Those wacky fundamentalistic atheists

Post Reply New Topic

As long as they don't spend their time praying while they're being paid with my money, and don't imply that I'm less patriotic because I don't share their religion, I couldn't care less whether they worship a god or a goddess or all of them or none.

Ouch. You got a cold or the flu? A whole nest of examples escaped you.

Blue laws.


The idea for that almost certainly came from religious authorities applying pressure because if there is anything politicians like to do, its go out to drink, eat, smoke and argue.

A huge portion of the temperance/prohibition movement was driven by the clergy.

What about the anti-cohabitation laws? North Carolina for instance has one, and its been recently enforced. Do you think secular folks are the ones complaining about cohabitant adults? How much badgering does it take to get the cops to go to a non-emergency like two single people living together?

Can we look at the fine state of Utah? Utah is unique in that it is the permanent residence of a religious prophet(Thomas S. Monson). He can make a proclamation from god and make it stick. He can excommunicate any Mormon for example. Gary Herbert is the Current governor of Utah, and he is a Mormon, so ultimately he has to do what Monson says. Let me rephrase that. As a Mormon, Gov. Herbert make or breaks his actions based on what Monson proclaims or he faces ultimate sanction.

Has he or any past Mormon Prophet effected state policy in Utah(for non Mormons) do you think? Heck yeah. Their alcohol laws were recently revised only after consultation(read that as with permission) from the bishops. Marriage laws have always been particular there as well(and I dont mean polygamy).

It happens all the time, and not just in Utah. Just because people arent loud about it doesnt mean it doesnt happen. If I were actually American I am sure I could find you some concrete examples, perhaps legislators, mayors and whatnot that are also pastors.

How about this one? http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/4036/104/



Brunson in this case is the pastor of the church that Officer Hinson attends, and also the employer of Officer Hinson, outside regular Police duties, though it seems they liked to mix it up a bit.

Sure ... but the Christian mayor in a town where I used to live occasionally did things like appearing as "The Mayor" at religious gatherings (like prayer breakfasts or whatever) and even spoke (preached) from pulpits as "The Mayor" during regular worship services at churches and got publicity (local paper) for himself as well as for the church or whatever else out of the deal. And, there were times he even made "statements of faith" as explanations or personal comments along with announcements and reports of mayoral decisions made within his mayoral office at the City Building.

Nobody is stopping anybody from believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny since they have become powerful dynamics of keeping the economy going and their existence is acknowledged by many people of different faiths during brief periods before adolescence and the faith in Superman and Batman takes over. Without Christmas the evil fir trees would take over the world and nobody could drive a care without bashing it up against the army of firs. Without the blessings of Catholicism the condom industry would run rampant and the black people of Africa would avoid aids and reproduce healthily to the immense pain of all those admirers of the American Confederacy. So religion is undoubtedly saving the world with its sanity. But it is private enterprise and the government should not socialize it to the detriment of private enterprise.

I thank you for a reminder of the "Blue Laws" I had forgotten and for bringing me up to date!

So, thread deraillers, maybe prayers should be allowed. But what about throwing people out for having a "One nation, indivisible" t-shirt?

United States Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 3, in its entirety: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (emphasis mine)

No, the Founding Fathers were not "comfortable with restricting the franchise on religious grounds". Society as a whole may have been okay with that - but that was part of what they were trying to change.

As to the T-shirts, let's take a close look at the famed First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (again, emphasis mine) Keeping in mind that courts have held that these restrictions apply to every level of government, not just the Feds, it seems clear that forbidding a certain group to express their opinion in print (on those shirts), simply because a third party objected to the idea being expressed, was in violation of both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. Further, the atheist group was being prohibited from "peaceably assembling" to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances", said grievance being the forced prayers at the beginning of each council session (this has already been declared in violation of the law by the Supreme Court, in other instances). The prayer definitely respects "an establishment of religion", unless (for instance) Muslims in attendance were free to unroll rugs and bow toward Mecca - and the fact that the prayers were done by having people stand definitely served to point out who wasn't praying, thus effectively prohibiting the atheists from freely exercising their own lack of faith.

No question, the city council was in the wrong on this one.

Incidentally, in light of the above quote from Article VI, how would Obama's faith, whether Christian, Muslim, or other, affect the validity of his oath of office? He can't be required to express his adherence to any faith whatsoever (Article II, Section 1, paragraph 8: "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." You'll notice a distinct lack of reference to any deity or deities). The oath as such is valid whether he rested his hand on a Bible, a Qu'ran, a Torah scroll, a copy of The Joy of Cooking, or his own crotch - the Constitution does not specify how the oath is taken, nor what props are used in the process.

I didn't mean my statement to imply that prayer at government functions does not bother me; it does. Prayer should not be done on the public dime, on public time, and in such a way that those of religions other than that of the pray-er feel that their viewpoints (such as wearing a t-shirt that displays a point of view that is non-violent and inoffensive, but disagrees with the pray-er) will be held as less valid than the veiwpoints of other citizens who agree with the pray-er. The cituation cited in the OP is essentially a situation where the council is saying that some citizens have more public power by virtue of their religion.

But what if the public is actually in support of it?

If the public were predominantly muslim or wiccan, I would oppose government-sponsored prayer just as much as I do given that the public is predominantly christian. It is an establishment, an endorsement of religion when there is this kind of prayer, and that is unconstitutional. It is often even *sectarian* prayer, which not only offends non-christians but any christian of a sect other than the one doing the praying.

As I have noted before, part of the purpose of the constitution is to protect minorities from the majority. Majorities cannot remove liberties from minorities under the constitution; for example, the majority of people at the time of Loving v. Virgina believed that interracial marriage should be illegal, but the SCOTUS ruled that that was an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of the minority of people who wanted to engage in an interracial marriage.

No, Congress has still made no law requiring everyone to do likewise.


I am not aware of any law saying an offense has been committed (a law has been broken) simply because someone happens to have felt offended.

It is not necessarily freedom from religion. For atheists the whole praying thing is way easier than for example, Muslims.

An atheist has no problem other than possible annoyances to pretend to pray to the Christian God. For a Muslim, doing that means going to hell...

A public prayer is essentially an advertisement for one's religion. If politicians are praying while they're on the public dime, that is governmental sponsorship of that religion. It's pretty damn simple, leejosepho.

This is a misinterpretation, the first amendment only forbids the making of a law relating to religion. If politicians pray this does not violate the Constitution since it involves no law making.

And by that does that mean a teacher requiring students to pray in class is thereby legal because no law is required?

That would be a violation of the free exercise section of the First Amendment. It would also violate the Fourteenth Amendment, which applies the First Amendment to all levels of Government (no law need apply, since it is a branch of Government). There would be exceptions for non-government schools etc but it would most likely constitute a violation. The free exercise clause would also cover public prayer by politicians, since to stop them from doing so would require some sort of a law/regulation to stop them, thus breeching their own rights.

Alot of people here seem to be quietly putting forward their own versions of the 'lemon test'. It is worth noting that , though still a binding precedent Lemon v. Kurtzman [1971], can (and most probably will) be challenged on Constitutional grounds, since it probably violates the free exercise clause. The Supreme Court has so far not ruled on the matter but chose not to apply the 'Lemon' precedent in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2002). In that case the Supreme Court refused to rule but still overturned a decision that repealed a California Law that provided for the recitation of the 'Pledge of Allegiance' (the version that states 'under God'). It is also worth mentioning that students and congressmen often pray (during state sponsored activities) and so far the Supreme Court has chosen not to apply the 'lemon' precedent.