| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Lord Calvert" |
| Date: |
28 Aug 2003 09:04:48 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Atheist sues over school uniforms |
You're missing the point. Making atheist kids wear the school uniform is
not
the issue. Religious children are able to have a legal "out" which is not
accessable to the non-religious. That is expressly aiding all religions
and is
therefore unconstitutional. Were non-religious children able to get a
similar
"out" there would not be this problem.
Right, but why do non-religious children need this "out?"
For the same reason religious children do. It's called "equal treatment under
the law."
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
| User: "Doubting Thomas Doubting Thomas @ no god.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist sues over school uniforms |
28 Aug 2003 11:05:52 AM |
|
|
"Lord Calvert" <forlornh@aol.commode> wrote in message
news:20030828100448.07635.00000078@mb-m17.aol.com...
Right, but why do non-religious children need this "out?"
For the same reason religious children do. It's called "equal treatment
under
the law."
But they have no religion telling them to wear certain clothing. If the
athiest students had a valid reason for not wearing the uniform then there
would be a claim for equal treatment.
And don't you think that forcing someone to not wear clothes that they are
required to by their religion is a violation of "prohibiting the free
exercise therof" clause?
Looks like the only way to truly satisfy both sides is to get rid of the
uniforms in the first place.
But don't be surprised if this lawsuit fails.
DT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emma Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist sues over school uniforms |
28 Aug 2003 04:05:33 PM |
|
|
In article <20030828122454.03375.00000122@mb-m11.aol.com>, Lord Calvert wrote:
For the same reason religious children do. It's called "equal treatment
under
the law."
But they have no religion telling them to wear certain clothing. If the
athiest students had a valid reason for not wearing the uniform then there
would be a claim for equal treatment.
I'm sorry...I see that the concept of "equal treatment under the
law" is alien to you and perhaps I have expressed my point badly.
The reasoning for the exception is not relevant. What IS relevant is that
relgious children are given rights which are being expressly denied to the
non-religious. It would be similar to having seven-day a week school days but
allowing religious children to take their one "holy" day off every week while
mandating that the non-religious had to remain because they didn't have one.
From the appearance of things it isn't even all religious children
that have the 'out' as it requires a note from a rabbi, minister, or
imam, not all religions have ministers or their equivalent and some
religious people are not affiliated with a formal religion. An
atheist not affiliated with a formal religion[1] may have a personal
belief that the uniform is immodest. A religious person could get a
note stating that his or her religion considered the uniform was
immodest and be exempt; this atheist wouldn't have that option.
Emma
[1] Some atheists are affiliated with religions like UU.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist sues over school uniforms |
28 Aug 2003 12:01:48 PM |
|
|
forlornh@aol.commode (Lord Calvert) writes:
For the same reason religious children do. It's called "equal treatment
under
the law."
But they have no religion telling them to wear certain clothing. If the
athiest students had a valid reason for not wearing the uniform then there
would be a claim for equal treatment.
I'm sorry...I see that the concept of "equal treatment under the law" is alien
to you and perhaps I have expressed my point badly.
The reasoning for the exception is not relevant. What IS relevant is that
relgious children are given rights which are being expressly denied to the
non-religious. It would be similar to having seven-day a week school days but
allowing religious children to take their one "holy" day off every week while
mandating that the non-religious had to remain because they didn't have one.
Justice Stevens wrote in his concurrence in striking down the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 in city of Boerne v. Flores:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-2074.ZC.html
If the historic landmark on the hill in Boerne happened to be a museum
or an art gallery owned by an atheist, it would not be eligible for an
exemption from the city ordinances that forbid an enlargement of the
structure. Because the landmark is owned by the Catholic Church, it is
claimed that RFRA gives its owner a federal statutory entitlement to an
exemption from a generally applicable, neutral civil law. Whether the
Church would actually prevail under the statute or not, the statute has
provided the Church with a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can
obtain. This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to
irreligion, is forbidden by the First Amendment. Wallace v. Jaffree
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist sues over school uniforms |
28 Aug 2003 01:50:44 PM |
|
|
This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to
irreligion, is forbidden by the First Amendment. Wallace v. Jaffree
Actually, governmental preference for irreligion is also forbidden by the First
Amendment. Government must remain neutral. Many Christians cannot understand
this concept. Most seem to believe that neutrality towards religion is
equivalent to hostility towards religion.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist sues over school uniforms |
28 Aug 2003 02:23:02 PM |
|
|
"Lord Calvert" <forlornh@aol.commode> wrote in message
news:20030828145044.03375.00000131@mb-m11.aol.com...
This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to
irreligion, is forbidden by the First Amendment. Wallace v. Jaffree
Actually, governmental preference for irreligion is also forbidden by the
First
Amendment. Government must remain neutral. Many Christians cannot
understand
this concept. Most seem to believe that neutrality towards religion is
equivalent to hostility towards religion.
Of course, silly. They have to perpetuate the "persecuted christian" image.
Without it, they'd have to justify their existence through legitimate
methods.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when
wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
