City must pay atheists group for violating Constitution

[crazyfingers]

Indobutably

Lets try this again. In my question to you whether you believe in equal religious freedom for all, you say yes.

However you support government taking sides on questions of religion.

It's a fact that everyone has to support the government. However when government takes sides on questions of religion, that means that some people are required to support religious opinions that they do not support.

That is not equal religious freedom when some people are forced to support a religious opinion that they do not support.

Your claim that you support equal religious freedom for all is inconsistent with your desire to see government support your religious views.

Can you reconcile your inconsistency?

Now remember. This is NOT a question about the constitution. This is about ethics and principles.

 

[flicka]

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?

LOL!!!

When has atheism ever presented itself as a group or club or organized entity like Christianity does? You can't compare because atheists are simply people who don't want to join a group.

I agree that having a support system in place will help you get thru the rough times in your life and can provide many benefits, but it's not because of the supernatural force you believe in, its because of the group itself. But comparing the benefits of an organized group (Christianity or otherwise) to those of individuals who don't share your beliefs (atheists) is silly.

 

[flicka]

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.

Well, the athiests won this battle didn't they? So I guess they were right.

 

[burrow_owl]

The lemmon test is outmoded and no longer the current test.

Someone better tell the Supreme Court, then, because they're still using it. and the lower courts are all using it.

The pledge, the OH seal, etc., are all instances of "ceremonial deism." In other words, they're not meaningful indications of belief in god, but merely non-sectarian words we use to indicate the solemnity of an occasion or entity.

That's the legal concept that likely distinguishes* mottos & prayers before meetings from the clearly Christian event in Fl.

* I don't know the facts all that well, hence the hedging language.

 

[crazyfingers]

The pledge, the OH seal, etc., are all instances of "ceremonial deism." In other words, they're not meaningful indications of belief in god, but merely non-sectarian words we use to indicate the solemnity of an occasion or entity.

I would argue that ceremonial deism is a manufactured term as a cop out. It would suggest that mentions of "God" have little real meaning. But it's clear that it has a lot of meaning to a lot of people. If it didn't there would not have been a national hissy fit when the 9th Circuit made it's original Pledge ruling.

 

[LovesTruth]

If

Well, the athiests won this battle didn't they? So I guess they were right.

No, they didn't win. The school didn't bother to fight.

Now I invite you 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.

 

[LovesTruth]

I would argue that ceremonial deism is a manufactured term as a cop out. It would suggest that mentions of "God" have little real meaning. But it's clear that it has a lot of meaning to a lot of people. If it didn't there would not have been a national hissy fit when the 9th Circuit made it's original Pledge ruling.

Yes, I agree that the phrase "UNDER GOD" has deep meaning for those of us who know Him personally. So also do the Ten Commandments, IN GOD WE TRUST, and our National Day of Prayer.

America is a nation that is kind to all faiths and that honors God officially. You are accurate in that observation. At issue is whether our US Constitution allows such activity.

In that regard I now invite you 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 (With God all things are possible)? 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]

Yes, I agree that the phrase "UNDER GOD" has deep meaning for those of us who know Him personally. So also do the Ten Commandments, IN GOD WE TRUST, and our National Day of Prayer.

America is a nation that is kind to all faiths and that honors God officially. You are accurate in that observation. At issue is whether our US Constitution allows such activity.

In that regard I now invite you 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 (With God all things are possible)? 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 you believe in equal freedom of religion for all, you would not accept government taking sides on questions of religion.

 

[JPPT1974]

Don't forget that the USA is
The land of the free and the home
Of the brave and that despite our
Differences, we can live in peace and
As always agree to disagree!

 

[ACougar]

Don't forget that the USA is
The land of the free and the home
Of the brave and that despite our
Differences, we can live in peace and
As always agree to disagree!

 

[LovesTruth]

In my question to you whether you believe in equal religious freedom for all, you say yes.
However you support government taking sides on questions of religion.

The two are not in conflict. Gov't can and does support religious ideas... like the fact that He exists! That is certainly taking a side (the correct side in my opinion) on a most important issue. Get used to it.

That is decidedly NOT the same as endorsing an establishment of religion like a state chruch or state temple or mosque. And we are all free to chose our own faiths or none. That is freedom of religion.

It's a fact that everyone has to support the government. However when government takes sides on questions of religion, that means that some people are required to support religious opinions that they do not support.

Yes, you ARE required to support a religious opinion (however indrectly) with your tax money. That is fine. The choice to acknowledge God and our dependence upon Him as a nation is a national and political choice. Our founders made that choice for themselves when they started the United States, and each generation of Americans since has affirmed it. You may try to change it if you wish, but it remains the law of the land.

That is not equal religious freedom when some people are forced to support a religious opinion that they do not support.

It is equal religious freedom. You are as free as I am to propagate your beliefs. The fact that our government honors God does not diminish your freedom of speech, of assembly, of the press, etc. in support of your views. As long as dissent is allowed, you are free.

An Islamic nation may vote to honor God by Sharia law. That would be fine AS LONG AS I am free to dissent, to propagate my views, and to convert away from Islam and to persuade others to convert and to work to overturn the law. I am free. (In actual practice neither the Islamic nations nor the atheistic Soviet and Nazi nations allowed that kind of freedom of dissent. But we in the USA do!)

Your claim that you support equal religious freedom for all is inconsistent with your desire to see government support your religious views.

Can you reconcile your inconsistency?

No need to. I have just explained there is no contradiction. We have a common national belief that there is a God, and that God intervenes in the affairs of mortal men, and that our blessings and our civil rights come from God, not from the government.

Now remember. This is NOT a question about the constitution. This is about ethics and principles.

Now you tell me!

 

[crazyfingers]

The two are not in conflict. Gov't can and does support religious ideas... like the fact that He exists!

That is certainly taking a side (the correct side in my opinion) on a most important issue. Get used to it.

LovesTruth. The point is not whether or not the government currently takes sides on questions of religion. Of course it does. The point is that it’s wrong to do so.

You claim that a god exists. You claim that it’s a fact. I challenge you to actually support that claim with evidence. The only fact is that you believe in a god. You can not with any honestly claim that it’s a fact that any god exists because you can’t provide the evidence. It's simply your religious opinion.

And the government is actively supporting your belief. I do not believe in one. The government is telling me that I’m wrong. I am forced to support the government regardless and so I am forced to support the promotion of a religious belief that I don’t agree with. Every school day that government tells my kindergarten child that a god exists. That government is interfering with my ability to raise my child as I believe.

You are able to use the government to support your religious opinions while I am forced to support the promotion of a religious belief that I do not share.

That is NOT equal freedom of religion.

That is decidedly NOT the same as endorsing an establishment of religion like a state chruch or state temple or mosque. And we are all free to chose our own faiths or none. That is freedom of religion.

I am not talking about the establishment clause. How many times do I have to say that? I am talking about ethics and ethical principles. Do you understand? Why should I have to support a government that forces me to support a religious opinion that I don’t share while it supports a religious opinion that you share.

You have more religious freedom than I have. That is not equal freedom of religion.

Yes, you ARE required to support a religious opinion (however indrectly) with your tax money. That is fine.

No. It’s not fine.

The choice to acknowledge God and our dependence upon Him as a nation is a national and political choice.

It’s a choice by the powers that be to have unequal freedom of religion in this country when they choose to use government to support one religious idea above others.

Our founders made that choice for themselves when they started the United States, and each generation of Americans since has affirmed it. You may try to change it if you wish, but it remains the law of the land.

I am not talking about the founders. I’m talking about ethics and ethical principles. I am not talking about the founding fathers or the constitution.

I believe that you are badly mistaken about the founders but that's NOT what I'm talking about.

It is equal religious freedom. You are as free as I am to propagate your beliefs. The fact that our government honors God does not diminish your freedom of speech, of assembly, of the press, etc. in support of your views. As long as dissent is allowed, you are free.

Of course it means unequal freedom of religion because I am forced to support a religious opinion that I do not share.

No need to. I have just explained there is no contradiction. We have a common national belief that there is a God, and that God intervenes in the affairs of mortal men, and that our blessings and our civil rights come from God, not from the government.

Of course there is a contradiction between what you claim and what else you claim. You have claimed to support equal religious freedom for all and yet you think that it’s a good thing to force some people to support religious beliefs that they do not share. That is a contradiction. And I submit that you do not support equal religious freedom for all.


And this claim about a “common national belief that there is a god” is a smokescreen. There is no common national belief. It may be a majority belief. But to call it a common national belief as if the term meant anything is just weasel words. It’s an obfuscation. What you are really saying is that you are perfectly happy ignore the fact that you have just said that those who don’t believe in a god don’t count.

Now you tell me!

How many times have I told you? Too many times.

 

[LovesTruth]

You are able to use the government to support your religious opinions while I am forced to support the promotion of a religious belief that I do not share.

That is NOT equal freedom of religion.

I disagree. Let us define terms. To me, freedom of religion means that all faiths have equal access to buy and sell, to preach, and to convert, to publish, to hold meetings, and to broadcast, as all others and as non-religious groups. That includes equal chance to compete for gov't grants and loans along with secular groups so no viewpoint is favored financially.

It does not mean the government cannot agree that God exists. That is a fact greater than gov't.

How do you imagine religious freedom? I think you equate religious freedom with religious neutrality and with religious silence by government.

 

[crazyfingers]

I disagree. Let us define terms. To me, freedom of religion means that all faiths have equal access to buy and sell, to preach, and to convert, to publish, to hold meetings, and to broadcast, as all others and as non-religious groups. That includes equal chance to compete for gov't grants and loans along with secular groups so no viewpoint is favored financially.



How do you imagine religious freedom? I think you equate religious freedom with religious neutrality and with religious silence by government.

This isn't that hard you know.

Since everyone is required to support the government, government neutrality regarding religious opinions is necessary for equal religious freedom for all. Otherwise some people are forced to support a religious idea that they do not accept.

That's real easy stuff.

And by the way, It is not equal religious freedom when the government that I must support is telling my kid that a god exists and that I am wrong not to believe it.

I am forced to support the teaching of a religious opinion that I don't accept.

This is such easy stuff here. Think about it a moment and reflect.

It does not mean the government cannot agree that God exists. That is a fact greater than gov't.

As already noted, the claim that a god exists is a statement of faith, not fact. Please learn to tell the difference between faith and fact.

 

[AdmiralBell]

I think you equate religious freedom with religious neutrality and with religious silence by government.

That is exactly what I equate it to be, and exactly what I want it to be.

 

[imind]

That is exactly what I equate it to be, and exactly what I want it to be.

as a christian, i couldn't agree more, and i will never let my pride get the better of me and expect my govt to endorse my religious beliefs.

there is absolutely no need and no benefit to having govt mingle with religion.

 

[LovesTruth]

This isn't that hard you know.

Since everyone is required to support the government, government neutrality regarding religious opinions is necessary for equal religious freedom for all. Otherwise some people are forced to support a religious idea that they do not accept.

That's real easy stuff.

And by the way, It is not equal religious freedom when the government that I must support is telling my kid that a god exists and that I am wrong not to believe it.

I am forced to support the teaching of a religious opinion that I don't accept.

This is such easy stuff here. Think about it a moment and reflect.



As already noted, the claim that a god exists is a statement of faith, not fact. Please learn to tell the difference between faith and fact.

Well here is where we disagree philosophically. You include the belief system of the gov't in your definition of relgious freedom. I say we can enjoy religious freedom while having a gov't founded upon a common belief system. In the case of the USA that common belief system included the existence and involvement of God in the affairs of men.

All people forming a new nation or modifying an existing one have a right to create core beliefs for the gov't. In Europe the Roman Church dominated or else the C of England or Lutheran churches did. In the east, various orthodox churches dominated.

Only in the USA did we have a nation that honors God, but which does not endorse a state church. Result? The state churches of Europe are unpopular and dying. In the USA we people of faith enjoy a rich variety of religious expression without gov't interference.

The only issue we disagree on is whether a state should honor God at all.

Consider this. You think the highest good is treating all humans equally. I disagree. That would be true ONLY if there were no God, no moral lawgiver.

The Christian believes the highest good is obeying God, securing His blessings, and avoiding His punishments. That means our laws and morals that determine our laws are best when based upon God's laws. Thy paths our chosen ways... Sound familiar?

What is in the balance? If there is a Creator God vitally involved in the affairs of men, then we as a nation receive great blessing for following God in our laws and morals. The contrary is also true.

If there is no God or if God doesn't care about humanity, then you are right. Without a God Who cares, we may as well drop all pretense of honoring God as a nation and outlaw laws based in part upon Jewish-Christian morality. I think that has been tried many times in history with dreadful results.

See my perspective on things? I think I understand yours, though must disagree.

 

[crazyfingers]

Well here is where we disagree philosophically. You include the belief system of the gov't in your definition of relgious freedom.

No. Government has no “beliefs” in this case. It has actions. Some people are using government to promote one religious opinion above others.

I say we can enjoy religious freedom while having a gov't founded upon a common belief system. In the case of the USA that common belief system included the existence and involvement of God in the affairs of men.

Nonsense. When it comes to religion or really any other opinion, there is a majority opinion but that is not a common opinion. Your use of that term does say that those who disagree are not part of the whole.

All people forming a new nation or modifying an existing one have a right to create core beliefs for the gov't. In Europe the Roman Church dominated or else the C of England or Lutheran churches did. In the east, various orthodox churches dominated.

If you did a little research you’d find that the founders were convinced that no “common religious belief” would be possible in the USA.

But again you are straying into legal issues, not ethical and moral issues. The issue is that it is unethical to force a person to support any religious opinion but even worse to force a person to support a religious opinion that one does not agree with.

Only in the USA did we have a nation that honors God, but which does not endorse a state church. Result? The state churches of Europe are unpopular and dying. In the USA we people of faith enjoy a rich variety of religious expression without gov't interference.

Neither here nor there.

The only issue we disagree on is whether a state should honor God at all.

That’s very clearly a false statement.

Consider this. You think the highest good is treating all humans equally. I disagree. That would be true ONLY if there were no God, no moral lawgiver.

I suggest that you prove that a god exists before treating people unequally.

The Christian believes the highest good is obeying God, securing His blessings, and avoiding His punishments. That means our laws and morals that determine our laws are best when based upon God's laws. Thy paths our chosen ways... Sound familiar?

Which basically means that you are happy to impose your religion onto others by force of law. That’s immoral.

What is in the balance? If there is a Creator God vitally involved in the affairs of men, then we as a nation receive great blessing for following God in our laws and morals. The contrary is also true.

If there is no God or if God doesn't care about humanity, then you are right. Without a God Who cares, we may as well drop all pretense of honoring God as a nation and outlaw laws based in part upon Jewish-Christian morality. I think that has been tried many times in history with dreadful results.

I suggest that you prove that your god exists before imposing your religion onto others.

See my perspective on things? I think I understand yours, though must disagree.

I see your perspective. I always have. You wish to impose your religious ideas onto others by force of law and you do not believe in equal religious freedom for all.

 

[CCGirl]

Well here is where we disagree philosophically. You include the belief system of the gov't in your definition of relgious freedom. I say we can enjoy religious freedom while having a gov't founded upon a common belief system. In the case of the USA that common belief system included the existence and involvement of God in the affairs of men.

All people forming a new nation or modifying an existing one have a right to create core beliefs for the gov't. In Europe the Roman Church dominated or else the C of England or Lutheran churches did. In the east, various orthodox churches dominated.

Only in the USA did we have a nation that honors God, but which does not endorse a state church. Result? The state churches of Europe are unpopular and dying. In the USA we people of faith enjoy a rich variety of religious expression without gov't interference.

The only issue we disagree on is whether a state should honor God at all.

Consider this. You think the highest good is treating all humans equally. I disagree. That would be true ONLY if there were no God, no moral lawgiver.

The Christian believes the highest good is obeying God, securing His blessings, and avoiding His punishments. That means our laws and morals that determine our laws are best when based upon God's laws. Thy paths our chosen ways... Sound familiar?

What is in the balance? If there is a Creator God vitally involved in the affairs of men, then we as a nation receive great blessing for following God in our laws and morals. The contrary is also true.

If there is no God or if God doesn't care about humanity, then you are right. Without a God Who cares, we may as well drop all pretense of honoring God as a nation and outlaw laws based in part upon Jewish-Christian morality. I think that has been tried many times in history with dreadful results.

See my perspective on things? I think I understand yours, though must disagree.

You have dreamt up your very own special idea on what freedom of religion means. The govt. is a neutral body.

And do not forget that Canada is also a country not founded on any religious principals. Works great here!

 

[Stellar Vision]

How do you imagine religious freedom? I think you equate religious freedom with religious neutrality and with religious silence by government.

Exactly. That is where a great deal of Americans stand.

Consider this. You think the highest good is treating all humans equally. I disagree. That would be true ONLY if there were no God, no moral lawgiver.

The Christian believes the highest good is obeying God, securing His blessings, and avoiding His punishments. That means our laws and morals that determine our laws are best when based upon God's laws.

Very informative.