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

Really? You don’t know why people would post their positions on religion in a religion forum?

Since atheism is a position on one thing and one thing only: belief in a god or gods?

You don’t know why they would discuss their position in a religion forum?

Seriously?

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.

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.

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

Did you happen to notice the title of the thread?

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.

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

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.

Really? Are you sure about that?

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

Anonymous wrote:So many posts here attack organized religion and call it evil and the source of evil in the world. People as recently as yesterday have posted they wish they could ban organized religion.

Why do these posters (atheists, anti-theists) not realize our entire country is based upon religious freedom? They are admitting openly they are in direct opposition of the express wishes of our country’s founders and our constitution and laws? Or do they realize and just don’t care?

I'll just point out that, from what I can tell on this thread, one or two Christians (I'm assuming OP) seemed primed to jump all over any atheists who dared respond to this, even the ones that tried to illustrate some of the hardships atheists face in terms of fairness with our legal system and society.

If you saw in the news, the Satanic Temple's display in the Iowa capitol was destroyed by a Christian. No atheists touched the Nativity scene, also displayed in the capitol.

Is it really any wonder that atheists see religion as evil?

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 is “turning yourself over to a higher power” then?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't want to ban religion. I want US Christians to stop policing non-Christians. If you truly believed in religious freedom, you wouldn't police women's bodies...in the name of religion.

Where are Christian police policing anyone?

Are you willfully obtuse?

No one has the time to probe the depths of this. We all have jobs and lives.

Short version: Mainly there are tons of super high powered Evangelical or conservative Christians, for example, like politicians or judges in Texas who take a biblical view on abortion and that is their driving force in shaping their view. They set policy. They shape laws. They do it under the banner of Christianity. How the fk can you act like you don’t know that?

What exactly is a “biblical view on abortion “? Where in the Bible is abortion even mentioned? I’d argue that it’s not mentioned specifically at all — but since it’s been a few years since I’ve read some of the denser bits, I’m open to being directed to the relevant passages.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:-Bladensburg cross - a giant cross on government property that the supreme court basically ruled would normally be considered an unacceptable government endorsement of religion except that *it had been there for so long we don't want to make them take it down.* (So... if I break the law for a really long time, suddenly it's cool. And you can bet that no other religion's symbol would be allowed to stand on public grounds long enough to get the longevity needed for this to apply to anyone else.)

The Peace Cross[1] is a World War I memorial located in Bladensburg, Maryland. Standing 40 feet (12 m) in height, the large cross, is made of tan concrete with exposed pink granite aggregate; the arms of the cross are supported by unadorned concrete arches. Erected by 1925 in the memory of 49 local servicemen from Prince George's County who died during World War I, the base of the cross displays the words "valor," "endurance," "courage," and "devotion" as well as a bronze tablet listing the names of those lost in combat.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Cross

The memorial was originally commissioned by the American Legion, but since turned over to be maintained by a commission within Maryland. This created an apparent conflict with the separation of church and state, and led to the Supreme Court case American Legion v. American Humanist Association in 2019 which decided the monument was built for secular purposes and had historical importance beyond the Christian symbolism, so there was no conflict for the state to maintain the monument.[2]

It’s a war memorial and you are purposely leaving that information out because you are intellectually dishonest.

Right. It's a war memorial *that's a giant cross*. RBG's dissent represents this idea pretty well:

"Every Court of Appeals to confront the question has held that “[m]aking a . . . Latin cross a war memorial does not make the cross secular,” it “makes the war memorial sectarian.”... The Peace Cross is no exception. That was evident from the start. At the dedication ceremony, the keynote speaker analogized the sacrifice of the honored soldiers to that of Jesus Christ, calling the Peace Cross “symbolic of Calvary,” App. 449, where Jesus was crucified."

But again, the majority decided that while the cross might have normally been unconstitutional, but it had been there a long time, so people were used to it and thus they wanted to leave it:
"Familiarity itself can become a reason for preservation. Fourth, when time’s passage imbues a religiously expressive monument, symbol, or practice with this kind of familiarity and historical significance, removing it may no longer appear neutral, especially to the local community. The passage of time thus gives rise to a strong presumption of constitutionality."

This is basically the definition of, when you get used to a position of privilege, equality feels like oppression.

In addition to the names of 49 servicemen, the bronze plaque on the cross features a quote from Woodrow Wilson: "The right is more precious than peace. We shall fight for the things we have always carried nearest our hearts. To such a task we dedicate our lives.”

The 49 men memorialized by the Bladensberg cross- known as the Peace Cross actually fought against oppression and gave their lives in that fight. It was originally built on private land.

On June 20, 2019, in the case of American Legion v. American Humanist Association, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of keeping the Peace Cross on public land, by the reason that it does not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The memorial was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2015.[1]

Work began in 2021 to restore the cross and the renovated memorial was rededicated in a ceremony on Veterans Day 2022. The restoration was estimated to cost about $1 million with the Park and Planning Commission seeking private donations to help cover the costs.

How does the war memorial oppress you? What does it do to make your life worse? Just exist? Notice you didn’t fully explain the purpose of the cross as a memorial- because you are intellectually dishonest.

Anonymous wrote:-Bladensburg cross - a giant cross on government property that the supreme court basically ruled would normally be considered an unacceptable government endorsement of religion except that *it had been there for so long we don't want to make them take it down.* (So... if I break the law for a really long time, suddenly it's cool. And you can bet that no other religion's symbol would be allowed to stand on public grounds long enough to get the longevity needed for this to apply to anyone else.)

The Peace Cross[1] is a World War I memorial located in Bladensburg, Maryland. Standing 40 feet (12 m) in height, the large cross, is made of tan concrete with exposed pink granite aggregate; the arms of the cross are supported by unadorned concrete arches. Erected by 1925 in the memory of 49 local servicemen from Prince George's County who died during World War I, the base of the cross displays the words "valor," "endurance," "courage," and "devotion" as well as a bronze tablet listing the names of those lost in combat.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Cross

The memorial was originally commissioned by the American Legion, but since turned over to be maintained by a commission within Maryland. This created an apparent conflict with the separation of church and state, and led to the Supreme Court case American Legion v. American Humanist Association in 2019 which decided the monument was built for secular purposes and had historical importance beyond the Christian symbolism, so there was no conflict for the state to maintain the monument.[2]

It’s a war memorial and you are purposely leaving that information out because you are intellectually dishonest.

Right. It's a war memorial *that's a giant cross*. RBG's dissent represents this idea pretty well:

"Every Court of Appeals to confront the question has held that “[m]aking a . . . Latin cross a war memorial does not make the cross secular,” it “makes the war memorial sectarian.”... The Peace Cross is no exception. That was evident from the start. At the dedication ceremony, the keynote speaker analogized the sacrifice of the honored soldiers to that of Jesus Christ, calling the Peace Cross “symbolic of Calvary,” App. 449, where Jesus was crucified."

But again, the majority decided that while the cross might have normally been unconstitutional, but it had been there a long time, so people were used to it and thus they wanted to leave it:
"Familiarity itself can become a reason for preservation. Fourth, when time’s passage imbues a religiously expressive monument, symbol, or practice with this kind of familiarity and historical significance, removing it may no longer appear neutral, especially to the local community. The passage of time thus gives rise to a strong presumption of constitutionality."

This is basically the definition of, when you get used to a position of privilege, equality feels like oppression.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholic nuns do not want to provide health insurance that provides birth control. So the government says fine, we will provide it, you just have to fill out a form. Nuns say, no, marking a checkbox on a form is an undue burden on our religious rights *and the court agreed.*


Yes, Catholic nuns are allowed and encouraged to live as their faith leads them to live.

Mark Rienzi, senior counsel for the Becket Fund and law professor at the Catholic University of America, said even filling out the form is problematic for the nuns.

“On the form, the nuns would certify that they object to contraception on religious grounds. The form is sent to the health plan administrator, which is then allowed to provide contraceptives and seek government reimbursement, Rienzi said. That amounts to an indirect endorsement of contraceptives, which violates the Little Sisters’ beliefs, Rienzi said.“

https://www.baltimoresun.com/2013/12/28/catonsville-nuns-group-not-required-to-provide-birth-control-under-obamacare-judge-says-3/

Why does you and your atheist and anti-theist buddies start a group of atheist nuns and provide birth control to women, problem solved. You can be called nones.

The point there was not necessarily that the nuns should be forced to provide contraception, but rather that Christian Nuns can successfully claim that filling out a form/checking a box informing the government they wouldn't be complying with a law is too much of an imposition on their faith; but the bar is *substantially* higher for non-Christian faiths.

How does that impact your life or the lives of any American? Why are you upset and angry because nuns (who live very simply and devote their lives to the care of others) are living by their faith?

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.

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.

Judges have sometimes been caught making a point of opening court with an expressly Christian prayer. If you're an atheist in that courtroom, you have to either pretend to be Christian or risk offending the judge hearing your case.


Judicial Prayer Sessions are Constitutional
According to the Fifth Circuit, prayer in the courtroom does not violate the Establishment Clause because “public, government-sponsored prayer has long enjoyed a place in American life.”

Texas judge's courtroom prayer ceremonies upheld by U.S. appeals court

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/texas-judges-courtroom-prayer-ceremonies-upheld-by-us-appeals-court-2022-09-30/

5th Circuit upholds Texas judge's daily courtroom prayer ceremonies
Practice was challenged by Freedom from Religion Foundation
(Reuters) - A Christian minister-turned-judge who promised to establish prayer in his Texas courtroom during his campaign can continue opening his court each day with a ceremony that includes a prayer from a revolving group of chaplains, a divided U.S. appeals court has ruled.

The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on a 2-1 vote on Thursday rejected claims by a group representing atheists and agnostics that Texas Justice of the Peace Wayne Mack's daily prayer ceremonies were unconstitutional.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation and a lawyer sued in 2019 over Mack's practice of starting each court day with a few minutes for prayers delivered by faith leaders who participate in a volunteer chaplaincy program that he launched after being elected as a judge in Montgomery County.

Lawyers and litigants can attend but are told they do not have to, and afterwards a bailiff tells anyone in the lobby that court is about to start. But the plaintiffs argued litigants and lawyers risk upsetting Mack by not participating.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt in Houston last year agreed the courtroom prayers violated the prohibition in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution on the government "establishing" a religion.

But U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith pointed to historical examples of courtroom prayer dating back to the 1700s in finding that Mack's ceremonies were lawful under a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Town of Greece v. Galloway, that provided leeway for prayers before government meetings.

In a statement, she said the court recognized "that the history, character, and context of his opening ceremony—which includes welcoming volunteer chaplains of all faiths to lead invocations according to the diverse traditions of those faiths—comports with the Constitution."

Sam Grover, a lawyer with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, did not respond to a request for comment.



Judges can and do pray in court. Your argument already lost.

Also- how does a judge find the atheist who isn’t praying in his courtroom? Does the judge say: bow your heads and pray, and then not bow his head and scan the court room for non-pray-ers?

You are either ridiculously misinformed, in denial, or willfully ignorant throughout your entire post.