Militant Atheism Picks On...

[Carl]

Any law which allows the placement of a religious display on religious grounds is by definition a law respecting an establishment of religion.

Complete and utter bullsh!t.

Is use of a public facility by UNICEF or a demonstration on the Washington mall by groups from the left or the right establishing anything?

No it is not unless you disagree and then you need to condemn anti war activists for staging a religious meeting when they protest unless they go to privately owned ground.

[LC EFA]

Any law which allows the placement of a religious display on religious grounds is by definition a law respecting an establishment of religion.

Dunno about that, but it is pretty clear that any law prohibiting it is "by definition" prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

[Thor]

Dunno about that, but it is pretty clear that any law prohibiting it is "by definition" prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Dammit ya bloody Aussie, you stole my words!!!  



 

[MrsSmith]

Let me guess... Wallbuilders?

David Barton is a hack. You have been misled.

Nope, it was written about in some of the letters on the Jefferson site.  In his own words.  I guess you don't read his letters, either.  I don't blame you, you'd be very upset at your misperception of the man.

[AbsolutNickUSN]

I wish that I had so much money that I didn't know what to do with it because I would tie these assholes up in court. There is NO "Freedom From Religion" mandated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It DOES allow the free exercise thereof. In my opinion, they are violating MY (amongst others) civil rights.

Ya know Rob,  freedom of religion and freedom from religion are pretty much one and the same. 

By way of the 1st amendment there can be no compulsory religious belief (or disbelief) ergo freedom from religion if one so chooses.

[Chris_]

Ya know Rob,  freedom of religion and freedom from religion are pretty much one and the same. 

By way of the 1st amendment there can be no compulsory religious belief (or disbelief) ergo freedom from religion if one so chooses.

Other arguments aside for a moment, I would offer that if someone were exercising their "freedom of religion"...... that we are also blessed with "freedom of movement"......and if you disagree with that person, you are certainly free to remove yourself from the proximity of the "religion".........or do you liberals demand that religious people only practice their faith where you see fit for them to do so?

doc

[AbsolutNickUSN]

Other arguments aside for a moment, I would offer that if someone were exercising their "freedom of religion"...... that we are also blessed with "freedom of movement"......and if you disagree with that person, you are certainly free to remove yourself from the proximity of the "religion"........

Amen to that !!

.........or do you liberals demand that religious people only practice their faith where you see fit for them to do so?

doc

I can't speak for "us Liberals" as my opinion may or may not be in line with other Liberals.


I can speak for myself though.


My personal belief is that religious people can practice their faith wherever they choose, with the obvious exception of private property.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Any law which allows the placement of a religious display on religious grounds is by definition a law respecting an establishment of religion.

There are at least 6 depictions of the 10 Commandments on the Supreme Court building.

[Thor]

Ya know Rob,  freedom of religion and freedom from religion are pretty much one and the same. 

By way of the 1st amendment there can be no compulsory religious belief (or disbelief) ergo freedom from religion if one so chooses.

and Nick, ya know what?? You're forgetting the "Free exercise thereof" segment.

Other arguments aside for a moment, I would offer that if someone were exercising their "freedom of religion"...... that we are also blessed with "freedom of movement"......and if you disagree with that person, you are certainly free to remove yourself from the proximity of the "religion".........or do you liberals demand that religious people only practice their faith where you see fit for them to do so?

doc

Exactly, Doc. I don't like  Islam, but I won't get bent out of shape when they practice their religion wherever they want to. Where I DO get bent out of shape is when one religion is given preference over another, such as Islamic prayer rooms and foot baths in the airports, whereas other religions are not given a damned thing. After all, equal protection under the law and equal rights for all.

[AbsolutNickUSN]

and Nick, ya know what?? You're forgetting the "Free exercise thereof" segment.

Au contraire,  The "free exercise thereof" essentially begets freedom from religion.

[Celtic Rose]

Au contraire,  The "free exercise thereof" essentially begets freedom from religion.

One does not have the right to be protected from exposure to the religious beliefs of others other than by removing themselves from the area.  If a group begins praying in public, their right to free exercise of religion would supersede the supposed freedom from religion of anybody else in that area, so I don't think you can make that argument. 

[AbsolutNickUSN]

One does not have the right to be protected from exposure to the religious beliefs of others other than by removing themselves from the area.  If a group begins praying in public, their right to free exercise of religion would supersede the supposed freedom from religion of anybody else in that area, so I don't think you can make that argument. 

Is that not freedom from religion?  It isn't a question of exposure but freedom of choice in terms of participation.

[Celtic Rose]

Is that not freedom from religion?  It isn't a question of exposure but freedom of choice in terms of participation.

Okay, I think it was more an issue of semantics we had there.  I agree that we all have the freedom to participate or not in religious activities, but not the right to avoid exposure to religion. 

[Chris_]

My personal belief is that religious people can practice their faith wherever they choose, with the obvious exception of private property.

I'm going to borrow your tactic of "parsing" a response, and ask does your limitation on "private property" extend to churches, and property owned by the believers...........

doc

[AbsolutNickUSN]

Okay, I think it was more an issue of semantics we had there.  I agree that we all have the freedom to participate or not in religious activities, but not the right to avoid exposure to religion. 

 


If I may add, at least not in public.  We can avoid exposure in the privacy of our own homes, depending upon who we're living with of course.

[AbsolutNickUSN]

I'm going to borrow your tactic of "parsing" a response, and ask does your limitation on "private property" extend to churches, and property owned by the believers...........

doc

before I respond, clarify that question for me please.  What type of limitations are you thinking of specifically?

[Chris_]

before I respond, clarify that question for me please.  What type of limitations are you thinking of specifically?

You indicated here:

My personal belief is that religious people can practice their faith wherever they choose, with the obvious exception of private property

.....that religious people are free to practice their faith anywhere that they choose, except for "private property".........referring to another thread, where you endlessly parsed a discussion where the phrase "all liberals" was used, I was just wondering if your statement indicated that religious prople (in your opinion) could be restricted from practicing their faith in a church, for example, which is.....after all.....private property......

doc

[LC EFA]

I suspect "private property" in this context means property not owned by the public and without consent of the property owner.

[Chris_]

I suspect "private property" in this context means property not owned by the public and without consent of the property owner.

He is quite good at parsing generalizations ad nauseum........it was a "gotcha" moment......

doc

[AbsolutNickUSN]

You indicated here:

.....that religious people are free to practice their faith anywhere that they choose, except for "private property".........referring to another thread, where you endlessly parsed a discussion where the phrase "all liberals" was used, I was just wondering if your statement indicated that religious people (in your opinion) could be restricted from practicing their faith in a church, for example, which is.....after all.....private property......

doc

Yes, but not by me, it would be up to the church, congregational, synagogue leadership.  I understand there are restrictions in Mosques regarding non Muslims praying in or near them, even entering them, in Catholic churches non Catholics are not authorized to receive communion (course I've honestly never seen them enforce this rule).  It is up to the property owner though as to which restrictions, if any apply, not me or the government.  So the short answer is...... yes.  

[MrsSmith]

Yes, but not by me, it would be up to the church, congregational, synagogue leadership.  I understand there are restrictions in Mosques regarding non Muslims praying in or near them, even entering them, in Catholic churches non Catholics are not authorized to receive communion (course I've honestly never seen them enforce this rule).  It is up to the property owner though as to which restrictions, if any apply, not me or the government.  So the short answer is...... yes.  

It would be nice if the government agreed with that...

[Chris_]

Yes, but not by me, it would be up to the church, congregational, synagogue leadership.  I understand there are restrictions in Mosques regarding non Muslims praying in or near them, even entering them, in Catholic churches non Catholics are not authorized to receive communion (course I've honestly never seen them enforce this rule).  It is up to the property owner though as to which restrictions, if any apply, not me or the government.  So the short answer is...... yes.  

OK, however the discussion was the First Amendment, and the rights conferred thereby, therefore, property owners individual restrictions would be technically....another topic altogether......just sayn'.......

doc

[AbsolutNickUSN]

OK, however the discussion was the First Amendment, and the rights conferred thereby, therefore, property owners individual restrictions would be technically....another topic altogether......just sayn'.......

doc

True enough.

[SVPete]

The "free exercise thereof" essentially begets freedom from religion.

It gives the freedom to participate or not as you choose. It does not give you the right to use government power to confine others' practice to the venues and content of your capricious, changeable choosing.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Any law which allows the placement of a religious display on religious grounds is by definition a law respecting an establishment of religion.

It can also be argued that the relegating all religious displays to confined enclaves (ghettos?) defined exclusively by the state portrays a hostility of the state towards religion, abrogates free expression and promotes secularism.

The government is NOT allowed to promote secularism.

But even more important than what the state is or is not allowed to do is what the citizenry IS allowed to do and that is: define THEIR society as they see fit and not be ruled against their consent by a tiny-minded minority wielding cudgels of statist authoritarianism.