American Atheists Action Alert RALLY ON THE STEPS OF SUPREME COURT FOR TEN COMMANDMENTS DECISION THIS MONDAY, JUNE 20, 2005 — 9:00 AMAmerican Atheists along with representative of other Atheist, Freethought, Humanist and separationist groups will rally at the U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC next Monday, June 20, 2005.This is in anticipation of a possible decision by the high court in two important cases regarding display of the Ten Commandments and other religious documents/symbols on public property.The event begins at 9:00 AM (weather permitting) and will include a program of speakers from numerous organizations.Most observers agree that the decision in the two Ten Commandments cases will be announced on either Monday, June 20, or at the end of the current session, Monday, June 27. We are rallying on this coming Monday (6/20) in anticipation of a possible ruling. If the court does not announce its decision on that day, we will likely be back in Washington on the steps of the court the following week. For updates, visit http://www.atheists.org/decisionday .
Generations of ServiceMurderer Dies in PrisonSomething OldSomething NewSo Help Me Nobody -- Court affirmationsSix Myths about MMOHSeparation of Church and State, A RebuttalSchool Prayer FAQsSchool Prayer Decision (Madalyn Murray O’Hair)Spirits, Souls, and ClonesSponsor the ShowSusan B. AnthonyTestimony to US Civil Rights CommissionTexas State PageThe 10C's V. NeutralityThe Atheist: Madalyn's BiographyThe Battle is JoinedThe Battle of PhiladelphiaRushdie Missing from Book FairRock of Ages and the Age of RocksRobert OwenMythicist PrizeNativity - The origins of the Birth of JesusNazareth, Faith, and the Dark OptionNo More Ham -- A look at several Black Atheist LeadersNoahs Flood -- DebateOdd InquiriesOn WeddingsOther Gods that Look a LOT Like JesusPledge of AllegiancePledge of Allegiance - Dave's LetterPre-Christian Christmas Stories with Other GodsRaising Children Without GodRed Herring Rushdie IRed Herring Rushdie IIReligion Tax Office OpenedRoadside CrossesRobert G. Ingersoll The Black Atheists of The Harlem RenaissanceThe Cons of Charitable ChoiceTo Bash or Not to BashTom Cruise Pushes for FBI Funding for ScientologyTop Ten Atheist MythsVolunteers NeededWas Jesus a Jew?Was Jesus InventedWatch the Words!Wedding VowsWhat is the object of life? by Grant AllenWhat is Wrong with a Few Harmless Prayers?What to ask Preachers and MissionariesWhere Jesus Never WalkedWhite House Expands Faith-Based InitiativesWho are the freethinkers?Why I am an Infidel: Luther BurbankWhy is Religiosity so Hard to CureWhy the Truth About Nazareth is ImportantTill Death Do Us Part?Thomas Alva Edison: An Introduction by Frank Zindler Thomas Alva Edison: 1911 Columbian InterviewThe Creator BillThe DisappearanceThe Enlightenment, Freemasonry, and The IlluminatiThe Final Taboo: Electing AtheistsThe Good Old DaysThe Hon. Atheist Governor: Culbert L. Olson.The Inconsistency of TheismThe Kiwi QuestionThe Logic of Death by George J. Holyoake The Myth of Nazareth, Does it Really Matter?The Question of Atheists HospitalsThe Roots of AtheismThe School Prayer DecisionThe Science of CreationismThe Wild World of CreationismTheopolitics of the Rushdie CaseThomas Alva Edison 1910 NYT InterviewWinning an Unwinnable DebateChristianity, Its Nature and Influence on Civilisation by Charles Watts Christians in UniformCircuit Court Rules for "Aphorisms"Congress Rushes to preserve Clergy Tax BreaksContradictions in the BibleConvencion en espanolConvention 2010 ScheduleCourt Probing Parsonage TaxCowardice of the WestCreation Science and the FACT of EvolutionCreationism: Reversing ScienceCreator Bill TextDave's Favorite Biblical InconsistenciesDebate: Is Creationism Science (Zindler / Gish)Did Jesus Exist?Edwin C. Walker: American AtheistErnestine Rose: A Troublesome FemaleCharles WattsCase is Solved12 Further Fictions from the NTA Declaration of Mental Independence, by Robert Owen Abner KneelandAgainst the 10 Commandments in PublicAgnosticism: The Basis for AtheismAims and PrinciplesAlabamaAmerican Atheists Legal PhilosophyAn Atheist's Guide to MohammedanismAtheism by O'HairAtheism: Madalyn Murray O'Hair 1962 speechAtheist Director Wins Creche CaseAtheist MusiciansAtheist StationAtheist WeddingsBiblical ContradictionsBigotry Worst Against AtheistsEthics Without GodsFCC Religion HoaxMoslem Violence in BrittainInterview: Douglas AdamsJames Lick Jesus MythKeep Politics Out Of The Pulpit or Lose Tax-Exempt Status: Opinion Kentucky Homeland Security LawsuitKersey GravesLessons from The Satanic VersesmaMA Church Dismayed over DisplayMaculate Deception: The "Science" of CreationsimMangasar Magurditch Mangasarian Mary Faker Eddy -- Christian ScienceMOMormonismInaccurate Founding Father QuotesHurricane Katrina Boosts FBIGod on OUR MoneyFree WillFrom the Mouths of CreationistsFundamentalismFunerals - Dying an AtheistGeorge J. Holyoake - The last man in England tried for Atheism George J. Holyoake by Madalyn Murray O'HairGod in OUR PledgeGrant Allen How Jesus Got a LifeHang the Commandments -- All 30 of ThemHubert Henry Harrison: The Black Socrates aboutlawatheismFaith of the Founding Fathersreligionpoliticsyouth & familymilitarymediaLibraryeventsStoreJoin & Supportorphans
nogodkevin,
Thank you for the complete quotation. Now if you care to, would you explain how in recent times it has been construed somehow to read what in my mind it clearly does not say. Specifically, that there is some kind of “wall” between church and state. That somehow we must expunge all mention of God in any public setting. That no-one can utter the word, or talk about it in any way in our schools.
I haven’t seen any evidence to date that any government, local ,state, or national has established any state religion. I have seen plenty of evidence, however of people persuading judges (agents of the government)to enter decrees ” … prohibiting the free exercise thereof” and “… abridging the freedom of speech…”
I guess it would be helpful if folks would distinguish between establishing a religion and simply acknowledging what a majority in this country believe. The two are not the same.
If you go back to the early years of our nation and read contemporary writing on the subject, it is evident that leaders of the time as well as society in general were people of faith who understood the place God had in their lives as well as in the founding of nations.
Finally, I think part of the problem today is that there are folks who stridently insist that they are entitled to freedom FROM religion. This is not what the first amendment to our Constitution was intended to provide.
Perhaps they could have takeaway menus instead?
Perhaps they could have takeaway menus instead?
We would like to display our documents also….
http://www.venganza.org/
All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
I’m tired of them trying to get away with displaying the 10 commandments by saying it’s an early example of law. It is an example of laws, but the laws in our country are supposed to be rational and objective, which the commandments certainly are not. Due to the separation of church and state, religious documents, even if they do happen to be examples of law, aren’t supposed to be in any of our government buildings.
Tim,
I could write a whole tome on this. I’ll make an entry soon on the subject, since it is topical.
Dave
Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster end up having some sort of child with a human through a non-sexual process? I would rather it be sexual though. Something unusual as well, that would be most interesting.
The Spaghetti Monster has many noodly appendages, so it’s quite possible. Let me consult the book of sauce. When the smoke from the stack turns black, you will have your answer.
LOL. I think it would be best if if the Spaghetti Monster was bisexual, and impaled people via the anus, alternating on each noodly appendage. Then he could spin them around as if it was some sort of amusement ride.
I would like for someone to show me the relevant text in our Constitution that there is some sort of absolute separation or “wall” between church and state. I would also like to know why I never see the Constitution quoted properly when it comes to this topic.
Isn’t it true that most of what we hear from folks up in arms about this so-called “wall” has only been heard in recent history? Can someone please look into our nation’s not to distant past and provide a rational perspective on the necessity to expunge all mention of God from our public discourse?
Isn’t it funny that the “FIRST”
amendment to the constitution
would be what it is..
“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.”
— First Amendment, The Constitution of the United States
The framers didn’t like “kings” or
“lords”
I wonder how the christains would like it if Islam became the dominate
religion and our money said “in allah we trust” etc…?
Tim,
The direct quote is from a letter by Thomas Jefferson which described the intent of the 1st Amendment as “an impenetrable wall between church and state”. This was used by the Supreme Court to make the law of the land.
To make it very clear, “freedom of religion” does not mean “freedom FROM religion”, but it does INCLUDE freedom from religion. If we don’t have the freedom to practice as we see fit, even if it is not at all, then we are not free!
I can’t write more right now, but I indent to make a thread on this subject in the immediate future.
Yes back in the early years of the nation I’m sure that people believed in God more often, they had to otherwise they were labeled a witch and burned at the stake or labeled a commie and thrown in jail or shuned from their communities. It’s all about progress, people are finally waking up to the biggest con of all time “Religion”. As we find out more about the physical universe the concept of a god “at least to logical people” is as laughable as the concept of the Easter Bunny. Enjoy it Tim while it lasts.
I have a couple quotes that might shed some light on this issue. “There can be no freedom without the freedom to dissent.” I’m not sure where that one is from, but it applies here. The more famous quote is this one from Ulysses S. Grant: “Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and the state forever separated.” The controversy over the 10 commandments arises because people want to put something religious inside a government building, which is seen by many as the government’s endorsement of a particular belief. An individual person has the “free exercise” and the freedom of speech to put the commandments in their yard, but when the commandments are displayed inside or on the property of a government building, the issue becomes a different matter entirely. That’s the government showing favoritism toward one particular religion, which could easily lead to their making laws to estabish that religion (where do you draw the line?). I wonder how the Christians would take it if they saw the teachings of Buddha or the laws of Islam displayed on government property?
David,
I’m well acquainted with the quote from Thomas Jefferson. It is used often, but unless you look at more material from the era you would likely draw the wrong conclusion. Notice that his wording is not in the Constitution.
On your other point and I quote, “If we don’t have the freedom to practice as we see fit, even if it is not at all, then we are not free!”
Who has taken away any person’s right to practice no religion if they so choose? The answer is that no-one in or out of government has done such a thing.
For example, if I am in a public place or building where people are expressing their views on something as they have a right to do, am I gauranteed the right to be free FROM having to hear what they are saying? No. Hey, it’s my tax dollars that are paying for their forum to speak, right? I don’t agree with them so do I then tell them they have no right to use something that belongs to all of us to express their views? Of course not and it would be absurd to suggest such a thing.
In this example the government was not endorsing their views, simply providing for the free exercise thereof. The same thing can be said of displaying the ten commandments, or putting up nativity scenes, or having a moment of silence or prayer before ballgames, or asking for a blessing before a meeting or function. I’m sorry if some do not particularly like what they hear, but they can simply be respectful and accept the fact that others are expressing themselves as they have the freedom to do. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives anyone a right to be free from whatever offends them! Pure and simple (at least in my humble opinion)
Tim,
As to Jefferson, he WROTE the Constitution, then he WROTE about what he wrote, what they discussed, and what they (all) signed. That’s what makes the separation so weighty, and that’s why it’s law of the land.
You use a LOT of doublespeak. For instance, it is not illegal to speak about religion in a public square, but it IS endorsement of one religion if the government places icons in that same square, or (in Muslim countries) the government calls people to public squares to pray. Same with an individual saying a prayer vs leading a class in prayer in public school. You know the difference!
I suppose after a point we get into the realm of interpretation. I understand that Thomas Jefferson was one of the founders who wrote the Constitution, but despite his contemporary writings the language of the first amendment simply is not that specific.
Of course there are numerous other examples of interpretations of the Constitution which have changed over the years. There are reasons for this and one that comes to mind is that our society has changed over time. To some people, myself included it seems as if we have strayed too far from our founding principles. Others truly believe that we are slowly getting closer to what we should be by changing!
Thus we find ourselves debating the meaning of all these things. This is good because that is what our country is all about. You are never going to satisfy everyone and like it or not, the majority in this country often prevail.
I think I made a cogent point concerning the public square issue. It is that government allows people to use public property to express their views all the time. You know, people don’t don’t give up their right to free speech just because they work for the municipality that allows a nativity scene to be put up. They are paid via the mechanism of taxes, but that doesn’t give individual taxpayers the right to stifle their free speech.
I think there is a reasonable distinction to be made between endorsement and allowing people to express their beliefs. Of course each of us love to cite examples, but it is still an open question as to where all of this will end up!
Nativity scenes in a public square are a perfect example. Does it squelch my rights to free speech if a nativity scene goes up in a town hall? No — unless I’m not allowed to put up a similar display for my beliefs.
It’s about FAIRNESS and EQUALITY. If they can do it, so can we. If we can’t, neither can they. That’s FAIR.
SO, if the Christians can put up a 10C, then the Atheists, the Scientologists, the Buddists, everyone, should get equal space. If not, it’s a free speech issue. If we all get to do it, that’s legal. Messy, but legal.
biloxi casino
You are invited to take a look at some relevant pages about mississippi casinos
Buy Pet Prescriptions Online
You are invited to visit the sites in the field of Selling Prescriptions Online Legal
viagra canada
You are invited to check out some helpful info dedicated to free viagra
online texas holdem
You can also visit some relevant information about texas holdem t shirt
online texas holdem
You can also visit some relevant information about texas holdem t shirt