City must pay atheists group for violating Constitution

[trunks2k]

Why do they have to pay an atheist organization?

Because that is the group that brought the lawsuit, the city has to pay for their legal expenses since the city lost.

 

[crazyfingers]

Yes, but his overall viewpoints changed over time, especially when becoming president and around the War of 1812 (his views became increasingly centrist). The document you referred to is from 1817, I believe written right as he had left office, and nearly 20 years after the ratification of the constitution.

And yet the views expressed in that document are the only moral views when it comes to equal freedom of religion and the golden rule.

Equal freedom of religion is not possible when some have to support a government which goes and supports a religious view not held by some.

Equal freedom of religion requires a neutral government with respect to religion.

 

[Self Improvement]

Note what lawyers and activist judges have done to the first amendment. "Establishment" has become "endorsement" and "endorsement" now means "you can't mention religion".

Atheists in America sue and theaten to sue. Athiests in other countries did more:

The Bells of Russia

The Hill of Crosses

Abuse of Religious Freedom in Tibet

Those are all horrible things, unfortunately they have nothing to do with US Constitutional law.

 

[Sycophant]

Because that is the group that brought the lawsuit, the city has to pay for their legal expenses since the city lost.

So it's more like paying the atheist group's lawyers. It's not like the atheist group in question is taking the money have having a house party.

 

[Bulldog]

And yet the views expressed in that document are the only moral views when it comes to equal freedom of religion and the golden rule.

Equal freedom of religion is not possible when some have to support a government which goes and supports a religious view not held by some.

Equal freedom of religion requires a neutral government with respect to religion.

Ultimately, I think I agree with you. I don't support the city in question and I believe they were wrong in doing what they did. I just don't believe federal politics should play much a role in local politics.

 

[trunks2k]

So it's more like paying the atheist group's lawyers. It's not like the atheist group in question is taking the money have having a house party.

Yes. That's usually what happens when talking about these sorts of cases.

In most cases, when somebody sues the governement on CSS (and many other Constitutional grounds) it is not a suit to get money. It is a suit to get the government to stop doing what it was doing. If the gov't loses, they will often have to pay the legal fees of the plaintiff, and that's it.

 

[LovesTruth]

I wouldn't even have a problem with the city recognizing an even like this if it was organized and paid for by the local churches, but using tax money to fund a religious event is a no brainer. Sometimes I wonder what people are thinking when they do this kind of thing...and then wonder why people make a fuss.

It's almost as if they purposely cross the line just so people can cry "persecution" when they get called on it. Almost....

The governement can and does fund many religious events with the blessing of the Supreme Court. Recall the National Day of Prayer? The hiring of senate chaplains who pray before sessions? The printing of IN GOD WE TRUST on our money? Religious invocations at gov't meetings? Military, hospital, and prison church services?

And don't forget the RLUIPA that favors the rights of religious groups.

The bottom line is that the gov't can and does favor all religious equally and constitutionally. There is nothing in the constitution or case law forbidding gov't from hosting a faith-based conference as long as all faiths are treated equally... which was the case.

There was not need to settle out of court.

 

[crazyfingers]

Do you believe in equal freedom if religion? If you do then you can not support the idea of governments supporting some religious ideas and not others. That's because all are required to support the government. When government takes sides on religious issues that necessarily means that some people are forced to support a religious point of view that they disagree with. Freedom of religion demands that no one be forced to support a religious point of view that one disagrees with.

So, do you support equal freedom of religion? If so, you must not support government taking sides on religious questions.

 

[LovesTruth]

Do you believe in equal freedom if religion?

Indobutably

If you do then you can not support the idea of governments supporting some religious ideas and not others.

Not at all! Gov't can and does support a few religious IDEAS but not RELIGIONS. There is no constitutional prohibition against gov't's support of religious IDEAS, only against endorsing an establishment of religion.

What IDEAS may the US and state gov'ts constitutionally support? The US Supreme Court and lower courts have already spoken. Here is what they allow:

Gov't may express the religious idea that our nation officially acknowledges both the existence of God and our dependence upon Him. It is called our national motto, IN GOD WE TRUST.
(This does not prefer one faith over another, so it is allowed.)

Gov't may request its citizens to pray. Examples are the frequent National Days of Prayer, Presidential Prayer Breakfasts, state and city prayer breakfasts, and the holiday of Thanksgiving. Government may also call for special days of prayer as in the 2001 National Day Prayer and Humiliation in response to the attacks of 9/11. (These examples do not prefer one faith over another, so the courts allowed them to stand.)

Gov't may proclaim the religious idea that God enables us to achieve things. Case in point: The Ohio motto is WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. The Ohio ACLU sued in federal court to ban this and lost. Why? Because no religion was preferred over another.

I sincerely hope this helps. You see belief in God is not a religion. It is a religious idea. Believing that God exists is not in itself a violation of the First Amendment. That's the history of the US court system up to now.

That's because all are required to support the government. When government takes sides on religious issues that necessarily means that some people are forced to support a religious point of view that they disagree with.

This is true! In the USA atheists are required to support the gov't with their tax dollars, because gov't acknowledgement of the existience of God and prayer for His blessings do not violate the First Amendment.

Freedom of religion demands that no one be forced to support a religious point of view that one disagrees with.

No, freedom of religion means that a particular church or temple cannot be preferred over others. Gov't is free to use your tax dollars to promote prayer and to acknowledge and honor God. It does so now and has since before the American Revolution. You may not agree with the public expressions of faith by gov't, but you must still pay your taxes.

You are not required to agree with the gov't's expressions of belief in God or calls to prayer. You are not required to pray. You are not required to recite 'under God' in the pledge. But you are required to support the gov't by paying your taxes, even if the gov't officially says and does things you don't believe.

So, do you support equal freedom of religion? If so, you must not support government taking sides on religious questions

Most Americans and the US Supreme Court and federal court system both support equal treatment of all faiths and also support gov't's taking sides on a general religious questions such as these:

Does the USA trust in God?

Does Ohio endorse the belief that "With God all things are possible?"

Does the USA urge its people to offer thanks to God?

Does the USA call its citizens to prayer?

Does the USA sing prayers asking for God to Bless America?

These are but a few examples of direct religious activity by government. They have already been judged by the legal system to be constitutional.

 

[crazyfingers]

Indobutably



Not at all! Gov't can and does support a few religious IDEAS but not RELIGIONS. There is no constitutional prohibition against gov't's support of religious IDEAS, only against endorsing an establishment of religion.

What IDEAS may the US and state gov'ts constitutionally support? The US Supreme Court and lower courts have already spoken. Here is what they allow:

Gov't may express the religious idea that our nation officially acknowledges both the existence of God and our dependence upon Him. It is called our national motto, IN GOD WE TRUST.
(This does not prefer one faith over another, so it is allowed.)

Gov't may request its citizens to pray. Examples are the frequent National Days of Prayer, Presidential Prayer Breakfasts, state and city prayer breakfasts, and the holiday of Thanksgiving. Government may also call for special days of prayer as in the 2001 National Day Prayer and Humiliation in response to the attacks of 9/11. (These examples do not prefer one faith over another, so the courts allowed them to stand.)

Gov't may proclaim the religious idea that God enables us to achieve things. Case in point: The Ohio motto is WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. The Ohio ACLU sued in federal court to ban this and lost. Why? Because no religion was preferred over another.

I sincerely hope this helps. You see theism is not a religion. It is a religious idea. Agreeing that God exists is not in itself a violation of the First Amendment. That's the history of the US court system up to now.



This is true! In the USA atheists are required to support the gov't with their tax dollars, because gov't acknowledge of God's existience and blessings does not violate the First Amendment.

Freedom of religion demands that no one be forced to support a religious point of view that one disagrees with.

No, freedom of religion means that a particular church or temple cannot be preferred over others. Gov't is free to use your tax dollars to promote prayer and to acknowledge and honor God. It does so now and has since before the American Revolution. You may no agree with the public expressions of faith by gov't, but you must still pay your taxes.

You are not required to agree with the gov't's expressions of belief in God or calls to prayer. You are not required to pray. You are not required to recite 'under God' in the pledge. But you are required to support the gov't by paying your taxes, even if the gov't officially says and does things you don't believe.




Most Americans and the US Supreme Court and federal court system both support equal treatment of all faiths and also support gov't's taking sides on a general religious questions such as these:

Does the USA trust in God?

Does Ohio endorse the belief that "With God all things are possible?"

Does the USA urge its people to offer thanks to God?

Does the USA call its citizens to prayer?

Does the USA sing prayers asking for God to Bless America?

These are but a few examples of direct religious activity by government. They have already been judged by the legal system to be constitutional.

Your post is an avoidance of the question.

You say that you support equal freedom of religion for all but then go on to site examples where the government takes sides on the question of religion and we know that you support the government taking sides.

So you can't support equal freedom of religion for all if you support government taking sides on questions of religion.

 

[jamesrwright3]

I think it was ridiculous for the atheists to sue. They need to learn to relax a little bit. I guess government cannot even ACKNOWLEDGE religion's role in their community now. They have to pretend God doesn't exist in their community. The rally was sparked by a tragic murder of an 8 year old and they were trying to bring the community together. .

 

[crazyfingers]

I think it was ridiculous for the atheists to sue. They need to learn to relax a little bit. I guess government cannot even ACKNOWLEDGE religion's role in their community now. They have to pretend God doesn't exist in their community. The rally was sparked by a tragic murder of an 8 year old and they were trying to bring the community together. .

I think that you would change your tune if your city spent $100,000 to promote atheism as part of the solution to crime prevention.

 

[burrow_owl]

Someone other than the state should pay for it. Have all the celebration you want, in fact, but don't pay for it out of public coffers.

 

[LovesTruth]

I think that you would change your tune if your city spent $100,000 to promote atheism as part of the solution to crime prevention.

If atheism were effective, then I would be all for it!

Faith in Christ and even devout faith in other religions have proven successful in protecting marriages, lowering crime, and transforming alcoholics and drug addicts into law-abiding citizens. What good is atheism in helping the addicted, the criminals, and the poor to a better life?

No thanks!

 

[LovesTruth]

Your post is an avoidance of the question.

You say that you support equal freedom of religion for all but then go on to site examples where the government takes sides on the question of religion and we know that you support the government taking sides.

So you can't support equal freedom of religion for all if you support government taking sides on questions of religion.

Read it again. I answered every point demonstrating conclusively that gov't may and does promote religious ideas but not religions. You never have been able to cite court cases to the contrary.

If your rather unusual view of the constitution has any validity whatsoever, why don't you sue to change the motto of Ohio? That ACLU tried and lost in federal court.

Why don't you test your unusual view of the constitution by suing to stop the National Day of Prayer. Oh wait, atheists tried that already and lost.

Why don't you test your unusual view of the constitution by suing to change the Pledge of Allegiance removing "under God?" Wait. That effort failed too!

Do you see a trend here? Your rather unusual view of the constitution just doesn't hold water. It is very much a myth. Atleast until you can figure out a way to change 200 years of American law and history.

 

[crazyfingers]

If atheism were effective, then I would be all for it!

I have a hard time believing that.

Faith in Christ and even devout faith in other religions have proven successful in protecting marriages, lowering crime, and transforming alcoholics and drug addicts into law-abiding citizens.

That sounds like a statement of faith, not fact. What limited number of studies there have been on the subject shows that faith-based programs are at best, no more effective than secular programs.

What good is atheism in helping the addicted, the criminals, and the poor to a better life?

No thanks!

Values are what matter. And I have seen little to suggest that faith-based programs are effective at teaching productive values any more than secular programs.

Atheism in and of itself has nothing to say about anything except for lack of belief in a deity. How if you were to get into atheistic world views like secular humanism, you'd find a lot of value.

 

[crazyfingers]

Read it again. I answered every point demonstrating conclusively that gov't may and does promote religious ideas but not religions. You never have been able to cite court cases to the contrary.

If your rather unusual view of the constitution has any validity whatsoever, why don't you sue to change the motto of Ohio? That ACLU tried and lost in federal court.

Why don't you test your unusual view of the constitution by suing to stop the National Day of Prayer. Oh wait, atheists tried that already and lost.

Why don't you test your unusual view of the constitution by suing to change the Pledge of Allegiance removing "under God?" Wait. That effort failed too!

Do you see a trend here? You rather unusual view of the constitution just doesn't hold water. It is very much a myth. Atleast until you can figure out a way to change 200 years of American law and history.

You've missed the point AGAIN!

I'm not talking about the constitution.

 

[burrow_owl]

I answered every point demonstrating conclusively that gov't may and does promote religious ideas but not religions. You never have been able to cite court cases to the contrary.

The Lemon Test clearly finds the celebration unconstitutional.

 

[Morcova]

Faith in Christ and even devout faith in other religions have proven successful in protecting marriages, lowering crime, and transforming alcoholics and drug addicts into law-abiding citizens. What good is atheism in helping the addicted, the criminals, and the poor to a better life?

No thanks!

LOL

50 percent of all marriages where both partners are christians fail.

Our prisons are filled with christians. Most acoholics/drugs users are christians.

 

[LovesTruth]

The Lemon Test clearly finds the celebration unconstitutional.

The lemmon test is outmoded and no longer the current test. The new standard allows gov't to host such events.

Your legal information is about 8 years out of date.

Meanwhile feel free to attempt to answer these questions:

If your rather unusual view of the constitution has any validity whatsoever, why don't you sue to change the motto of Ohio? That ACLU tried and lost in federal court.

Why don't you test your unusual view of the constitution by suing to stop the National Day of Prayer. Oh wait, atheists tried that already and lost.

Why don't you test your unusual view of the constitution by suing to change the Pledge of Allegiance removing "under God?" Wait. That effort failed too!

Do you see a trend here? Your rather unusual view of the constitution just doesn't hold water. It is very much a myth. Atleast until you can figure out a way to change 200 years of American law and history.

If there were ANY legal standard to overturn any of these and a thousand other examples, then why hasn't the ACLU prevailed in court? Hmmm...

http://www.choiceshirts.com/item/k/a11934a/