Comments on: ATHEISTS PRAISE HIGH COURT RULINGS http://atheists.org/blog/2007/10/01/atheists_praise_high_court_rulings A Blog of Atheist Thought Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:32:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: alexatheist http://atheists.org/blog/2007/10/01/atheists_praise_high_court_rulings/comment-page-1#comment-67406 alexatheist Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-67406 Justice is served and the Constitution upheld.<br /> Justice is served and the Constitution upheld.

]]> By: pha http://atheists.org/blog/2007/10/01/atheists_praise_high_court_rulings/comment-page-1#comment-67410 pha Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-67410 Get ready for the religious reaction. "They are persecuting us!" because they want fair rules for everyone. How dare they! Those activist judges. Get ready for the religious reaction. “They are persecuting us!” because they want fair rules for everyone. How dare they! Those activist judges.

]]> By: spanders http://atheists.org/blog/2007/10/01/atheists_praise_high_court_rulings/comment-page-1#comment-67413 spanders Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-67413 <blockquote>public libraries must accommodate<br /> religious meetings as they do other organizations, public facilities may<br /> not be made available for religious worship.</blockquote>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.

public libraries must accommodate
religious meetings as they do other organizations, public facilities may
not be made available for religious worship.

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.

]]> By: what http://atheists.org/blog/2007/10/01/atheists_praise_high_court_rulings/comment-page-1#comment-67424 what Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-67424 Pha<br /> <br /> 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." 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.”

]]> By: what http://atheists.org/blog/2007/10/01/atheists_praise_high_court_rulings/comment-page-1#comment-67425 what Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-67425 That should have been "So where is it? Oh sh**. I'm an idiot". Need a previewer here. That should have been “So where is it? Oh sh**. I’m an idiot”. Need a previewer here.

]]> By: phreedm http://atheists.org/blog/2007/10/01/atheists_praise_high_court_rulings/comment-page-1#comment-67438 phreedm Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-67438 So I guess Dave won't be using public libraries anymore to debate religion...<br /> <br /> <blockquote>"Religious organizations continue to demand 'special rights'</blockquote><br /> <br /> Please give an example of a "special right"...? So I guess Dave won’t be using public libraries anymore to debate religion…

“Religious organizations continue to demand ’special rights’

Please give an example of a “special right”…?

]]> By: brad14146 http://atheists.org/blog/2007/10/01/atheists_praise_high_court_rulings/comment-page-1#comment-67441 brad14146 Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-67441 Personally, I don't understand what gives the government the right to determine what the Catholic charities have to cover under their rx plan. <br /> <br /> If every group is allow equal opp to hold meetings or worship in a public library. How would that violated the establishment clause? <br /> Also, I wouldn't say the the supreme court wpheld the rulings, rather they just refuse to hear the case.<br /> 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.

]]> By: 666 http://atheists.org/blog/2007/10/01/atheists_praise_high_court_rulings/comment-page-1#comment-67443 666 Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-67443 Brad,<br /> 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?<br /> That's why the founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state.<br /> Government is not there to subsidize religion!<br /> 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,
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?

]]> By: alexatheist http://atheists.org/blog/2007/10/01/atheists_praise_high_court_rulings/comment-page-1#comment-67444 alexatheist Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-67444 Brad,<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> 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.

]]> By: brad14146 http://atheists.org/blog/2007/10/01/atheists_praise_high_court_rulings/comment-page-1#comment-67447 brad14146 Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-67447 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. <br /> <br /> 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. <br /> 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.

]]>