America was founded on religious freedom; why do atheists want to ban organized religion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe in God, but I certainly don't want to "ban" organized religion as your subject line suggests. I just want there to be separation of church and state, which is implied by the first amendment. No one religion is better than another, and non-believers have the same rights as believers (and vice versa). Just keep your religious views out of public schools, public institutions, and the government.

+1

And out of my uterus.

Yes to both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greece v. Galloway ruled that towns who open government meetings with an invocation cannot only restrict these invocations to Christian invocations. Yet pretty frequently when a minority religion or group asks to give an invocation, they get stonewalled, the rules change and invocations go away, or new rules are put in place that don't specifically, but effectively, make it so that only Christians and an occasional Jew get to speak.

“Question
Does the invocation of prayer at a legislative session violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment even in the absence of discrimination in the selection of prayer-givers and content?

No. Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the context and jurisprudence surrounding the First Amendment suggested that the Establishment Clause was never meant to prohibit legislative prayer, which created the proper deliberative mood and acknowledged religion's role in society. The content of this prayer does not need to be non-sectarian, because such a requirement would place the courts in the role of arbiters of religious speech, which would involve the government in religion to an extent that is impermissible under the Establishment Clause. The Court thus held that the prayers in question do not violate this tradition and are therefore acceptable under the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy further argued that legislative prayer is primarily for the members of the legislative body, and therefore such prayers do not coerce the public into religious observance.“

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-696

I think that decision was solid.

What, do you want 5 member town councils to spend thousands of dollars flying people in from distant locations to pray with them before their council meetings? Or perhaps you want a Satanist who really is an atheist with a fake name (Doug Mesner/Douglas Misicko) get up in front of everyone and ramble on about how nothing created everything? Hard pass.

It's not that I think that town councils should be obligated to pay money to fly people in in the name of diversity, but when a town has only Christian speakers ever, and a non-Christian shows up and says, hey, I'd like to offer to be a speaker for this, and then they suddenly *change the rules* to lock those people out, because they don't want to have to even *listen* to them.

The council doesn’t have an opening for a random speaker who decides they want to talk about a random topic before the council meeting begins.

The council is being led in prayer for wisdom and understanding before their council meetings.

So you think an atheist should show up before their meeting give a 10 minute rant on Carl Sagan worshiping science?

It’s not a speaking engagement.

When has prayer ever provided wisdom or understanding? The very definition of religion is to throw both aside in favor of blind faith. The Founders separated church and state for a reason. If you want to know what Jefferson really thought, read his letters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some prisoners have been required to attend AA as a condition for parole. This is an expressly Christian program, and some people who have asked for secular alternatives have been denied.

There are a number of groups within AA that are not religious in their thinking or practice. These groups don't recite prayers at the beginning or end of their meetings, nor do they suggest that a belief in God is required to get sober or to maintain sobriety.

You are intellectually dishonest af.

AA is not religious. No prayers. No belief in God is required to get sober or maintain sobriety.

What exactly is the “higher power” people are supposed to surrender to, then?

[Anonymous]

You clearly don’t get atheism and why the constant attacks and posts? What is your obsession if you are so confident in your own religion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greece v. Galloway ruled that towns who open government meetings with an invocation cannot only restrict these invocations to Christian invocations. Yet pretty frequently when a minority religion or group asks to give an invocation, they get stonewalled, the rules change and invocations go away, or new rules are put in place that don't specifically, but effectively, make it so that only Christians and an occasional Jew get to speak.

“Question
Does the invocation of prayer at a legislative session violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment even in the absence of discrimination in the selection of prayer-givers and content?

No. Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the context and jurisprudence surrounding the First Amendment suggested that the Establishment Clause was never meant to prohibit legislative prayer, which created the proper deliberative mood and acknowledged religion's role in society. The content of this prayer does not need to be non-sectarian, because such a requirement would place the courts in the role of arbiters of religious speech, which would involve the government in religion to an extent that is impermissible under the Establishment Clause. The Court thus held that the prayers in question do not violate this tradition and are therefore acceptable under the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy further argued that legislative prayer is primarily for the members of the legislative body, and therefore such prayers do not coerce the public into religious observance.“

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-696

I think that decision was solid.

What, do you want 5 member town councils to spend thousands of dollars flying people in from distant locations to pray with them before their council meetings? Or perhaps you want a Satanist who really is an atheist with a fake name (Doug Mesner/Douglas Misicko) get up in front of everyone and ramble on about how nothing created everything? Hard pass.

It's not that I think that town councils should be obligated to pay money to fly people in in the name of diversity, but when a town has only Christian speakers ever, and a non-Christian shows up and says, hey, I'd like to offer to be a speaker for this, and then they suddenly *change the rules* to lock those people out, because they don't want to have to even *listen* to them.

The council doesn’t have an opening for a random speaker who decides they want to talk about a random topic before the council meeting begins.

The council is being led in prayer for wisdom and understanding before their council meetings.

So you think an atheist should show up before their meeting give a 10 minute rant on Carl Sagan worshiping science?

It’s not a speaking engagement.

When has prayer ever provided wisdom or understanding? The very definition of religion is to throw both aside in favor of blind faith. The Founders separated church and state for a reason. If you want to know what Jefferson really thought, read his letters.

This is plain stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I don't know why atheists are posting in a religion section of a forum.

+1

Weird, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I don't know why atheists are posting in a religion section of a forum.

+1

Weird, right?

Hmmm. Maybe because the OP made up something about atheists, and used the word “atheists” in the title, and actual atheists wanted to set things straight? Seems like a good reason to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Public School athletic coaches are routinely caught leading the whole team/sporting venue in prayer, proselytizing to their teams, and the last guy that took this to the supreme court *won*. We know that if someone got on a loudspeaker and asked everyone to join us in affirming that God wasn't real and we were glad to play football on this beautiful day that had no supernatural purpose, there would be a riot.

Atheists and anti- theists are not athletic. They don’t go to football games or play football.

You have zero constitutional right to ask other people to affirm God isn’t real, and to declare for everyone what purpose their day has.

What? You’re making things up. The world is full of atheists and anti-theists. Some of them are athletic. Some of them go to football games and play football. Prove me wrong. The service academies used to have mandatory attendance at football games. They may still do this. That’s a LOT of people right there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greece v. Galloway ruled that towns who open government meetings with an invocation cannot only restrict these invocations to Christian invocations. Yet pretty frequently when a minority religion or group asks to give an invocation, they get stonewalled, the rules change and invocations go away, or new rules are put in place that don't specifically, but effectively, make it so that only Christians and an occasional Jew get to speak.

“Question
Does the invocation of prayer at a legislative session violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment even in the absence of discrimination in the selection of prayer-givers and content?

No. Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the context and jurisprudence surrounding the First Amendment suggested that the Establishment Clause was never meant to prohibit legislative prayer, which created the proper deliberative mood and acknowledged religion's role in society. The content of this prayer does not need to be non-sectarian, because such a requirement would place the courts in the role of arbiters of religious speech, which would involve the government in religion to an extent that is impermissible under the Establishment Clause. The Court thus held that the prayers in question do not violate this tradition and are therefore acceptable under the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy further argued that legislative prayer is primarily for the members of the legislative body, and therefore such prayers do not coerce the public into religious observance.“

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-696

I think that decision was solid.

What, do you want 5 member town councils to spend thousands of dollars flying people in from distant locations to pray with them before their council meetings? Or perhaps you want a Satanist who really is an atheist with a fake name (Doug Mesner/Douglas Misicko) get up in front of everyone and ramble on about how nothing created everything? Hard pass.

It's not that I think that town councils should be obligated to pay money to fly people in in the name of diversity, but when a town has only Christian speakers ever, and a non-Christian shows up and says, hey, I'd like to offer to be a speaker for this, and then they suddenly *change the rules* to lock those people out, because they don't want to have to even *listen* to them.

The council doesn’t have an opening for a random speaker who decides they want to talk about a random topic before the council meeting begins.

The council is being led in prayer for wisdom and understanding before their council meetings.

So you think an atheist should show up before their meeting give a 10 minute rant on Carl Sagan worshiping science?

It’s not a speaking engagement.

When has prayer ever provided wisdom or understanding? The very definition of religion is to throw both aside in favor of blind faith. The Founders separated church and state for a reason. If you want to know what Jefferson really thought, read his letters.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I don't know why atheists are posting in a religion section of a forum.

+1

Weird, right?

Hmmm. Maybe because the OP made up something about atheists, and used the word “atheists” in the title, and actual atheists wanted to set things straight? Seems like a good reason to me.

It is weird. However, OP likes to post about athiests and then complain when athiests respond. There's some sort of strange hang up there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public School athletic coaches are routinely caught leading the whole team/sporting venue in prayer, proselytizing to their teams, and the last guy that took this to the supreme court *won*. We know that if someone got on a loudspeaker and asked everyone to join us in affirming that God wasn't real and we were glad to play football on this beautiful day that had no supernatural purpose, there would be a riot.

Atheists and anti- theists are not athletic. They don’t go to football games or play football.

You have zero constitutional right to ask other people to affirm God isn’t real, and to declare for everyone what purpose their day has.

What? You’re making things up. The world is full of atheists and anti-theists. Some of them are athletic. Some of them go to football games and play football. Prove me wrong. The service academies used to have mandatory attendance at football games. They may still do this. That’s a LOT of people right there.

And how do you know this? Please, do tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Public School athletic coaches are routinely caught leading the whole team/sporting venue in prayer, proselytizing to their teams, and the last guy that took this to the supreme court *won*. We know that if someone got on a loudspeaker and asked everyone to join us in affirming that God wasn't real and we were glad to play football on this beautiful day that had no supernatural purpose, there would be a riot.

Atheists and anti- theists are not athletic. They don’t go to football games or play football.

You have zero constitutional right to ask other people to affirm God isn’t real, and to declare for everyone what purpose their day has.

What? You’re making things up. The world is full of atheists and anti-theists. Some of them are athletic. Some of them go to football games and play football. Prove me wrong. The service academies used to have mandatory attendance at football games. They may still do this. That’s a LOT of people right there.

And how do you know this? Please, do tell.

Oh crap. The quote was supposed to be about athiests being non athletic and not attending football games.

[Anonymous]

[img]


>The above posts are the reason for the post. No one is bashing atheists.

The “perverted” comment really is delusional. Nuts, even.>

[Anonymous]

Why didn't you post in whatever thread that came from, instead of starting a new one? Or provide a link for context?

[Anonymous]

Nobody wants to ban organized religions (even though government should protect public from mass scamming) as it would infringe upon personal freedom (every individual has a right to have imaginary friends and support their priest, rabbi, imam or pandit's lifestyle).

People just want to ban organized religions to control matters of state or infringe upon individual rights and freedoms.