by law, is clearly a preference to Christianity. Any money used to maintain or upkeep the signs is for the benefit of the Christian churches.

Seems pretty clear to me.
Click to expand...

PeterKing:

The sign says that the churches of the town welcome you. Those churches are not necessarily Christian. You cite the symbols of the dove and the cross on or near the sign as evidence that this sign promotes exclusively Christian churches. But the dove is a symbol of peace with roots in Judaism and Babylonian paganism. The cross is also a Nordic Pagan symbol as well as ancient Hindu symbol. The reversed L-shaped stonework is a right angle which is a Masonic symbol of the square. The reversed y-shaped bracket supporting the sign from bellow is a runic symbol. Thus one can argue that intentionally or unintentionally the sign and stone pedestal are not displaying exclusively Christian imagery and thus do not amount to an endorsement of just Christian churches and thus one religion. The sentiment of welcome is not an exclusively religious expression and has a strong secular tradition. So the dominant message of the sign is welcome, a secular expression of good will. Just like Christmas trees, menorahs, Santa Claus, etc. are acceptable displays of religious imagery for secular reasons so is a welcome sign. The sign does not fail any of the three prongs of the Lemon Test and therefore should be found lawful.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
The Oconomowoc issue is a social annoyance, a social rebellion. If the sign comes down it I doubt it spurs violence on a mass level. Rather just heated arguments shot from each side, then people will move on. But each ridiculous annoyance (not like tiny Oconomowoc s a Chicago or NYC to pick a hill to fight on) will leads to encreased circling by segements of the Christian population around men like Trump in politics.

So, that's America.

However, outside America, one might need to look back to history. The aggregate violent assaults (rapes, torture, killings) on Christians throughout a number of nations in the East may well eventually lead to the war cry of "take up war for the Cross" once again. Historically, it took hundreds of years before that war cry was given and then received with open ears by millions. And the war cry first came from the Christian East to the Christian West.

I am now hearing the first signs, or first calls of that war cry now. But it is at low pitch. Once again it comes from the Christian East aimed at the Christian West. This time around it may be the Evangelical Protestants picking up swords to lead the way, and produce the bulk of the Christian fighters, in a head on and final collision against the persecutors of Christians.




Punjabi Christians

8 Most Dangerous Countries for Christians to Live In | Christianity Most Persecuted Religion 2016
Click to expand...



Act Like a Man - Father Seraphim Cardoza - theDove.us

Published on Apr 23, 2015

Father Seraphim Cardoza, archpriest at St. Innocent Orthodox Church, talks about Christian manhood...
Click to expand...

The 2nd video is not important, what is important is what the Russian Orthodox Priest says between roughly the 7:15 to 8:30ish minutes mark of the video. The beginning of that war cry. He is being interviewed by an American Evangelical Protestant Pastor.

You can keep kicking at a people, and keep kicking them down. But maybe at some point they get used to the hits and get tired of them and begin to spread the word to start rising up and fighting back.

"It's all fun and games until someone gets their eye poked out." Remember that old saying your mamas told you? No? Well, maybe they should have.
 
Renae said:
https://www.toddstarnes.com/column/atheists-demand-town-to-remove-church-welcome-signs

UHG... these intolerant ****s... the signs aren't hurting anything nor are they "unconstitutional". Bullies the lot of em
Click to expand...

If they are on public land, or they are paid for or maintained with public funds then they are definitely unconstitutional. Those who do not support these churches should not be forced to subsidize their propaganda. If they would like the signs to remain standing simply transfer the land that they stand on to the church, and let them and their members pay for their upkeep.
 
pinqy said:
Because while atheism is a part of Marxist-Leninism philosophy, Marxist-Leninism is not a part of atheist philosophy. And please present your evidence that the majority of atheists in the U.S. wish to make atheism the official belief. I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...

That's an easy position to provide evidence for philosophically. :roll:

Separation of church and state is inferred (you can look up the definition of that word if you don't know what it means) from individuals reading of the US Constitution (highest law of the land) but is no where explicitly stated in the US Constitution. Even the phrase "separation of church and state" could be open to interpretation.

And atheist (or some portion of them) use the phrase "separation of church and state" as a call to make local, state, and the US Federal Government officially atheist. That is to say any and all thoughts or e4xpressions deemed originating from the religious are to be banned and suppressed by the full force and weight of the.

The law or legal system itself--and this is not my opinion--has several organs of which include armed police forces, attorneys representing local, state, or the Federal Government, judges presiding over courts, and jails and prisons. You can probably including probation/parole offices and their officers in that too.

So, ultimately, armed men with guns (police, law enforcement agents, or military) enforce the rulings of courts, when defendants or rebels defy the judges or court ruling and/or legislated laws. That means the official atheism of all levels of government sought by atheists will be enforced by armed men: police, federal law agents, military.




Saudi Arabia, England, and Thailand have official state religions (beliefs). That does not mean no one can have a different religion or that is to say belief. But what it ms a particular belief is given preference by the state.

Saudi Arabia has Sunni Islam.

Thailand has Buddhism (and a monarch too).

England has the Church of England, of which the Queen of England presides over, in a monarchical system which by law prohibits Catholics *specifically* from holding the crown.

But you can be Christian in Saudi Arabia (you just can't build a church or have a bible or convert any Muslims).

You can be atheist or Christian or Muslim in Thailand.

You can be Catholic or Muslim or atheist in England.




America was the first *secular* country that allowed a *free market of beliefs* in government. America was not the first officially *atheist government.*

And Common Law created by the Normans (French) while ruling over the English is a system of law which in part tries to make present and future court rulings by referring back to the *customs* and *traditions* of the past for X society. In the case of Norman rule over the English the courts looked to the customs and traditions of the English peoples to make their court decisions.

So, that means the US Supreme Court acting with a grain of integrity would need to refer back to the customs and traditions of US politicians and see if any of them ever made reference to God or Christianity while functioning in their office. As well as to see if any historical US Government documents ever used the word "God."
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Ah, so you have either have no idea what case law is, or you had severe trouble reading my question.

I didn't ask you about the constitution, and separation of church and state is established case law.

I'll ask an easier question next time.
Click to expand...

It was an unconstitutional attempt to change the Constitution and should have never happened. The Constitution is CRYSTAL CLEAR on the scope of that Amendment and the SCOUTS' decision should have never been made. Using the Danbury letters in their entirety should have changed this whole course of this decision, since they were all about keeping the gov't out of the Church's business and not about keeping the Church out of the gov't's business. That decision was one of the absolute worst ever made by the SCOTUS.
 
Evilroddy said:
PeterKing:

The sign says that the churches of the town welcome you. Those churches are not necessarily Christian. You cite the symbols of the dove and the cross on or near the sign as evidence that this sign promotes exclusively Christian churches. But the dove is a symbol of peace with roots in Judaism and Babylonian paganism. The cross is also a Nordic Pagan symbol as well as ancient Hindu symbol. The reversed L-shaped stonework is a right angle which is a Masonic symbol of the square. The reversed y-shaped bracket supporting the sign from bellow is a runic symbol. Thus one can argue that intentionally or unintentionally the sign and stone pedestal are not displaying exclusively Christian imagery and thus do not amount to an endorsement of just Christian churches and thus one religion. The sentiment of welcome is not an exclusively religious expression and has a strong secular tradition. So the dominant message of the sign is welcome, a secular expression of good will. Just like Christmas trees, menorahs, Santa Claus, etc. are acceptable displays of religious imagery for secular reasons so is a welcome sign. The sign does not fail any of the three prongs of the Lemon Test and therefore should be found lawful.
Click to expand...
Capitol Square Review Board v Pinette 515 U.S. 753 (1995) "As for the specifics of this case, one must admit that a number of facts known to the Board, or reasonably anticipated, weighed in favor of upholding its denial of the permit. For example, the Latin cross the Klan sought to erect is the principal symbol of Christianity around the world, and display of the cross alone could not reasonably be taken to have any secular point."
Is it your claim that in this particular case a reasonable person could look at a sign with a dove, a Latin cross, and the word "Churches" and believe the message is secular in purpose???? You're going to stick with that? And if you're going to say the churches in question aren't all Christian churches, please share which non-Christian churches had a hand in the signs.
 
Last edited:
Addition to post #54.



Source: The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln

The Gettysburg Address

Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
November 19, 1863
Click to expand...

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863
Click to expand...

The bold underlined portion my emphasis.


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln%27s_second_inaugural_address

Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address
Click to expand...

Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully.

The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.[9]
Click to expand...


martin luther king Free at last
Click to expand...

Contrary to shyster yapping of dishonest lawyers and life long aristocrats sitting on the thrones of the US Supreme Court, the Common Law evidence of the USA is this: a long standing custom and tradition of politically invoking the name "God" and appealing to a Christian heritage.
 
Pingy wrote:

Is it your claim that in this particular case a reasonable person could look at a sign with a dove, a Latin cross, and the word "Churches" and believe the message is secular in purpose???? You're going to stick with that? And if you're going to say the churches in question aren't all Christian churches, please share which non-Christian churches had a hand in the signs.
Click to expand...

The point I am trying to make is that the sign conveys many messages and not just Christian ones. To reiterate "welcome", while used by Christians is not an exclusively Christian greeting and is a secular expression of goodwill. So the language of the sign is not solely Christian. The symbols used either intentionally or unintentionally by the creators of the sign are not exclusively Christian and therefore does not rise to the level of endorsing, promoting or establishing a state favoured religion. Those whose tax dollars are underwriting the maintenance and display of this sign are supporting a secular and inclusive message of goodwill and not a call to religious conversion or exclusion. It is up to the the opponents of the sign's placement to make the case that this is promotion or establishment of a state religion in Oconomowoc. This will be very hard to do objectively.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (which is devoted to expunging religion from public view in the USA) is an outside group which has pursued this campaign from afar and none of the FFRF monies have gone to the support of this sign. Thus they have no case as they are not an injured party and are not representing the interests of any town residents as far as has been reported to date.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
FastPace said:
That's an easy position to provide evidence for philosophically.
Click to expand...
Interesting that you have to use the qualifier "philosophically" instead of any public statements by any atheist group.

Separation of church and state is inferred (you can look up the definition of that word if you don't know what it means) from individuals reading of the US Constitution (highest law of the land) but is no where explicitly stated in the US Constitution. Even the phrase "separation of church and state" could be open to interpretation.
Click to expand...
Article VI and the First Amendment imply (do you need an explanation of the difference between infer and imply?) a separation of church and state as noted by Thomas Jefferson. And while Mr. Jefferson did not write any part of the Constitution, he did write the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which was a model for the Establishment and Free exercise clauses.

Similarly, the 5th amendment does not mention "right to a fair trial," but it certainly implies it and it is no stretch to infer that right.

And atheist (or some portion of them) use the phrase "separation of church and state" as a call to make local, state, and the US Federal Government officially atheist.
Click to expand...
This is the fallacy known as petitio principia. Your evidence that most atheists want to make atheism the official belief is the assertion that at least some atheists use the phrase "separation of church and state" as a call to make the U.S. governments officially atheist. You are just asserting your conclusion. You have not provided any EVIDENCE that that is was atheists intend on doing. That is your opinion, but you have no evidence.

Equality of expression and laws for all religious beliefs, including non-belief, is not official atheism. Government neutrality and silence on religion is not atheism.


That is to say any and all thoughts or e4xpressions deemed originating from the religious are to be banned and suppressed by the full force and weight of the.
Click to expand...
Evidence that this is what any significant portion of atheists want? I assume you can find some fringe nutcases who want that, just as I can find fringe nutcases who want a U.S. theocracy.

Saudi Arabia, England, and Thailand have official state religions (beliefs). That does not mean no one can have a different religion or that is to say belief. But what it ms a particular belief is given preference by the state.
Click to expand...
Correct. But preference for a particular belief, OR belief over non-belief, is against the U.S. Constitution.

America was the first *secular* country that allowed a *free market of beliefs* in government. America was not the first officially *atheist government.*
Click to expand...
Neutrality is not atheism.
 
jimbo said:
True, that's a given. The question seems to be whether the signs are on private or public property.
Click to expand...

But surely even if it is on public property and the church followed all laws in putting it there, renting the sign, etc. then it is legal.
 
Bodhisattva said:
But surely even if it is on public property and the church followed all laws in putting it there, renting the sign, etc. then it is legal.
Click to expand...

No it's not. Signs on your own property are one thing. Signs,especially religious signs, on public property falls very close to the government promoting a religion. Not to mention using someone else's property.

Ironically, if the sign had been allowed to exist on some private party's land, adverse possession might apply, but government is generally exempt from adverse possession.
 
pinqy said:
Interesting that you have to use the qualifier "philosophically" instead of any public statements by any atheist group.
Click to expand...

Because I'm concerned more with what logically follows from what and not what people claim. Just because a pedophile might never explicitly state he is trying to seduce a 7 year-old boy at a grade school, or in fact denies it, I prefer to judge the situation b indicators and arrive at as best a rational conclusion as I can.

Article VI and the First Amendment imply (do you need an explanation of the difference between infer and imply?) a separation of church and state as noted by Thomas Jefferson. And while Mr. Jefferson did not write any part of the Constitution, he did write the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which was a model for the Establishment and Free exercise clauses.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I see nothing implied in the 1st Amendment that one can reasonably infer from that free speech is meant to limit the expression of Christians in public or on public property (not that Christian tax payers aren't financing that public property) pertaining to the broad notion of "Christianity" (and no specific church).

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The amendment as adopted in 1791 reads as follows:

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.[1]
Click to expand...

Now, what the 1st Amendment implies to me is that the religious, no matter their religion, will be protected from the state, and therefore Christians are free to pray in the halls of Congress, swear and oath on a Bible, and invoke the name of God Almighty.

Post up Article 6 (I already looked at it online) of the Constitution and point out to me what portion of it implies separation of church and state as you understand it? Maybe it does and I'm overlooking something.




This is the fallacy known as petitio principia. Your evidence that most atheists want to make atheism the official belief is the assertion that at least some atheists use the phrase "separation of church and state" as a call to make the U.S. governments officially atheist. You are just asserting your conclusion. You have not provided any EVIDENCE that that is was atheists intend on doing. That is your opinion, but you have no evidence.

Equality of expression and laws for all religious beliefs, including non-belief, is not official atheism. Government neutrality and silence on religion is not atheism.
Click to expand...

I already provided the evidence in my earlier argument. Your claim the atheist are seeking a neutrality in Oconmowoc because they are demanding all religious beliefs be allowed equal ground is nonsensical. They are calling for the sign to be removed no? When women want equality in the workforce does it follow they are demanding all men be removed from the workforce? No.

I have no problem with Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims in Oconomowoc having a separate sign welcoming others nor do I have a problem if they asked to be included on the sign (which a new one might have to be created then) in Oconomowoc. Same for atheists. But they ought have drivers licenses and an address in that town.

But inclusion is not the purpose. Public exclusion of Christianity is the purpose. To try and create the atheist state as atheists did in China, Vietnam, North Korea, and the Soviet Union. Even though the Soviet Union allowed Christians to exist in their empire, they just had to keep their heads down and Church leaders had to serve Dear Party. Otherwise they might be driven into starvation and crippling labor in the gulags.
 
pinqy said:
Evidence that this is what any significant portion of atheists want? I assume you can find some fringe nutcases who want that, just as I can find fringe nutcases who want a U.S. theocracy.
Click to expand...

Christians--not atheist--established the United States of America and made the United States of America. If Christians as the overwhelming portion of citizens, cops, military personnel wanted to make a theocracy in the USA in the late 1700s, the 1800s, or the 1950s they would have done it.

Atheist on the other hand are continually lecturing and trying to eradicate Christianity from every public space in the USA. Whether they are 5% of the atheist population or 95% of the population are neither here nor there. They seek and cause destruction just like Islamic terrorist--irrespective if said terrorist are 0.5% of the Islamic population.

Christians in Oconomowoc aren't marching out to New York City to demand those folks start picking up their credo so why do out-of-state atheists march into a tiny town no one in the USA ever heard of to demand they remove a welcome sign that never hurt any of them? I'll tell you why. It's an ideological war and Christianophobic zealotry.

Correct. But preference for a particular belief, OR belief over non-belief, is against the U.S. Constitution.
Click to expand...

Like not hiring a black worker does not prove to US courts racial discrimination is had, even if the entire company workforce is white, but rather a pattern of discrimination, rejection must be proven, then I would say such a pattern of rejecting Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, pagan, atheist etc. official requests to be included on the welcome sign needs to be established. Otherwise Oconmowoc is simply democratically reflecting the majority of its population.

If only women interview for jobs as teachers at a elementary school, and only females get hired at that school as teachers, is that de facto "discriminating again"? No.

Neutrality is not atheism.
Click to expand...

Atheists in America are not neutral on religion. Not most of them. Most of them have a clear hatred for Christianity and Christians. Just listen to some of their rhetoric here on this website. It rivals that of ISIS in tone about Christians or the past atheist soldiers of the Soviet Union that hung monks from trees by hooks in their jaws. Currently, most of them (atheists) align themselves with Muslims just like they would align themselves with ISIS if they were over in Iraq and Syria, so long as that meant the annihilation of Christians from Iraq ans Syria. Some American atheists might not be like that but most are.

I don't need to hear about "how atheists aren't," or some rhetoric about how they come to the support of Muslims when it comes to reading the Koran in public school or whatever millions of ways they will support the march and advance of morally conservative Islam (as opposed to its morally liberal versions). Either they pop their heads up to give equal support to Christian community of Oconmowoc now or they can shut up as far as I am concerned. I'm not going to play Politically Correct on this (and its play blind game).
 
jimbo said:
No it's not. Signs on your own property are one thing. Signs,especially religious signs, on public property falls very close to the government promoting a religion. Not to mention using someone else's property.

Ironically, if the sign had been allowed to exist on some private party's land, adverse possession might apply, but government is generally exempt from adverse possession.
Click to expand...

Public land and public schools, police, fire departments at the local (city) level are paid for by the tax dollars of *that* town or city. (Property taxes fund it all.)

So, for argument's sake, if Oconomwoc is 98% Christian and 95% of the property taxes in Oconomowoc are coming from local Christians, then that public property is *really* that of the Christians of Oconomowoc. Assuming government is established to "serve the people," as opposed to being established to serve the will of an elite few in NYC, Chicago, LA and the national Dear Party. Even if atheists are politically powerful in said Dear Party.
 
FastPace said:
Public land and public schools, police, fire departments at the local (city) level are paid for by the tax dollars of *that* town or city. (Property taxes fund it all.)

So, for argument's sake, if Oconomwoc is 98% Christian and 95% of the property taxes in Oconomowoc are coming from local Christians, then that public property is *really* that of the Christians of Oconomowoc. Assuming government is established to "serve the people," as opposed to being established to serve the will of an elite few in NYC, Chicago, LA and the national Dear Party. Even if atheists are politically powerful in said Dear Party.
Click to expand...

Absolutely incorrect. Our system is not set up to protect the majority, but rather the minority. I as an atheist have as much right to my speech as any Christian, Muslim, or Jew. And that is the problem. If you allow a Christian sign on public property, then you must allow all religion's signs on public property.
 
FastPace said:
Because I'm concerned more with what logically follows from what and not what people claim.
Click to expand...
In other words, you prefer to substitute your opinion and beliefs over actual evidence. Atheist groups have fought hard to eliminate official government endorsement or preference for religion. That is NOT the same as fighting to install an official belief in lack of gods. It does not logically follow.


Frankly, I see nothing implied in the 1st Amendment that one can reasonably infer from that free speech is meant to limit the expression of Christians in public or on public property (not that Christian tax payers aren't financing that public property) pertaining to the broad notion of "Christianity" (and no specific church).
Click to expand...
No one is claiming that it does. But as Justice Hugo Black wrote in the Opinion for Everson v Board of Education of Ewing Township 330 U.S. 1 (1947 "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State"

Now, what the 1st Amendment implies to me is that the religious, no matter their religion, will be protected from the state, and therefore Christians are free to pray in the halls of Congress, swear and oath on a Bible, and invoke the name of God Almighty.
Click to expand...
But the Establishment Clause also protects the people from the state using its power to promote religion or non-religion.

Post up Article 6 (I already looked at it online) of the Constitution and point out to me what portion of it implies separation of church and state as you understand it? Maybe it does and I'm overlooking something.
Click to expand...
Article VI: "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. " This is clearly keeping the government out of individual beliefs...the government cannot declare what is orthodox or allowed or not. Many states had religious tests, limiting government office to belief in God, belief in Heaven and Hell, belief in Christ, or to Protestants. By disallowing such tests that is clearly separating government office from religious belief.


I already provided the evidence in my earlier argument.
Click to expand...
No, you provided an assertion.
Your claim the atheist are seeking a neutrality in Oconmowoc because they are demanding all religious beliefs be allowed equal ground is nonsensical.
Click to expand...
I didn't claim that. Since it would not be possible to include all possible religions, and because there would be no point to it, neutrality is best achieved by silence and by not appearing to support any religion.


But inclusion is not the purpose. Public exclusion of Christianity is the purpose. To try and create the atheist state as atheists did in China, Vietnam, North Korea, and the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...
A claim which you cannot substantiate. Because it's not true. The easiest way to refute you is to point out that there are no efforts by atheists to exclude Private expressions of belief in the public sphere...only expressions that are endorsed by or could reasonably appear to be endorsed by, the government in any of its forms.
 
I demand that atheists take their hate-filled lives and get out of my Freedom of Religion face!
 
It's a democracy, or even if you want to call us a republic - majority still rules.
 
Clarkson said:
It's a democracy, or even if you want to call us a republic - majority still rules.
Click to expand...
Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address:
...All too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

In the U.S. we have the concept of "protected rights." As has been said many times, pure democracy without protected rights is 2 wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner.

Just as we cannot have an official religion, neither can we have an unofficial religion through majority rule.

Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe 530 U.S. 290 (2000) Justice Stevens for the majority:
Prior to 1995, a student elected as Santa Fe High School's student council chaplain delivered a prayer over the public address system before each home varsity football game. Respondents, Mormon and Catholic students or alumni and their mothers, filed a suit challenging this practice and others under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. While the suit was pending, petitioner school district (District) adopted a different policy, which authorizes two student elections, the first to determine whether "invocations" should be delivered at games, and the second to select the spokesperson to deliver them. After the students held elections authorizing such prayers and selecting a spokesperson, the District Court entered an order modifying the policy to permit only nonsectarian, nonproselytizing prayer. The Fifth Circuit held that, even as modified by the District Court, the football prayer policy was invalid.

Held: The District's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause

The delivery of a message such as the invocation here--on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer--is not properly characterized as "private" speech. Although the District relies heavily on this Court's cases addressing public forums, e.g., Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, it is clear that the District's pregame ceremony is not the type of forum discussed in such cases. The District simply does not evince an intent to open its ceremony to indiscriminate use by the student body generally, see, e.g., Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U. S. 260, 270, but, rather, allows only one student, the same student for the entire season, to give the invocation, which is subject to particular regulations that confine the content and topic of the student's message. The majoritarian process implemented by the District guarantees, by definition, that minority candidates will never prevail and that their views will be effectively silenced.

Important things to note about this decision: It was NOT brought about by atheists, and the goal was not to allow all prayers but to allow none.
 
jimbo said:
Absolutely incorrect. Our system is not set up to protect the majority, but rather the minority. I as an atheist have as much right to my speech as any Christian, Muslim, or Jew. And that is the problem. If you allow a Christian sign on public property, then you must allow all religion's signs on public property.
Click to expand...

Aristocrats and billionaires are the minority. But yeah... in practice I agree with you that the US exists to serve the will and wants of the minority that have either or both political and financial power. The majority exists--in practical terms of American daily life--to bow down before them and serve at their will.

But if you keep kicking a people they might one day decide to get up and fight back.
 
Renae said:
Did Congress make a law enabling that sign?
Click to expand...
The Constitution very likely makes it illegal.

The First Amendment bars the government from establishing a state-sponsored religion (as much to benefit the religious organization as it is the government and the polity).

The First Amendment is incorporated on the state level by the 14th Amendment.

As noted already, the questions are:
• Are the signs on government-owned property? If the land is private, the FFRF doesn't have a case.

• If the land is public, the Lemon Test applies, and would likely fail. Its purpose is not secular (as it is the churches, not the city, welcoming people; i.e. it is presenting a religious message). It advances religion, again as it is the churches (not the city) welcoming people. It would probably pass the 3rd test, but having failed the first two renders that issue moot.
 
Evilroddy said:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Click to expand...

The town is not Congress nor a branch of the Federal Government.
Click to expand...
The Establishment Clause was incorporated to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson v. Board of Education, 1947. Your understanding of the Constitution is at least 70 years out of date.


The sign does not establish any religion.
Click to expand...
I'd say it does, if and only if it's on public land.

Note that it doesn't need to be specific to be classified as establishing a religion. More generic terms or phrasing -- e.g. "the religious people welcome you" or "houses of worship welcome you" or "non-believers welcome you" or "the mosques welcome you" -- would cause the same problems. Note that the Lemon Test does not include any provisions for advancing a specific denomination or religion.


Expressions of welcoming are a traditional expression of religious freedom.
Click to expand...
Sure... if they're on private or church-owned property.

However, if it's on public land, who is making the expression? The churches? No, they don't own the land or the sign. It's the state making the expression, and that violates the Establishment Clause.


The town is not promoting a religion, its allowing members of the town to welcome everyone who comes to the town whether they are people of faith or not.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. It's using state property to deliver a religious message.


Another way of looking at this is as follows. A religion is defined as an organised body of people who share a faith in something or some principles, worship that/those principle(s) and place their faith above reason or argument. Atheists make a leap of faith when they declare there is no God, just as people of faith do when they declare there is a god or gods. Therefore Atheism is a defacto religion based on faith in the principles of "Observation" and "Logic" and this leads to the secular-faith that there is no god/gods.
Click to expand...
We already know that non-belief -- organized or not -- is treated the same as a "religion" for legal purposes, including both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.

However, barring this sign is not establishing non-belief. The city is not putting up a new sign saying "the non-believers welcome you." It prevents the state from violating the Establishment Clause. The fact that numerous religious displays have been removed by the courts should be more than sufficient to demonstrate the paucity of your legal reasoning.


There is no legal case here.
Click to expand...
There might be a case. However, the FFRF hasn't actually sued anyone; the group has asked the town to remove it, and says they want to avoid lawsuits. The "defense" here is a conservative / libertarian group sending the Mayor a letter asking him not to remove it.

If it does get to the courts, there certainly is enough to press a case, and possibly win.


There is however a political agenda here and as such the signs may be removed if enough pressure is applied to the town. It is up to the people of the town and people of faith to defend their right to welcome others in the face of this political attack.
Click to expand...
Or: It is up to the people of the town to understand the rights outlined in the Constitution, and push the city to obey the Constitution.

Of course, the group(s) could just move the sign onto adjacent private property. The city is no longer involved, there is no grounds for a lawsuit, the sign is displayed as long as the property owner keeps it there. Sounds like a win-win to me.
 
Visbek said:
The Constitution very likely makes it illegal.

The First Amendment bars the government from establishing a state-sponsored religion (as much to benefit the religious organization as it is the government and the polity).

The First Amendment is incorporated on the state level by the 14th Amendment.

As noted already, the questions are:
• Are the signs on government-owned property? If the land is private, the FFRF doesn't have a case.

• If the land is public, the Lemon Test applies, and would likely fail. Its purpose is not secular (as it is the churches, not the city, welcoming people; i.e. it is presenting a religious message). It advances religion, again as it is the churches (not the city) welcoming people. It would probably pass the 3rd test, but having failed the first two renders that issue moot.
Click to expand...

No, poorly decided judicial decision making which does nto take into account the intent of the founders makes it "unconstitutional". One merely needs to look at the actions and words fo those who WROTE the Constitution to clearly see how absurd the notion that this town sign is somehow "unconstitutional". I pray one day we'll realize that mistake and fix it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom