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
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
Justice is served and the Constitution upheld.
Get ready for the religious reaction. “They are persecuting us!” because they want fair rules for everyone. How dare they! Those activist judges.
While I agree with the rulings, the definition of religious worship is a little fuzzy. For instance, if a religious group is using a conference room in a library and have a meeting, can they pray before the meeting? It seems the devil may be in the details. I think if people had common sense (like not being obnoxious with prayer in a public place, like Jesus even tells his followers, including me, not to do) and respect for each other, we wouldn’t need courts to rule on issues like this. It’s a shame, really.
Pha
I think the religious reaction will be. “Hey BushCo! What the f***! We supported you gawd damn wars in exchange for a Buybull thumping religious supreme court. So where is it. I sh**. I’m an idiot.”
That should have been “So where is it? Oh sh**. I’m an idiot”. Need a previewer here.
So I guess Dave won’t be using public libraries anymore to debate religion…
Please give an example of a “special right”…?
Personally, I don’t understand what gives the government the right to determine what the Catholic charities have to cover under their rx plan.
If every group is allow equal opp to hold meetings or worship in a public library. How would that violated the establishment clause?
Also, I wouldn’t say the the supreme court wpheld the rulings, rather they just refuse to hear the case.
Brad,
Public libraries are funded (at least in part) by taxes. If you open the door to one religion, you have to open them to all of them. How would you feel if EVERY room available at the library were being used for worship of ALL the various religions(muslim, hare krishna, satanists, etc.)at the expense of the multitude of other (civic) meetings?
That’s why the founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state.
Government is not there to subsidize religion!
As to the first part of your post, do you believe that you should not be able to obtain your prescription based upon your employers whim?
Brad,
If a charity wishes to receive government funding then it must not expect the right to discriminate against providing it’s workers with birth control. Give up the government support and then you can do whatever you want.
The ruling stops religious worship in public libraries and not the use by religious organisations for non worship activities. If a baptist group wants to use the library to organise a missionary trip there is no problem but if they want to use the library to hold church then it is a problem and in direct violation of the establishment clause.
No, I believe that I shouldn’t be able to obtain rx due too my employer’s whim, but then again that’s not what we’re talking about here. No, this is about the employer having to subsidize the rx. There is nothing stopping these individuals from paying for the rx themselves.
As for the libraires allowing church worshipping. I never said I liked the idea, only that I didn’t see how it went against the est clause. If the government allows church groups to use tax payer facilities, it does’t mean that they are making a law that est. A religion. Churches benefit from taxpayer $ all the time ie roads and other infrastructer.
Spanders for President!
Phreedumb for Head Idiot!
brad,
The employer is only subsidizing (in part or full is irrelevant)the insurance company. As such, it’s none of the employer’s business what Rx is being filled unless it affects the employee’s performance of duties.
Alex,
NY law states that any NY employer must offer bc if they have a rx plan. Whether or not they accept public money they’d still be required to offer bc coverage. Insurance manadates such as these are a major contrib factor to the escalating health care costs. On the other subject, how woukd allowing any religous group that wanted to, to worship on public property violate the est clause.
Once again Phreeky proves he can’t read.
But the ruling and the above article read
Poor Phreeky. The stigma of illiteracy.
brad
Many women use birth control to regulate long, painful and irregular periods. Plus, BC is expensive, and w/o Rx plans might not be used. Then the birth rate would go up and health care costs would really escalate.
As for the establishment clause, if the courts make a ruling that church groups can use public places for religious meetings, that sets the precedent for establishing a religion in a PUBLIC domain. Churches are to remain private organizations, raise their own funding and meet on their own property for religious purposes.
They’re paying a good portion of the premium, so yes they should have a say. If you don’t like the plan then find a new job. In this case I’m not sure whether the policy is fi or aso, if the latter then they most definitely have every right to know.
Karen,
Most bc is only about $30 a month and walmart just started offering two of the more popular types for $8 a month, which means other pharm will follow suit. Thos has nothing to do with the necessity of bc, which I have no prob with, only with the government forcing organizations to offer insurance plans they deem necessary.
phreedm,
I’m not sure who brainwashed you, but they did a good job.
Tax exempt status for churches that do no charitable work.
Name the secular analogue to that one.
brad
Yes, $30/mo is about right for the oral variety. Some women can’t tolerate it. It costs more for an intrauterine device, which requires an office visit, but I suppose the cost evens out over time.
Do you also have a problem with govt. forcing plans for diabetics and heart patients and mental health programs?
What
phreedm sees what he wants to see, then calls the rest of us blind.
phreedm
The two court cases the thread is about are examples of churches pleading for special rights.
Karen,
I don’t think the government should mandate what a policy should cover. On the other end though an employer would be stupid, in my opinion, by not offer such programs in their plans
brad,
You wrote:
Then you followed up with this:
What? It looks like you answered your own question. Or are you objecting to a church group being held to the same standards as everyone else?
Special Pleading?
I don’t get what you don’t understand in regards to the establishment clause.
The US govt. is restricted from sponsorship of religion. Any religion. Period.
Taxes go to govt., govt. disburses tax collected revenue to govt. sponsored public institutions(like a public library).
Churches already get “special treatment” in that they don’t pay taxes. They should get more?
Churches are actually exempt from this bc law in ny,. Catholic charities are not considered church organizations under the law.
What,
No, I don’t feel the government should have a say in what employer chooses to offer as a rx plan. Whether is a church not wanting to offer bc due to moral reasons or some factory that will rcv a 10% discount on premiums if they don’t offer bc.
Although I’m not really proud of the Supreme Court (being loaded by religious conservatives as it is), I’m glad they understand the U.S. Constitution better that brad!
I have to wonder if they even teach “Civics” in school anymore. If so, it looks like someone’s been skipping class.
Brad
Fortunately most people in this country see the huge potential for abuse of workers under the type of system you are suggesting. I suggest, as an exercise, you try to list a few such potential abuses. It’ll do you good.
PS: Why was your last post addressing me?
Brad,
40+ million uninsured workers in this country.
Less regulation would certainly not improve those numbers.
What pointed out the potential for abuse ? one need only look back to worker conditions before unions and government regulation to see tangible examples of such abuse. Certainly unions and government regulation has its faults, inefficiencies and abuses, but turning over all responsibility to corporations has/will never solve the problem. These kinds of issues are always best resolved through a balance of power.
Brad:
Do they actually get a discount for NOT offering bc?
It would seem to me that pregnancy, and the health issues that may arise from it, are far more expensive for insurance companies than offering bc coverage in their policies. Not to mention, for the company itself, the cost of lost productivity due to absences from pregnancy-related issues, and possible family leave time would be far more expensive than saving 10 percent on a premium.
So the catholics have to pay for insurance for bc. Bid deal, surely no catholic working for them would ever use it. Don’t they have the self control to not use it? If the catholics can not control their own flock, why should the government enable them(church) to make it harder for those that may need it.
If none of their insured use bc, eventually the insurance should get cheaper, unless it causes more cost over runs, then it may get more expensive. The church can save money or loose money. They still have the right to vilify birth control, and attempt through their normal methods of intimidation and fear mongering to make the insured not use the benefits of the insurance.
Basically this is not really much of a victory. The catholics only have a harder case to make to their workers.
Comment from: alatham [Member]
Brainwashed…? No…informed. Since when is a tax exemption a “right”…?
It’s all in the wording…Dave makes it seem as if “religious organizations” are asking for something new…?
They aren’t…What they desire is to keep the governement out of religion…oh, but the myth is a one way street…
So here’s the question…since so many on this board believe in the “myth”…then why should the government be able to dictate to a religious organziation on how to run their business…?
Yes Karen…even a blind person can see this whinning proves it’s a myth…
I’ll say it again…AA and the ACLU use the myth to extort tax dollars from their troops…it’s a common tactic…
Create a crisis…and then ride to the rescue…
But hey…keep funding them…and if you dare…pull up the Goldstar report and see where your nickles are going…
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.