Atheists Strike At The Heart of Xmas

• HitsRus

  

  eersandbeers wrote:

  HitsRus wrote: eers wrote:
  "By placing religious items on government premises it is an endorsement of religion(s). Thus, a violation of the Constitution. And yes, the 1st Amendment basically guarantees a freedom from religion when it comes to government."
  
  That is an opinion.
  It is a stretch to say that a religious item on government property is an endorsement. It is an giant leap to say that it is an 'establishment' especially when no one is being forced, even passively to accept/worship/pay homage to that religious item.
  
  
  eers wrote:
  "Because Christians after the Civil War thought they knew better than the Founding Fathers."
  Maybe the founding Father's knew better than some neo-constitutionalists?
  
  evidence below:
  The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
  
  
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
  
  The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
  
  When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
  
  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights

  No, it isn't a stretch. Government should have no role in religion whatsoever. Why do people feel it is necessary to have government involved in any type of religious activity?
  
  We've already been through the Declaration and took apart the myths from the Christian right who claim this is some type of religious document. It is a secular document that encompasses all beliefs including those who have none.

  
  ...You claim the 'Founding fathers' had no interest in in putting their belief in God into the foundation of this country, yet the very rationizations for the country's revolution and existence are linked to 'inalienable rights endowed by their Creator' ...and to nature's GOD. If there is a myth to be debunked it is that our founders had no interest or no belief in divine providence.
  
  Of course it is a secular document. But it is a lie to infer that it was not based and concieved upon religious principles. The words state clearly that the government may not establish a national religion ....or prohbit the free excercise of religion. Should a government tax auditor be prohibiting from putting christmas tree on her desk. Should a Social Security employee serving the public be prohibited from wearing a Star of David?. Sorry, NO....and further we don't have to accept your condescending explanations a priori.
• eersandbeers

  HitsRus wrote:
  ...You claim the 'Founding fathers' had no interest in in putting their belief in God into the foundation of this country, yet the very rationizations for the country's revolution and existence are linked to 'inalienable rights endowed by their Creator' ...and to nature's GOD. If there is a myth to be debunked it is that our founders had no interest or no belief in divine providence.

  I'm pretty sure I never claimed that. It is quite clear that most Founding Fathers had some type of religious belief. I'm saying they did not want government to be influenced or play any part in religion.
  
  "Their creator" refers to each person's individual idea of how they came to the Earth. It is not a reference to a God. "Nature's God" is a humanist, and almost pagan reference.
  

  HitsRus wrote:
  Of course it is a secular document. But it is a lie to infer that it was not based and concieved upon religious principles. The words state clearly that the government may not establish a national religion ....or prohbit the free excercise of religion. Should a government tax auditor be prohibiting from putting christmas tree on her desk. Should a Social Security employee serving the public be prohibited from wearing a Star of David?. Sorry, NO....and further we don't have to accept your condescending explanations a priori.

  I don't really see Christmas trees as a religious symbol. I have no problems with people personally bringing thier own symbols to put at their desk or wear on their shirts. I have a problem when a display of religion is endorsed by the government such as putting these on the capitol steps.
• 74Leps

  The Founding Fathers were against one State Religion - from having to deal with the King of England.
  
  We should guard against any State religion be it theistic or non-theistic (i.e. humanist).
• Glory Days

  

  eersandbeers wrote: I'm pretty sure I never claimed that. It is quite clear that most Founding Fathers had some type of religious belief. I'm saying they did not want government to be influenced or play any part in religion.
  
  "Their creator" refers to each person's individual idea of how they came to the Earth. It is not a reference to a God. "Nature's God" is a humanist, and almost pagan reference.
  
  
  I don't really see Christmas trees as a religious symbol. I have no problems with people personally bringing thier own symbols to put at their desk or wear on their shirts. I have a problem when a display of religion is endorsed by the government such as putting these on the capitol steps.

  who says its an endorsement? it was put there by members of the public, not government worker. the government is being hands off and letting the people put what they want up.
  
  if you can twist this into an endorsement, we can twist "creator" to refer to God.
• jmog

  eersandbeers wrote:

  jmog wrote:
  
  You are 100% wrong. The Constitution says in the 1st Amendment, and I quote...
  
  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
  
  They can not make a law that either promotes a religion or prohibits a religion, or the free exercise of a religion.
  
  NO WHERE does it say that a religious piece of equipment can NOT be on government land.
  
  Heck, by your assertations all of our courts, and all of our federal oaths all the way up to the President himself, are unconstitutional.

  
  By placing religious items on government premises it is an endorsement of religion(s). Thus, a violation of the Constitution. And yes, the 1st Amendment basically guarantees a freedom from religion when it comes to government.
  

  Not sure if you have a problem with reading comprehension or not, but the 1st amendment does NOT restrict any religious items from being present on government land, it specifically states that Congress can make no law forbidding or promoting any religion.
  
  I see no congressional laws being passed.
• eersandbeers

  Glory Days wrote: who says its an endorsement? it was put there by members of the public, not government worker. the government is being hands off and letting the people put what they want up.
  
  if you can twist this into an endorsement, we can twist "creator" to refer to God.

  
  I didn't twist anything. If the government places a swastika up there also would you say that its fine because the public placed it there. If the swastika is not allowed then government is endorsing other religions over another. Which is a violation of the Constitution.
  
  If you want to twist the word "creator" to mean God that is your right. It will not change the meaning.
  
  

  jmog wrote:
  Not sure if you have a problem with reading comprehension or not, but the 1st amendment does NOT restrict any religious items from being present on government land, it specifically states that Congress can make no law forbidding or promoting any religion.
  
  I see no congressional laws being passed.

  Actually I'm quite sure my ability to comprehend and understand what I read is fine.
  
  The 1st Amendment restricts government endorsement of religion. That is quite clear in its meaning.
• majorspark

  

  eersandbeers wrote:I didn't twist anything. If the government places a swastika up there also would you say that its fine because the public placed it there. If the swastika is not allowed then government is endorsing other religions over another. Which is a violation of the Constitution.

  There is nothing in the constitutuion preventing the government from displaying a political symbol (swastika included). There are political symbols all over Washington DC. But if the government did place a swastika on display the retribution by the people would be so swift their heads would spin.
  

  eersandbeers wrote:The 1st Amendment restricts government endorsement of religion. That is quite clear in its meaning.

  It would not violate the constitution for Congressman X and a group of his constituents to set up a religious display to redress their grievences on the mall in Washington DC.
• jmog

  eersandbeers wrote:
  
  
  
  The 1st Amendment restricts government endorsement of religion. That is quite clear in its meaning.

  The 1st amendment says that the federal government can make no laws restricting or promoting religion, it does NOT stretch it to say that there can be no religious items/practices at all on government land.
  
  Are you of the opinion that all of our oath's of offices are unconstitutional? By what you are saying here I'm guessing your answer is yes.
• queencitybuckeye

  Without taking sides, I'd simply note that a decent amount of what's being debated here has been settled by case law.
• alwaysafan

  CenterBHSFan wrote: I don't know which is worse.
  
  Hyper-zealous Christians OR Hyper-zealous Atheists
  
  = Two sides of the same coin to me.
  
  I think it's funny how people from either side like to point fingers at each other. The Atheists are JUST AS GUILTY as the people their pointing fingers at.
  
  Plenty of posts here on this site the proves that fact, jack!!!

  Exactly. Why can't people just believe what they believe in, and leave it at that? Stop trying to push your shit on other people (whether that be believer, or non-believer).
• eersandbeers

  majorspark wrote: There is nothing in the constitutuion preventing the government from displaying a political symbol (swastika included). There are political symbols all over Washington DC. But if the government did place a swastika on display the retribution by the people would be so swift their heads would spin.

  If it is a promotion of religion then the Constitution certainly stops the display of religious symbols.
  

  majorspark wrote: It would not violate the constitution for Congressman X and a group of his constituents to set up a religious display to redress their grievences on the mall in Washington DC.

  Correct, it wouldn't. If the display was sanctioned by the government then it would. If it is private individuals displaying or protesting then it would not.
  

  jmog wrote:
  The 1st amendment says that the federal government can make no laws restricting or promoting religion, it does NOT stretch it to say that there can be no religious items/practices at all on government land.
  
  Are you of the opinion that all of our oath's of offices are unconstitutional? By what you are saying here I'm guessing your answer is yes.

  The original oath of office did not include "so help me God" and Washington voluntarily added that. However, it is not required for any President to say it and if each individual decides to say it then it should be fine.
• Captain Cavalier

  

  eersandbeers wrote:The 1st Amendment restricts government endorsement of religion. That is quite clear in its meaning.

  When has endorsement been the same as a mandate?
  
  Recommending is not the same as requiring.
  

  eersandbeers wrote:If the government places a swastika up there also would you say that its fine because the public placed it there.

  Yes. I wouldn't like it and would like to see it taken down but I couldn't use the Constitution as a reason.
• Captain Cavalier

  

  alwaysafan wrote:

  CenterBHSFan wrote: I don't know which is worse.
  
  Hyper-zealous Christians OR Hyper-zealous Atheists
  
  = Two sides of the same coin to me.
  
  I think it's funny how people from either side like to point fingers at each other. The Atheists are JUST AS GUILTY as the people their pointing fingers at.
  
  Plenty of posts here on this site the proves that fact, jack!!!

  Exactly. Why can't people just believe what they believe in, and leave it at that? Stop trying to push your shit on other people (whether that be believer, or non-believer).

  IMO, I think this has been a pretty civil discussion...which is good. That's how we get to see one another's views and concerns. I agree it has the potential to get out of hand and a lot of times it does.
• Websurfinbird

  

  While I don't think it was right what the atheist group did, I don't think ANY religious symbol has any business being in a government building regardless of whether or not a private group paid to have it there.
• jefft01

  I don't feel threatened by religious holiday symbols on public lands, but I wish I understood the thinking of the people who insist on displaying them each year. Are they insecure in their own beliefs and in need the reinforcement or do they think they have a right to cram these beliefs down everyone else's throat?
  
  I do have issues with 10 commandments monuments or displays in a courtroom, which is obviously a whole different issue.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I don't see why (really) people have a problem with The Ten Commandments being displayed in a courtroom.
  
  Really, aren't the majority of the laws based on morality?
  Aren't the Ten Commandments based in morality?
  
  Thou shall not kill? moral and lawful
  Thou shall not steal? moral and lawful
  Thou shall not bear false witness? (perjury) moral and lawful
  
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but those are pretty high up on the scales of law, aren't they? The Ten Commandments are intrinsic to our societal and legal laws of life.
  
  Now, people may not believe in God, they may hate God, or maybe just don't want any sort of religion infringing on their way of life. Too bad.
  It's part of a right/wrong compass that will never go away. Ever.
  
  Let the hatings begin!
• FatHobbit

  

  CenterBHSFan wrote: I don't see why (really) people have a problem with The Ten Commandments being displayed in a courtroom.
  
  Really, aren't the majority of the laws based on morality?
  Aren't the Ten Commandments based in morality?
  
  Thou shall not kill? moral and lawful
  Thou shall not steal? moral and lawful
  Thou shall not bear false witness? (perjury) moral and lawful
  
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but those are pretty high up on the scales of law, aren't they? The Ten Commandments are intrinsic to our societal and legal laws of life.
  
  Now, people may not believe in God, they may hate God, or maybe just don't want any sort of religion infringing on their way of life. Too bad.
  It's part of a right/wrong compass that will never go away. Ever.
  
  Let the hatings begin!

  3 out of 10? How can you be so sure that those 3 morals are based off of the 10 commandments? Perhaps they predate them? Why are the other commandments largely ignored?
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Great point, Hobbit about how do we determine the dates? I don't really know for sure the answer to that, admittedly. But I would think the more important question concerning that would be - what does it matter, overall? Our current law system doesn't seem to be too concerned with the dates.
  
  The first 5 Commandments have morality/faith only in mind. Unless of course, somebody wants to argue about taking a day off haha! (#4)
  The second half is more where I think legalities are concerned.
  
  - Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
  - You shall not murder.
  - You shall not commit adultery.
  - You shall not steal.
  - You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
  - You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.
  
  The two I have italicized are interesting (of the second 5) because I think that the vast majority of people don't like the thought of cheating, and nobody likes to be jealous. I mean, that's just human nature.
  Personally, I highly doubt that they will ever become law. There's no way to police it.
  Here's the thing I've noticed. Alot of people think that just because they SEE something, that it will become law. We've had this discussion going on another topic - nativity scenes. Those things concerning religion will never become law. Our constitution forbids it.
  I've never had any worries that America would have a national Church. Has anybody really thought that?
• Footwedge

  ^^^I've always coveted thy neighbor's ox. It's always been my biggest burden in life.
• majorspark

  

  Footwedge wrote: ^^^I've always coveted thy neighbor's ox. It's always been my biggest burden in life.

  I have always had trouble with my neighbor's wife.
  
  The question is what do you want to do with your neighbor's ox?
• CenterBHSFan

  

  In case I don't get a chance to come back on later,
  
  Merry Christmas, everybody!!!!
• fish82

  

  It would appear that despite the best efforts of the godless, evil atheists...Christmas has indeed come anyway.
  
  Good tidings and joy to you people.
• Hesston

  

  ............ Merry Christmas to all!
  
  Peace to all including democrats-republicans-independents- atheist-christians-muslim-jew- whatever, and goodwill towards all fellow man.
  
  Blessings this Christmas season and 2010
• bman618

  I don't see why people attack the 10 Commandments because it definitely has a very meaningful historical use in the basic laws of many nations, including our own. Most basic law derives from morality that came from faith.
  
  I see this whole argument getting polled in two radical directions...the people on one side who want to rewrite our history and take away the contributions of morality and an instrument like the 10 Commandments - most of our founders sincerely believed a republic needed a moral people to work...and the other people who want the symbols of their religion displayed but not others or alternative points of view on public land.
• BCSbunk

  bman618 wrote: I don't see why people attack the 10 Commandments because it definitely has a very meaningful historical use in the basic laws of many nations, including our own. Most basic law derives from morality that came from faith.
  
  I see this whole argument getting polled in two radical directions...the people on one side who want to rewrite our history and take away the contributions of morality and an instrument like the 10 Commandments - most of our founders sincerely believed a republic needed a moral people to work...and the other people who want the symbols of their religion displayed but not others or alternative points of view on public land.

  So profound..... not. The 3 commandments that actually talk about morals Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not do perjury ( bear false witness)
  
  All were around long before the ten commandments were written. The code of Hammarabi is dated older and is much more important.
  
  The rest of the 10 commandments are embarrassing. You shall have no gods before me for I am a jealous god? Are you kidding me? A jealous god? LMAO what a petty idiot of a god that is.
  
  Christianity is a very strange religion when you break it down to its simplest roots. The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
  
  The other thing is Christianity is immoral and teaches immorality so it is good for it to finally be put into its place. Thank goodness and reason that no more burning of witches is going on here. Enough travesties in the name of religion.
  
  Now we have to deal with the Muslims beheading and stoning people they have nutty beliefs also.