AMERICAN ATHEISTS applauded this morning’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to let stand two lower court rulings upholding the First Amendment’s establishment clause guaranteeing the separation of government and religion.In CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE DIOCESE OF ALBANY v. DINALLO, justices supported the decision of the New York State Court of Appeals that faith-based social service organizations which hire non-Catholic staffers must subsidize birth control/family planning devices as part of prescription drug coverage.In FAITH CENTER CHURCH v. GLOVER, the high court let standing a 9th U.S. Circuit Court decision that while public libraries must accommodate religious meetings as they do other organizations, public facilities may not be made available for religious worship.Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists said she was pleasantly surprised by today’s rulings.”The high court justices got it right, and drew the legal line when it comes to providing faith-based social programs and other religious groups with special, discriminatory legal protections.”Dave Silverman, Communications Director for American Atheists, said that while today’s Supreme Court decision was encouraging, the effort to protect the First Amendment’s establishment clause must continue.”Religious organizations continue to demand ‘special rights’ above and beyond what are provided to private individuals, business and secular groups,” said Mr. Silverman. “We say: there must be a level playing field, and that churches or other religious organizations cannot ignore anti-discrimination statutes or other laws by citing the teachings of their particular faith.”AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for Atheists; works for the total separation of church and state; and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.American Atheists, Inc.P. O. Box 5733Parsippany, NJ 07054-6733Tel.: (908) 276-7300Fax: (908) 276-7402
Dickhead,
Are you suggesting that Mormons should be allowed to practice polygamy? What about Ras Tifarians? They should be allowed to smoke pot? Indians use mescaline? Pagans sacrafice animals on altars?
What a dipshit. Go back to sleep before you hurt yourself.
Lol, I could just see a strip of churches that you could join, do their drug or vice of choice, then leave and go home. We could set them up in every major city. The idea of letting religion exclude you from the law sounds profitable. Everyone could make their own religion to permit what they like, and the government would be powerless. I would make my own church, all members are allowed to do anything they like, but they must suck me to join. In my church I can kill anyone I like. The government would be prohibiting my religion to stop me. God would not like that. Chaos ensues…….
jshanewhit
You are making Phreeky salivate.
That’s not accurate. The Ninth Circuit did not say that public facilities may not be made available for religious worship (although that may be true). All the court said was that Contra Costa County’s prohibition of religious worship services in its library meeting rooms was not an unreasonable infringement of the church’s free speech rights.
The Ninth Circuit decided the case on First Amendment grounds, but not on the religion clauses (establishment/free exercise). It was decided strictly on free speech grounds. It would be a mistake, I think, to suggest that the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari represents a victory for separation of church and state.
Wow! The pinhead is ‘fessing up.
Note the accurate word “business”. That’s why they should be paying taxes.
And please, no whining in regards to being a “non-profit organization”. It merely emphasizes the hypocrisy of which many are already aware.
phreedm,
Since churches were allowed to ask for it despite serving no publicly useful purpose.
Comment from: alatham
No useful public purpose…? Wow…talk about being blind.
Tell me…who did more relief work after Katrina. The Feds? The atheists? Or the churches?
Obviously you’ve been schooled in the understanding that the Feds are the answer to all…however, before the “Great Society” plan put forth by LBJ, it was the churches who provided for the down trodden…but then again…that has to do with American History…and I wouldn’t expect you to know that…
And again I’ll state…tax exemption is NOT a right…
So I’m still waiting for someone to back up Dave’s statement…
Or do the minions believe everything they hear as long as it’s against religion…?
Should we take up a collection to pay for Phreddy’s medications? It seems he has run out.
You must have been reading a different first admendment becuase no where does it say seperation of church and state. Here is the real first admentdment in its entirity.
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 greviances.
Now that does nowhere say the seperation of Church and state. Seperation of church and state is not in the Bill of Rights, other admendments, or even in the constition. If you are going to make a law seperating church and state. Fine do it. But do not even for a second think it is in the Constition. The term seperation of church and state comes from a letter that was written by Thomas Jefferson to a woman. In it he expressed how he felt that the seperation of church and state should be allowed. Why? Becuase he felt that unless that law were passed the government would try to interfere with the church. It was meant to keep the state out of the church. And not vice versa. You have twisted something that was said. So as far as I am concerned the judges should be fired becuase they do not even uphold the Constition they claim to be servig.
standsforchrist
In all your excitement to point out the SOCAS problem, as you see it, you forgot to use your spell checker. I know you must be a little nervous, what with being on an atheist site and all. So I just want to gently help you with your spelling.
amendment
because
separation
entirety
grievances
Constitution
serving
Not getting into the whole Jefferson letter to the Baptists thing. We’ve done that to death.
In the cases involved, in what ways do you feel the justices did not uphold the Constitution?
Or are you merely shrieking “Activist Judges!” because the ruling didn’t go the way you’d have liked?
Cheese is priced high! I hope this kid hasn’t graduated high school with such a serious lack of thinking (let alone spelling)skills yet. Maybe there’s still time to “git sum a thet their edjumacation”.
standsforchrist,
Yeah, I’m with ya there big guy, there is no Constitution. W burned it with his almighty cross.
I’ve been wondering if a christian would ever stop by that could actually speak for the father-son-spooky thingie. Now, you obviously are a mormon because mormons are the only ones that are allowed to talk directly to the christian god-idea. So if you truly do stand for christ you really need direct contact with the fss thingie, I would expect. You are obviously a male because only males can have talks with the christian god-idea, as has been stated by the mormons in the latest version of your god-idea book.
So is your god-idea angry at all the non-mormon christians for not living by the latest edition of the god-idea book? Changing the title of the book was probably a good idea because like there are sooo many different versions of that other one. Who could possibly know which one is correct without the direct contact that the mormons provide?
I know you mormons don’t like to talk about it openly very often but, hey, how many wives do you have? Have you done your duty to your god-idea and made sure they are always “with child”?
Well, I’ll let you get back to over populating the world because I know that is the most important thing you need to do for your christian god-idea. Don’t let your grand children’s best interests stand in your way standsforchrist, you just make sure you keep making more mormons.