"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:41F53939.D68040A9@serv.net...

DianaC wrote:

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:kp69v0ldnrah4nlu7nuj2ra90cm671jlc0@4ax.com...

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:32:24 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> said in alt.atheism:

The founding fathers wanted the government to take NO NOTICE AT ALL
of
religion.

Well, that didn't work out too well, did it? Considering the mottos and
the
money and stuff. Besides, how can you NOT take notice of something that
is
so much a part of human existance?

By making NO law about it. Oh, someone said something like that once,
didn't he?

The language is that they shall make no law establishing a state
religion.
Not 'no law about religion'.

You are incorrect. The clause reads, "no law respecting an establishment
of
religion...."

Same thing.

The courts have consistently held that it is unconstitutional to legislate
using
government funds or property to promote one religion or set of religious
doctrines over any other.

Not a problem. so DON'T use government funds to promote one set of religious
beliefs over another; give 'em all equal access.

More recently, the courts have been fairly consistent
in saying that non-legislated used of government funds or property to
promote
one religion or set of religious doctrines over any other is likewise
unconstitutional.

Actually, that's not what happens. What happens is that the idea that
religion doesn't exist at all, that there is no god, is priviledged over the
idea that any one religious belief is 'correct' or 'preferable'. That IS
establishing a state opinion obout religion, that it is irrelevent...and
that is in effect, establishing a state 'religion'. That of 'anti-religion'.
And it is EXACTLY as bad an idea as priviledging one set of religious
beliefs over another, because that's exactly what they are doing,
establishing one set of religious beliefs (defined as 'beliefs about
religion') over another.

Laws mandating the display of religious iconography on
government property is a violation of the first, older and more
consistently
upheld standard.

The word that should be used is 'allowing', not 'mandating'.

Right now, religious opinions are not ALLOWED. Opinions and displays from
groups that define themselves by the fact that they think religion is a bad
idea, and that god does not exist, ARE allowed. Why is it so hard to figure
out that this is as bad an idea as, say, displaying the Ten Commandments and
nothing else?

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:kp69v0ldnrah4nlu7nuj2ra90cm671jlc0@4ax.com...

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:32:24 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> said in alt.atheism:

The founding fathers wanted the government to take NO NOTICE AT ALL of
religion.

Well, that didn't work out too well, did it? Considering the mottos and
the
money and stuff. Besides, how can you NOT take notice of something that is
so much a part of human existance?

By making NO law about it. Oh, someone said something like that once,
didn't he?

The language is that they shall make no law establishing a state religion.
Not 'no law about religion'. From my POV it looks as if every single time
someone with a pro religious opinion gets shut down in a public area (and
I'm not talking about captive audiences like classrooms here, just signs,
statues and displays) then the opposite opinion is privileged, (there is no
god and you have no business saying there is). That IS establishing an
official state position on religion; that there is no god. That it is not PC
to think there is or act as if there is or mention that belief. It IS
acceptable to act as if there isn't one, it IS acceptable to believe that
there isn't one, and it is acceptable to say that there isn't one. So...only
those who do not believe in a deity are free to express thier opinions on
the topic. This IS establishing a 'state religion'

And it's a very bad idea. The only way to avoid the impression that the
government has ANY opinion on the existance of God is to allow everybody,
and I mean everybody, to say what they want to about the concept. Anywhere
they want to, subject only to practical rules of physical possibilities
applied to everybody. Y'know what I think would be cool? A very big, well
lit and comfortable waiting area in a courthouse, (for instance) with a huge
gallery of stained glass windows and art devoted to phillosophies of all
kinds, religious and non, with the atheists right up there with the theists,
the wierd and the wonderful, the thoughtful and the down right strange.
Maybe people would actually learn something.

Try this; if the concept 'god' were truly invisible, nobody would care if
there were religious icons all over the courthouse, because they would be
meaningless. However, they are NOT meaningless to the atheist; they are
offensive because the atheist does not agree with what they represent.
Therefore, they seek to remove those icons. In other words, they want THEIR
opinion (there is no god) to prevail over another's opinion that there is.
They do not want to feel as if they are being discriminated against because
they do not believe in what that icon represents. They honestly feel as if
they are being made 'lesser' because they are non-believers.

However, when they do get those icons removed, the believers are being
discriminated against in their turn; their religious belief is a very
important part of their beings, and in order to get justice now, they have
to deny that part of them, to pretend it doesn't exist.

The atheist doesn't
have to deny his atheism; the situation is reversed. The difference now is
only that since the discrimination is aimed at the OTHER guy, the atheist is
now comfortable. But...that isn't going to fix the problem; it just
transfers it. The solution is to allow both expressions equally, not to deny
it to only one party.

You can't get away from it. So
seems to me that the solution is to simply allow it all, and get on with
things.

So anyone can claim that any belief is a religion, and the government
will have to give them equal time?

Why not? Especially if you define 'equal time' as, say...an eight by ten
poster on a bulletin board for three days. ;-)

I guess that keeps 'the government' solidly booked with religion
until, oh, the year 9999 or so. Assuming no really important
religion, like, say, LDS or Scientology, gets started before then.

Actually, I think it would free up things considerably by making the whole
thing a non-issue. Everybody has access to the display space, you see the
overworked secretary in the basement office, and everybody else can just get
on with things. I think it would save a great deal of time, expense and
legislative headaches.

If we did, then the meetings and the elections and all would be truly
'indifferent to religious opinions'

No, they'd have to accommodate ALL those opinions - all 10 million or
so of them. How long would 10 million religious speeches take?
Certainly longer than anyone has.

So who says it has to be speeches?

Make it, oh, posters on a wall, displays on official religious holidays,
(both pro and con) limited to a certain size, in a specific area...what's
the problem? However, you might want to consider Hyde Park to see how
allowing speeches works anyway. It does work, actually.

True, that means that the atheists don't get to keep religion out of their
eyes and their hearing range. True, that means that individual religious
organizations don't get to be the 'one and only true' belief that the
'forefathers really were'.

In practicality it means that NO religion gets to be displayed. (How
much room would it take to display the artifacts of 10 million
religions?)

There are NOT ten million religions, get real; and as for how much room?
That is also simple. Only display those who wish to be displayed, route them
to the basement office, give 'em the rules and get on with life. IT's not
that hard.

And everybody gets to speak up.

Some millennium or other. And who gets to decide in which order on
which piece of government property?

You are making this much too hard.

Isn't that better than trying to SHUT everybody up?

How about an even better idea? Just have the GOVERNMENT stay
completely OUT OF the religion business. It's so simple. NOTHING (no
thing) has to be done. What could be simpler than the government
doing nothing? And it's so good at it.

But it's NOT good at it, that's the POINT!!!

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:kp69v0ldnrah4nlu7nuj2ra90cm671jlc0@4ax.com...

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:32:24 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> said in alt.atheism:

The founding fathers wanted the government to take NO NOTICE AT ALL of
religion.

Well, that didn't work out too well, did it? Considering the mottos and
the
money and stuff. Besides, how can you NOT take notice of something that is
so much a part of human existance?

By making NO law about it. Oh, someone said something like that once,
didn't he?

The language is that they shall make no law establishing a state religion.

Not 'no law about religion'.

From my POV it looks as if every single time
someone with a pro religious opinion gets shut down in a public area (and
I'm not talking about captive audiences like classrooms here, just signs,
statues and displays) then the opposite opinion is privileged, (there is no
god and you have no business saying there is). That IS establishing an
official state position on religion; that there is no god.

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:lej6v0dvgoqb5iprgm16p841juu6acs81s@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:37:23 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> said in alt.atheism:

now me, I'm all for having the Ten Commandments displayed, right under
Moses' plaque, next to the documents that made the other lawmakers
celebrated in the chamber worthy of representation; Blackstone, Napoleon,
Mason, Potheir, Edward I, Gergory IX, Suleimon, Maiamonides, Papinian,
Lycurgus, de Montfort and the rest....

That would be a nice non-religious display, except for the ten
commandments, which are basically religious.

So are some of the others. IT's just that the others are based on religions
nobody believes in any more. They were still religious as well as being the
basic laws by which a people governed themselves. The Ten Commandments fits
well under that catagory; they ARE the basic foundation upon which an entire
culture, one to which we owe a very great deal, governed themselves. To
exclude them because they are ALSO religious is as stupid an idea as it
would be to include them ONLY because they represent a religion that is
currently active. Indeed, to do so would be the epitome of revisionism and
the advocating of a national official 'religion', that of 'anti-religion'.
(which is not the same thing as atheism, exactly)

The solution to the church/state separation thing isn't to exclude all
religious expression, it's to INCLUDE it. Everything. All of it. Any opinion
of deity, it's OK, pro, con, indifferent, no matter who or what or how, as
long as the same rules apply to all. This notion of Freedom FROM Religion
means that only those without religion are free, and I don't think that's
what anybody had in mind.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/011905/ross.html

Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) wasted little time before introducing two bills
that would require the Ten Commandments to be posted in both the Capitol
and the Senate and House chambers.

Stearns introduced the bill Jan. 4, the first day of the 109th Congress. He
first introduced a similar resolution in the 105th Congress and subsequent
versions in the 106th and 108th.

“Posting the Ten Commandments in places like the House and Capitol would
merely serve to remind members that we have the responsibility as lawmakers
to be as fair and just as possible,” Stearns said.

The bill has been referred to the House Administration Committee.

Klaus Marre and Patrick O’Connor
*************************************************************************
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/21/193135/885
Diaries :: bonddad's diary ::

I am so sick of this religious crap from the right. First, Ashcroft is
offended by a naked breast, then baths himself in oil before taking the
oath of AG, and now this *****.

Never mind the ballooning trade and fiscal deficit, the spiraling costs of
health care or the stagnant wages of the middle class.

In case case you are wondering, the standard to apply in this situation is
from Lemon v Kurtzman , (403 US 602). A law must satisfy each of the below
elements to be valid.

1.) Secular in purpose
2.) Can't advance a religion
3.) Can't inhibit a religion
4.) Entangle the government with a religion.

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/011905/ross.html
******************************************************************************************