Taking The Gloves Off...

I beg your pardon, but the First Amendment does not suggest or guarantee that no religious symbols or icons will be allowed in public places, on public property, and that there will be no mention of religion in Government. The First Amendment states:

"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."

To "Make no law respecting an establishment of religion", is a clear reference to the establishment of a State Church body, the likes of which was forced upon the population of England-- No forced tithing, no forced attendance, no forced membership. This "establishment clause" does not state that religion will not be allowed to be seen in government or public buildings, but that the government will not, can not select and enforce a religion upon the populace. Also, it guarantees our basic human right to practice (or not practice) religion. Sir, the appearance of religious symbols and icons is no more an infringement upon the First Amendment, than the lack of them would be. However, removing them or demanding that they and any mention of religion not be present is in many cases enforcing a tacit regulation to prevent people from the free exercise of their religion. I fail to understand why the presence of such things is a problem for Atheists. If these symbols have no meaning for you, then ignore them. For example, I am not a Catholic. I personally feel that having statues of Mary, Jesus and other men and women, calling them saints, leaving flowers or incense by them and kneeling to pray by them is in it's very essence, an act of idolatry, which is a grievous sin--For me. However, just because I believe this and apply it to myself does not compel me to go out and try to remove all statues and symbols of this nature. I ignore them, and respect the Catholic's right to find comfort in them. It's really no skin off my nose. Most Christians feel the same. It has to do with removing the log from our own eyes before we try to remove the mote from our brother's. Why then must the Atheist demand that all Christian symbols and references be removed from any place where their eyes may fall? Why can't an Atheist ignore them? I've wanted to ask an Atheist this for many years, and every time I have, the answer has had to do with the First Amendment and the Separation clause of the Constitution. The thing is, there is no Separation Clause in the Constitution. The "Separation of Church and State," is no where in the Constitution, and such a sepration did not enter the national consciousness of the United States until the late 1930's. By this time the Constitution was creeping up on it's 150th birthday. I'm sure that an individual as interested in this cause as you are, must be aware of that the only time there is a reference to Separation of Church and State was when Thos. Jefferson wrote a letter responding to the Danbury Baptist Association over their concerns of rumors that the Federal Government was getting ready to establish a federally required mode of practicing the Christian Faith. Pres. Jefferson's response:

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
(Bracketed portion was not published in the newspaper, but was included in his draft, which is what is here cited. The "occasional performances of devotion" he mentions were the days of thanks giving and fasting and prayer that his predecessors, Washington and Adams had announced at different times. For although Jefferson was a devout Christian, he did not feel it was his place to make such proclomations)

The first incidence of "the wall of Separation" appearing in federal legal documents, that I've found to date, was in the hearings of one Mr. Reynolds (REYNOLDS v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878)) and the Supreme Court concluded that while the State cannot legislate or govern what a person believes religiously, (in this case that a Mormon man has a religious duty to marry as many women as he can), the State CAN govern actions, or govern to limit actions. It was not until 1947, in Everson vs. Bord of Education that the so-called "Separation Clause" was used to eject religion from a government establishment, in that case, a school--and this was not because the students were being forced to participate in religious activities, but because students were permitted the option of attending religious instruction activities, while others could choose secular activities. The religious activity was cobbled together by Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant individuals to be a sort of one-size-fits-all class, so a question of the State supporting one religion over another was not really in question. It was a question of religion in general being ejected from public or government activities, something that was never intended to be gleaned from the First Amendment. This supposed clause has been skewed and misinterpreted ever since unfortunately, and is now used to prevent people from the free practice of their religion in an ever tightening noose designed to remove any reference to our Judeo-Christian heritage which is the basis for our system of laws and our American tradition.

So much for the history lesson, and my opinions on it.

My question to you then, is this: You state that "Outside of [a list of obviously illegal acts,] I have no issues save the First Amendment violations." Understanding that historically, there is no Constitutional guarantee that there would be no religion, no prayer and no religious symbols in Federal or State buildings or on any public property, what are the "First Amendment violations" you refer to??

It's intentionally and purposefully sliced fine, Geoih. They are a small group, but have a long reach. And how, exactly, did I imply violence when I specifically said,

"We need to be firm with them, we need to counter their activism with our own activism and make sure that we stay within the bounds of the law, and use the legal system to our advantage."

As well, where did I state any religions was "good," as you quoted. It is my opinion that ALL religion is poisonous to one degree or another. The fundamentalists and extremists are, by far, the most dangerous by virtue of their penchant for violence as a form of proselytizing.

Or, are you in favor of letting them continue on with their bombings, shootings, beatings and other forms of physical coercion?

Coopdetat,

I am quite used to being taken out of context, it goes with the territory. I was very clear that I was referring to extremist doctrines, and not mainstream faith, and definitely not people. I was very clear that those of us who do not believe (infidels) are frequently targets. I was very clear that these radical groups are giving mainstream believers a bad name, and that they should also be speaking out against them.

Throughout my entire career as an activist, I have ALWAYS maintained the use of non-violent methods of activism and to remain, at all times, within the confines of the law. I have spoken out against violence so many times it makes my head spin.

The word "eradication" simply means to do away with, and doctrines that promote the murder of anyone for having no belief or a different belief need to be done away with.

Also, I think you may be misunderstanding my use of the word "Fundamentalist." I am not referring to those who hold to the literal rendering of Adam and Eve, Creation, the Virgin Birth, etc. I am referring to those who believe that, according to the Old Testament, that unbelievers should be killed, or worse.

First of all coopdetat you are mistaken in your belief that there are no Christian Fundamentalist groups that call for the killing of non-believers. Al Stefanelli gave a perfect example of on in his article above: Westboro Baptist Church. Have you seen the film 'Small Town Gay Bar'? I have, and as a gay man I can assure you with total, absolute certainty that they want me and every LGBTQ person on the face of this planet DEAD right this very moment. If given the chance they would exterminate every one of my community just as throughly as the Natzies did to both gays and Jews during the Holocost.

Not if you wrote about the eradication of illegal immigration and not the eradication of illegal immigrants. The distinction that Al is making is again lost to you here jmcg1213. He is not calling for the eradication of people. He is saying that their extremist views should not nor ever have had the protection of free speech and that members that espouse these extremist doctrines should be arrested for hate speech and nothing more. That society should shut them down and let them rant to un-hearing walls. A position that in my opinion is an interesting twist on how many faiths have their "Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin" attitude toward gays. I'm not convinced it would work, but don't ever mistake it as a call to violence.

Quote from Al Stefanelli: "The people who dictate what a proper education is should not be religious people. Period. And yes, the state should pay for it with tax revenue and should enforce truancy laws when they are broken."

So now the call for violence is explicit. Give us your money and your children, or we'll kill you. Then you go on to say that you should be removed from the general public for threatening violence, so I have to wonder if you will remove yourself.

It makes no difference what religious or political category I put myself in. Your arguments do not make any logical sense. You're simply spouting your own doctine and advocating the destruction of those opposed to it. How does that make you any different than those you claim to oppose?

If you compare the average 6th grade Catholic school kid with the average 6th grade public school kid, the Catholic school kid is at the level of a 12th grader.
But apparently you believe it's better to turn out ignorant atheists as opposed to educated Christians.

Here is a perfect video for debunking any kind of belief:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo