Do you oppose Public Secularism?

[bryant69]

Poll question: Do you oppose Public Secularism?

There are degrees of this, I suppose, but what I mean is keeping the public square religiously neutral as much as possible.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://seventysketches.blogspot.com

[More Than A Feeling]

1. What does "religiously neutral" mean?

To me, public secularism means that society privileges arguments which garner assent based on values and goals which are not framed in religious terms, so that people of all and no faith may rally around them.

[bryant69]

2. COuld you provide a positive and negative example of what you mean?

I think i get it but want to be sure.

Bryant

[MistressOverdone]

3. Support it

God today, Allah tomorrow. I want no part of that. Let me keep my faith in my house and my church.

[RC]

4. That is not a problem.

It's those that haul their brand of religion out in public, into the public schools, government, work places and expect everyone else to believe and act as they do.

[Meshuga]

5. I have seen a reason here to support it

But can anyone who voted in the "strongly oppose public secularism" give a reason for the strong opposition?

Thanks!

[bryant69]

7. I'd be curious about that too

I suppose the answer could relate to what one believes public secularism is.

Is it that believers and non believers should be completely equal, both de jure and de facto?

Or is it that all expressions of religious sentiment should be kept to oneself?

You could make a case either way - I certainly support the first completely, but am less certain about the second.

Bryant

[Zebedeo]

10. The government should not be taking an official position

for or against any particular viewpoint on matters of religion, including the atheistic viewpoint. For the government to adopt atheism as its official position on matters of religion is just as abhorrent (if not more so) that if the government adopted Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or Shintoism.

[Goblinmonger]

14. Couple problems

1. Even if it were true, why would it be "more abhorrent" for a government to adopt an atheist position (even you did not use the term force, just that the government adopts it) than a religious one?

2. Having a government that takes a secular viewpoint is NOT the same as a government that is atheistic. All the secular viewpoint is is that the government doesn't give a rip what you believe. You can believe in Christ, you can believe in Allah, you can belive in any or all Hindu god, you can belive in nothing, or you can not know what you believe. In each of those scenarios, the government does not take a stand and it does not promote or demote any of them. How is that bad? It is not saying that you CAN'T believe and it's not saying that you MUST believe; it doesn't care either way. Secularism does not mean that the official position is against religion.

3. Do you want a theocracy? It might sound flippant, but I'm serious. That sounds like what you are advocating.

[Zebedeo]

20. Answers

1. I didn't say it would be more abhorrent. I said it would be "as abhorrent, if not more so." It would be "as abhorrent" from a Constitutional perspective. It would be "more abhorrent" to me personally, because I would see it as flipping the finger at the One True God.

2. We are in agreement in principle regarding what is desirable. However, I interpret the word "secular" different from you. As I have said many times, I do not advocate a government that favors one particular religion (at least not in this world). But I also do not want a government that is anti-religious.

3. No.

[Zhade]

60. You interpret the word incorrectly. Secularism does not mean 'anti-religious'.

NT!

[Meshuga]

18. I don't think anybody wants the government to adopt atheism

secular is not equal to atheist. I am for a secular government but I consider myself a religious person. I consider myself a secularist but a religious man at home and at the synagogue. From what you posted you sound like a secularist yourself since you find it abhorrent if the government adopted Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or Shintoism as the official position on matters of religion.

I don't think anybody wants the government to adopt atheism as its official position on matters of religion when they display their wishes for a secularist government.

[varkam]

6. Seperation of church and state is a good thing, imo

Conversely, I tend to think theocracies generally have negative effects on things like autonomy.

[Az]

8. There are two choices: All in or All out

In a government that cannot takes sides the land held in its name cannot favor any one belief over another. The only means to represent this is All in or All out. That is either all beliefs are represented in the public square or none are.

The problem here is not the minority groups as they are more than happy to be part of a diverse group. Its the larger fundamentalist groups that take issue. They blanch when they have to share space with other beliefs. If any other belief gets attention in any way they see it as blasphemy. So as soon as cries for equal representation go up they call for silencing the other voices or failing that dismantling the public display all together.

[Zebedeo]

9. I guess it is all a matter of one's perspective.

From my perspective, it is the atheists that are afraid to allow any public challenge to their orthodoxy. Atheists' insistence on enforcing "public secularism" stinks of utter hypocrisy. Only the atheistic view should be allowed to be adopted or expressed by the government, and all other views must be silenced.

[BillE]

11. How is being religious neutral expressing atheists viewpoint?

Where do you hear someone telling you "not" to believe your religious views? In a secular government, the government is religious neutral and does say whether to believe or not believe. You are really pushing it when you say it pushes atheists beliefs. You would be upset if every PTA meeting was started with a Muslim prayer, so why shouldn't we get upset if it is started with a Christian prayer or Jewish prayer or whatever type of prayer. The government is there to serve all the people, not just he religious ones.

[Zebedeo]

16. Plenty of people tell me not to believe.

Many of them are right here in this forum. They describe religion as a "delusion" and a "fairy tale" and state or imply that anyone who believes in religion is stupid.

But you are probably referring to the government telling people not to believe. So far, the government does not tell people not to believe. But the government does tell people that they are not allowed to express their religious beliefs. For example, numerous high school valedictorians, who have been ordered not to discuss the most important aspect of their lives in their commencement speeches.

Yes, the government is there to serve all the people, not just the religious ones. But also not just the irreligious ones. That is my point.

[Goblinmonger]

25. Please don't misstate reality

to make yourself seem to be more persecuted than you are.

The government DOES NOT tell people that they are not allowed to express their religious beliefs. They have been told that the expression of religious beliefs cannot be part of a state-sponsored activity because that would cause entanglement which is unconstitutional. I believe it is a pretty clear ruling that if a student wants to discuss their religion in their commencement speech, they have every right to do so. If they want to have a prayer that is part of the schedule at a graduation they do not have the right to do so.

See, the problem is that part of having your religion respected means that you need to respect everyone else's religion. You can't have a school saying that they will make time for a Christian prayer because that is kin to endorsing that religion over others. So the best option is for the government to just not involve itself at all with any religions and avoid any sense of favoritism.

[Zebedeo]

31. With all due respect, you are the one who is misstating reality

You said: "I believe it is a pretty clear ruling that if a student wants to discuss their religion in their commencement speech, they have every right to do so. If they want to have a prayer that is part of the schedule at a graduation they do not have the right to do so."

The truth is that the pendulum has swung far more than you seem to know, in the direction of government silencing Christians.

Here is just one example: Brittany McComb

[charlie]

34. Oh, bosh

Brittney was preachifying. Agreed to one speech, delivered another. Ecumenical speeches are fine, selling your religion isn't. You know this, we've gone over it before, and before, and before.

If some kid decided to hold a Glory Be To Baal rally from the podium, he would've been stopped too. Would you write letters to the paper decrying the Gummint War on Satanists? Make sure future Baalist valedictorians get to proselytize without interference? Puff philosophically on your pipe and explain to your vexed son the importance of unfettered expression for ALL religions in ALL venues?

If this is another of your examples of government taking the "atheist position", you've failed again. Government trying to accomodate religious expression and be mindful of the diversity of belief has squat to do with atheism.

[Zebedeo]

36. They gagged her, just as surely as if they'd used duct tape.

"But before she could get to the word in her speech that meant the most to her -- Christ -- her microphone went dead."

That's government censorship of any mention of the word "Christ." That's pretty extreme, if you ask me. It certainly is not "government trying to accomodate religious expression," as you preposterously claim.

As for your reference to a "Glory Be To Baal rally," Brittany's speech wasn't a "rally," it was a commencement speech.

If a Baalist earns the right to give a commencement speech, let her speak, I say. The audience members are not being forced to agree with her, or to worship Baal themselves.

There is no Gummint War on Satanists to decry.

Yes, this is the government taking the atheist position, and it is wrong.

[Goblinmonger]

38. BOOOOOOOOO

Come on, don't be blinded by this. She was able to talk about her religion. She was given a forum by the government to speak and they allowed her latitude to speak about religion just not to the extent she wanted to. She flipped them the bird; they cut her off. Seems like they would do that to anyone making over the top sexual references or anything else not previously OKed.

That's some pretty shitty duct tape if she was actually allowed to make over a handful of references to religion. Oh, poor baby, she couldn't talk about the painful passion of the Christ. I'm heartbroken. She was able to talk about how important god and religion were to her life, though. What bastards those school administrators are for letting her do that. Oh, wait, what are the sides again.

[charlie]

40. Bosh, again

As for your reference to a "Glory Be To Baal rally," Brittany's speech wasn't a "rally," it was a commencement speech.

It was supposed to be a commencement speech. Brittney was sermonizing for her religion.

This hole gapes as a wide-open trench when filled with swimming, with friends, with family, with dating, with shopping, with partying, with drinking, with anything but God. But His love fits. His love is "that something more" we all desire. It's unprejudiced, it's merciful, it's free, it's real, it's huge and it's everlasting. God's love is so great that he gave His only son up (mic gets cut) to an excruciating death on a cross so His blood would cover all our shortcomings and provide for us a way to heaven in accepting this grace.

This is why Christ died. John 10:10 says He died so we no longer have to reach in vain for the magnificence of the stars and find we always fall short, so we can have life -- and life to the fullest. I now desire not my own will, but the will of God for my life -- however crazy and extravagant, or seemingly mundane and uneventful that might be. Strangely enough, surrendering my own will for the will of God, giving up control, gave me peace, gave me a calm I can't even begin to express with words.

(snip)

Because the fact of the matter remains, man possesses an innate desire to take part in something greater than himself. That something is God's plan. And God's plan for each of our lives may not leave us with an impressive and extensive resume, but if we pursue His plan, He promises to fill us. Jeremiah 29:11 says, " 'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a hope and a future.' "

That's government censorship of any mention of the word "Christ." That's pretty extreme, if you ask me. It certainly is not "government trying to accomodate religious expression," as you preposterously claim.

Accomodation is exactly what it is. Government tries to avoid sectarian sponsorship while allowing religious expression under its aegis -- a fair and loose interpretation of the Establishment Clause that accomodates everyone and favors no one.

There is no Gummint War on Satanists to decry.

No kidding. Happily for you, it's a hypothetical, one you'll likely never encounter.

If a Baalist earns the right to give a commencement speech, let her speak, I say. The audience members are not being forced to agree with her, or to worship Baal themselves.

Speak Brittney's address? With Baal instead of Jesus, substitutions of "fleshly pleasures" for God's love, and exortations to indulge your baser instincts?

You'll have to forgive me, I have trouble buying that. Your reaction to Az's story about believer intolerance causing shutdown of extracurricular clubs was to question what atheist rights were violated, and some wholly made up supposition that they expected protection under the Free Expression Clause. Not a whit of concern about unfair treatment, or "duct tape" censorship. Not for the first time, either.

Yes, this is the government taking the atheist position, and it is wrong.

Beyond censorship = bad, atheist = bad, therefore censorship = atheist... please tell me how allowing religious speeches with ecumenical strictures is an atheist position.

[Goblinmonger]

41. Oh SNAP

Thanks for doing the legwork and finding that speech. It is worse than I even thought it would be. I don't see how anyone would feel that that level of religious proselytizing would be even close to acceptable. The administration was right to cut that speech down. She was being as ass for going ahead with it anyway.

[Zebedeo]

47. Not the Free Expression Clause, the Free Exercise Clause

some wholly made up supposition that they expected protection under the Free Expression Clause.

I never said that.

BTW, Brittany's speech is beautiful. That's pretty amazing that a HS student could write such a great speech.

Too bad the government prevented her from delivering it, and thereby violated not only her right of free speech, but also the rights of each audience member to hear it.

Why is the government afraid to allow certain ideas to be expressed? What could be so dangerous about those ideas? Was she promoting terrorism, or inciting the crowd to riot? Nope. Just expressing the profound love of God and how it has affected her life. Pretty scary. Can't let anyone hear that. Cover their ears! LALALALALALALALALALAALALAALALALALALA!!!!!!!!! I'm not listening, and no one else should be allowed to listen either!

Beyond censorship = bad, atheist = bad, therefore censorship = atheist... please tell me how allowing religious speeches with ecumenical strictures is an atheist position.

The "ecumenical strictures" part is bad. The government should not be dictating what people may and may not say. Let me ask you a couple of questions, and I really want you to think about them and give me an answer:

1. Who decides what is sufficiently "ecumenical"?

2. What happens when you give the government the unfettered discretion to censor speech on the basis of such a subjective criterion?

3. Should the government be in the business of deciding what religious doctrines are sufficiently "ecumenical" and (therefore permitted to be expressed) and which are insufficiently ecumenical and therefore prohibited?

4. How knowledgeable about the doctrines of various religions do the governmental officials have to be in order to perform this function?

OK, that's more than a couple questions, but I really would be interested in your answers.

[charlie]

55. Right, Free Exercise

Mistype. Un-germane nonetheless, the students didn't claim religious privilege.

Why is the government afraid to allow certain ideas to be expressed? What could be so dangerous about those ideas? Was she promoting terrorism, or inciting the crowd to riot? Nope. Just expressing the profound love of God and how it has affected her life. Pretty scary. Can't let anyone hear that. Cover their ears! LALALALALALALALALALAALALAALALALALALA!!!!!!!!! I'm not listening, and no one else should be allowed to listen either!

(Golf clap. For emoting)

The government has a duty to steer wide of endorsing a flavor of religion. It also has an interest in not having the appearance of endorsement, so its functions aren't derailed by complaints and lawsuits from all quarters, including religious.

1. Who decides what is sufficiently "ecumenical"?

The government. Beginning with local, all the way to the Supreme Court, if need be. I'm not being flip, that's the way its works, and will continue to work, until everyone settles down and learns to give up a little to get a little... in other words, get along.

2. What happens when you give the government the unfettered discretion to censor speech on the basis of such a subjective criterion?

Discretion to censor speech in limited venues in limited circumstances, mind you. Under government auspices, on the taxpayers dime. And with regard to appropriateness for the occasion. What happens? You're looking at it. It's done all the time. You can be legally barred from open city council forums if you show up every week and recite nursery rhymes. Or talk exclusively about how everything's gone to hell since we went off the Gold Standard. Religious speech isn't absurd, but it carries that constitutional prohibition against establishment as well as it's specifically enumerated privilege. There'll probably be no end to the friction in the space where the two meet.

3. Should the government be in the business of deciding what religious doctrines are sufficiently "ecumenical" and (therefore permitted to be expressed) and which are insufficiently ecumenical and therefore prohibited?

It shouldn't be, but that's the mess we're in. Thrashing out legal boundaries instead of being mindful of our neighbors. Either the government takes a secular stance or we enjoy endless contention and litigation. Our choice. You know which I prefer.

4. How knowledgeable about the doctrines of various religions do the governmental officials have to be in order to perform this function?

Not terribly, I expect. A scholar's education wouldn't make much difference. The aim is to make religious references sufficiently noncommital, broad, and bland, so as not to make a citizen feel his government is a Christian/Muslim/Atheist/Whatever government. Doesn't make a lot of people happy, but it reduces the number who flip out.

[Meshuga]

56. Bosh indeed

This speech shows how this young lady cannot put herself in the place of another person with a different faith (or with no faith) and it is amazing how she cannot realize that a commencement speech is not the appropriate occasion for proselytizing. It appears the school was allowing for her to make a more ecumenical speech and she could not compromise and pretty much flipped the bird.

That’s why I am for a secular government because some adherents of religion think that only one size fits all (their size happens to be the size that fits all, BTW) and they seem to be blind to the fact that they should respect other faiths. Unfortunately, because of that, we need censors to protect a commencement speech from turning into a theological debate. A public high school graduation is not the place and it’s not the time for proselytizing.

[Zebedeo]

63. So if the religious beliefs expressed are sufficiently ecumenical,

then the speech is allowed, but if not, then it is banned.

Hmm.

Who decides whether the beliefs are sufficiently ecumenical, and based on what objective criteria do they decide?

[Meshuga]

68. Based on common sense and respect for other faiths

There is a big difference between ecumenical religious speech and religion specific speech. This is a compromise that should be respected. It's one thing to proselytize in a speech and another to thank God or briefly thanking Jesus (if you are a Christian) in a speech.

A public high school commencement speech is not the proper place or the proper time for a religious sermon

[charlie]

71. Hey

I answered your 4 questions, you haven't answered mine, except to reiterate the gov't action was "bad." Elaborate please, or I'll just have to figure my silly syllogism was right -- if it's bad, it must be atheist.

[Zebedeo]

72. Sorry, please repeat your questions or refer me to the post

by post #, and I will do my best to answer your questions.

[charlie]

74. S'alright

I'll put the exchange here:

Q: Beyond censorship = bad, atheist = bad, therefore censorship = atheist... please tell me how allowing religious speeches with ecumenical strictures is an atheist position.

A: The "ecumenical strictures" part is bad. The government should not be dictating what people may and may not say.

I don't see how that answers my question. Unless the answer is, "if it's bad, it's atheist." Let me know which.

[Zebedeo]

75. You're right, my bad.

I guess I misread your original question. Allowing religious speeches with ecumenical strictures is NOT an atheist position. It is, however, a bad position. I do NOT think that they are the same thing. I apologize for my error in reading your post.

The reason it is a bad position is that the government should have no business in censoring the religious beliefs or expressions of its citizens, and in doing so, it is becoming hopelessly entangled in issues of religion. If the government would have let Brittany speak, that would be a position that is "neutral" or "hands-off" with respect to religion. Instead, the government decided to physically silence Brittany because it did not approve of the particular religious content of her speech. That's so wrong, I'm amazed that I would have to argue the point. The government set up a religious test for the speech. Religious views could be expressed, but only if those views were the government-approved views. So the government is deciding what people are allowed to say and what they are allowed to hear, when it comes to religion. That is entanglement in religion, and it is wrong.

[Rabrrrrrr]

76. No, you're missing the point

The government is NOT censoring beliefs. it IS censoring proselytizing.

In a public, state-sponsored event, speakers can be (and should be) allowed to tell their story, whatever that story is, no matter how much religion is in it.

But as soon as that state-sponsored speaker starts telling people what they need to believe from a religious standpoint, that's crossing the line.

The school was right to censor her proselytizing.

I'm a Christian, but I don't hear every Christian jackoff spout off their shitty theology at a public school graduation or municipal band concert or city council meeting.

Keep it to the facts. And facts INCLUDES the fact of a person's faith story, so long is it remains personal and true to their experience. One should never have to lie or cover up one's own story. But one has no right, in a public, government-sponsored forum, to cajole into belief.

[Zhade]

61. Yeah, they really persecuted the little liar.

:eyes:

You DO realize her speech would have been a de facto endorsement of religion on the part of the school faculty had they not intervened when she departed from the agreed-upon speech, right?

Hopefully you also realize that such an endorsement on the part of public taxpayer-funded educators would be illegal, right?

Why do you suppose she changed her speech, Zeb? Because she later realized Jesus was important to her, or - more likely - because she knew the faculty couldn't allow the speech she tried to give, after lying about which speech she would read from and thus breaking her oath?

She wasn't a victim, she was a deceitful manipulator. And you feel for her bullshit persecution complex.

[Zebedeo]

64. It's called civil disobedience.

Maybe you've heard about it. Sometimes you have to speak truth to power.

And no, I do not agree that her speech would have been an endorsement of religion "on the part of the school faculty." No one in the audience could possibly have believed that she was a spokesperson for the school faculty. She was speaking for herself.

[Goblinmonger]

66. Truth?

Her view of Jesus, God, and salvation are truth? Please give me a break.

It is an endorsement. They have a captive audience and they are forcing the other students to listen. It is government speech. She crossed the line.

[Zebedeo]

67. And you think your view is the truth. And around and around

we go. But in actuality, there is only one truth to the matter. "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8:32

[Goblinmonger]

69. Yes, I think that my view is the truth.

The difference between Jessica (and apparently you) and I is that I am not so arrogant as to think that everyone at a commencement wants to be preached to about my views on religion. The other difference is that I understand constitutional precedent and know that my freedom of expression re: religion stops when it becomes entangled with the government such as the perception of government endorsement at a commencement.

I don't find the bible as a source to prove the bible correct all that compelling.

[Goblinmonger]

37. I think I am still correct

Here's the part of the article that I find the most telling:

"We review the speeches and tell them they may not proselytize," Hoffman said. "We encourage people to talk about religion and the impact on their lives. But when that discussion crosses over to become proselytizing, then we to tell students they can't do that."

The article doesn't say she couldn't talk about religion. As a matter of fact, the administration said they encouraged people to talk about their religion. Brittany doesn't think she was proselytizing, but the important part is that the school did. The commencement is the government's forum. They let her talk about her religion. NOT as you indicated that they forbid it. She was NOT silenced as you indicated.

And whether you want to admit it or not, the ACLU has defended students' rights to talk about religion probably as many or more times than they have defended a school's decision to edit a speech. The ACLU stood behind this decision so I am VERY sure that it was not a violation of constitutional rights.

[Zebedeo]

43. This isn't an argument about the ACLU

Although I am somewhat surprised by your comment:

"And whether you want to admit it or not, the ACLU has defended students' rights to talk about religion probably as many or more times than they have defended a school's decision to edit a speech."

I would appreciate if you could provide some links to stories about such occasions. I can honestly say I have never heard of the ACLU defending the right of a Christian to speak about Christianity. But if there have been such occasions, I would like to know about them.

[Goblinmonger]

44. I will find the references tomorrow.

I am in the middle of finishing some grading and prepping for two classes I teach tomorrow for a local tech college and just taking occasional mind breaks to read stuff here. Just want to let you know I'm not blowing you off. I know that someone (Zhade? BMUS? Trotsky?) had posted more than a handful of examples on a thread here about 3 months ago.

[charlie]

46. Short list from the ACLU's site

http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16254res20050302.html

The list of cases is much longer. The ACLU's sole function is protecting constitutional rights, including religious rights. Not many hear about these cases because they don't make sensational fodder for the news.

[Goblinmonger]

51. Here is the list I remember

Recent ACLU involvement in religious liberty cases include:

September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.

August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.

May 25, 2005: ACLU sues Wisconsin prison on behalf of a Muslim woman who was forced to remove her headscarf in front of male guards and prisoners.

February 2005: ACLU of Pennsylvania successfully defends the right of an African American Evangelical church to occupy a church building purchased in a predominantly white parish.

December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.

December 14, 2004: ACLU joins Pennsylvania parents in filing first-ever challenge to "Intelligent Design" instruction in public schools.

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.

November 12, 2004: ACLU of Georgia files a lawsuit on behalf of parents challenging evolution disclaimers in science textbooks.

November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.

July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.

June 9, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit.

June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.

February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.

October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.

July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.

January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run "anti-Santa" ads in Boston subways.

Plus here's a link to a pretty topical story:
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html

And here's another list of ACLU help for Christians and non-Christians along with links:

RECENT ACLU CASES DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CHRISTIANS
Rhode Island ACLU (2006) filed an appeal in federal court on behalf of an inmate who was barred from preaching during Christian religious services, something he had done for the past seven years under the supervision and support of prison clergy. The prisoner, Wesley Spratt, believes his preaching is a calling from God. Prison officials cited vague and unsubstantiated security reasons for imposing the preaching ban on Mr. Spratt. The ACLU argued that the ban violates Mr. Spratt's religious freedoms guaranteed to prisoners under federal law. www.riaclu.org/20060111.html

The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2005) (in conjunction with Americans United) in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District won a Federal court case on behalf of parents of public school children against the school district that had attempted to impose religious beliefs on those who did not share them. (For the opinion see: www.aclu.org/religion/schools/23137lgl20051220.html) The parents objected that the religious beliefs, under the guise "intelligent design" as an alternative to the theory of evolution, violated their religious liberty by promoting particular religious beliefs to their children under the guise of science education. www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/index.html

The ACLU of Nevada (2005) defended the free exercise rights and free speech rights of evangelical Christians to preach on the sidewalks of the Strip in Las Vegas. www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3379553&nav=15MVaB2T

The ACLU of New Mexico (2005) joined forces with the American Family Association to succeed in freeing a preacher, Shawn Miller, from the Roosevelt County jail, where he was held for 109 days for street preaching. The ACLU became involved at the request of Miller's wife, Theresa. www.stcynic.com/blog/ archives/2005/08/aclu_defends_another_street_pr.php; www.aclu.org/religion/gen/19918prs20050804.html

The ACLU of New Jersey (2005) filed a a motion to submit a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Olivia Turton, a second-grade student who was forbidden from singing "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. The only restriction on the student's selection for the talent show was that it be "G-rated." The case, filed in federal court, is Turton, et al. v. Frenchtown Elementary School, et al. www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20174prs20050920.html

The ACLU of Michigan (2005) filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Joseph Hanas, a Catholic, who was criminally punished for not completing a drug rehabilitation program run by the Pentecostal group. Part of the program required reading the Bible for seven hours a day, proclaiming one's salvation at the alter, and being tested on Pentecostal principles. Staff confiscated Mr. Hanas's rosary and told him Catholicism was witchcraft. www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/22354prs20051206.html

The ACLU of Louisiana (2005) filed suit against the Department of Corrections on behalf of a Mormon inmate, Norman Sanders, who was denied the right to practice his religion by being denied access to religious texts, including The Book of Mormon, and Mormon religious services. "Mormons should receive the same accommodation of their beliefs as do individuals of other faiths," said Joe Cook, Executive Director, ACLU of Louisiana. "Fair and equal treatment means they deserve the right to a place to meet, have a minister and discuss their beliefs like other groups." www.laaclu.org/SandersvCain; www.laaclu.org/News/2005/Aug26SandersvCain.htm

The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2005) won a battle against Turtle Creek Borough that repeatedly denied an occupancy permit to a predominantly African-American church, Ekklesia, which had purchased the church building from a predominantly white parish. The case is Ekklesia Church v. Borough of Turtle Creek. The case was settled. www.aclupa.org/downloads/SpringDocket.pdf

The ACLU of Oregon (2004-05) filed suit on behalf of high school basketball players from an Adventist school against the Oregon School Activities Association, which administers competitive athletic and artistic competitions in Oregon high schools. The ACLU argued that the Adventist basketball players who have made it to the state tournament should not be required to play tournament games on Saturday, their Sabbath. The case, argued in Oregon courts, is Nakashima v. Board Of Education. www.aclu-or.org/litigation/portlandadventacademy/PAA.html

The ACLU of Nevada (2004) represented a Mormon high school student, Kim Jacobs, who school authorities suspended and then attempted to expel for not complying with the school dress code and wearing T-shirts with religious messages. Jacobs won a preliminary victory in court where the judge ruled the school could not expel her for not complying with the dress code. The First Amendment issue of student expression is before the Ninth Circuit. www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2004/sep/09/517482854.html; www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2004/nov/19/517853141.html

The ACLU of Washington (2004) reached a favorable settlement on behalf of Donald Ausderau, a Christian minister, who wanted to preach to the public on Plaza sidewalks. www.aclu-wa.org/detail.cfm?id=57

The ACLU of Virginia (2004) interceded with local authorities on behalf of Baptist preachers who were refused permission to perform baptisms in the river in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County. www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16839-2004Jun4; www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16230prs20040603.html

The Indiana Civil Liberties Union (2004) filed suit against the city of Scottsburg for their repeated threats of arrest and/or citation against members of the Old Paths Baptist Church for demonstrating regarding various subjects dealing with their religious beliefs. www.iclu.org/news/news_article.asp?ID=978

The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2005) won a battle against Turtle Creek Borough that repeatedly denied an occupancy permit to a predominantly African-American church, Ekklesia, which had purchased the church building from a predominantly white parish. The case is Ekklesia Church v. Borough of Turtle Creek. The case was settled. With the help of the ACLU of Pennsylvania Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (2004), the Church Army, an Episcopal social service group, was able to keep its program of feeding the homeless running. The ACLU convinced the County Health Department to reverse a decision that meals served to homeless people in a church must be cooked on the premises, as opposed to individual homes. Had the decision not been reversed, the ministry would have been forced to cease the program.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2004) was victorious in its arguments that government had to accommodate Amish drivers who used highly reflective gray tape on their buggies instead of orange triangles, to which the Amish objected for religious reasons. www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20021020amish1020p6.asp.

The ACLU of New Jersey (2004) appeared as amicus curaie in opposition to a prosecutor's act of striking potential jurors from a jury pool based on the fact that the prosecutor perceived those individuals to be "demonstrative about their religion." One potential juror was a missionary; the other juror was wearing Muslim religious garb, including a skull cap. The ACLU-NJ argued that such an action violates the religion clauses of both the United States and New Jersey Constitutions. It also argued that not only is it inappropriate for jurors to be struck because they are demonstrable about their religion but, in addition, such a basis will often amount to a removal based upon a particular religious belief or affiliation and will lead to discrimination against identifiable religious minorities. The case is State v. Fuller (NJ SCt 2004). www.aclu-nj.org/legal/closedcasearchive/statevlloydfuller.htm

The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2004) settled a lawsuit on behalf of Second Baptist Church of Homestead, a predominantly African-American church that had been denied a zoning permit to operate in a church building purchased by a white congregation. The occupancy permit was awarded in 2002, and in 2004, the Borough of West Mifflin agreed to pay damages and compensate the church for its loses. The case is Second Baptist Church of Homestead v. Borough of West Mifflin. www.post-gazette.com/neigh_south/20021029churchsuitsouth2p2.asp; www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20021116aclureg6p6.asp; www.post-gazette.com/pg/04111/303298.stm

The ACLU of Massachusetts (2003) intervened on behalf of a group of students at Westfield High School who were suspended for distributing candy canes and a religious message in school. The ACLU succeeded in having the suspensions revoked and filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit brought on behalf of the students against the school district. Students who were suspended include Daniel S. Souza, Stephen J. Grabowski, Sharon L. Sitler and Paul Sitler. www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12828prs20030221.html

The ACLU of Rhode Island (2003) interceded on behalf of an interdenominational group of carolers who were denied the opportunity to sing Christmas carols on Christmas Eve to inmates at the women's prison in Cranston, Rhode Island. www.rifrn.net/blog/blogs/noskin_b.php?p=45&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

The Iowa Civil Liberties Union (2002) publicly supported a group of Christian students who filed a lawsuit against Davenport Schools asserting their right to distribute religious literature during non-instructional time. The ICLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the suit on behalf of the students. www.aclu.org/studentsrights/religion/12811prs20020711.html

The ACLU of Massachusetts (2002) filed a brief supporting the right of the Church of the Good News to run ads criticizing the secularization of Christmas and promoting Christianity as the "one true religion" after the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority refused to allow the paid advertisements to be posted and to sell additional advertising space to the church. www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/10925prs20020108.html

The ACLU of Virginia (2002) joined the Rev. Jerry Falwell in winning a lawsuit arguing the Virginia Constitution's provision that bans religious organizations from incorporating is unconstitutional. www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16040prs20020417.html

The ACLU of Michigan (beginning in 2001) represented Abby Moler, a student at Sterling Heights Stevenson High School, whose yearbook entry was deleted because of its religious content. www.freep.com/cgi-bin/forms/printerfriendly.pl; www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html

The ACLU of Massachusetts (2000) defended inmate Peter Kane's right to exercise his religious beliefs when prison officials confiscated his rosary beads. The rosary beads were black and white and prison rules allow only solid-colored beads. www.firmstand.org/news/rosary.html

The ACLU of Virginia (2000) represented Charles D. Johnson, a street preacher who was convicted under Richmond's noise ordinance. The Virginia Court of Appeals reversed his conviction in 2000. The case is Johnson v. City of Richmond, 2000 WL 1459848 (Va. App. 2000).

The ACLU of Virginia (1999) filed suit against the Department of Defense and the Office of Personnel Management on behalf of Michelle Hall, a Jehovah's Witness who was fired from her job as a produce worker at Ft. Belvoir commissary because she refused to sign a loyalty oath. Ms. Hall objected to a phrase in the oath, that she would "bear true faith and allegiance to" the Constitution, because it contradicts her undivided allegiance and faithfulness to Jehovah. The ACLU argued the oath violated Ms. Hall's freedom of religion and speech rights. In a settlement, Ms. Hall was reinstated and given back pay. www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=8521; pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/61421555.html

The ACLU of Eastern Missouri (1999) secured a favorable settlement for a nurse, Miki M. Cain, who was fired for wearing a cross-shaped lapel pin on her uniform. legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/news/msg00021.html

The ACLU of Virginia (1997-1999) represented Rita Warren and her mission to erect a crèche on Fairfax County government space that had been set aside as a public forum. The ACLU argued restricting the use of the public forum to county residents only was an unreasonable restriction. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the ACLU. www.providence.edu/polisci/cammarano/article-Masters.htm; www.catholicherald.com/eddesk/97ed/ed971211.htm

The ACLU of Iowa (1997) represented Conservative Christians in Clarke County and won the right to force a county referendum on gambling. www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12852prs20050429.html

The ACLU of Pennsylvania Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1997) represented Carlyn Kline, a fundamentalist Christian woman who challenged the legality of a mandatory divorce-counseling program conducted by Catholic Charities. Her religious beliefs prohibited her from attending "non-Christian" counseling.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1997) intervened on behalf of a Mennonite nurse and prevented his firing for refusing to shave his beard for religious reasons. The employer demanded the nurse shave his beard so the state-issued mask to guard against tuberculosis would fit tightly despite the employee's offer to purchase a more expensive mask that would is approved for work with T.B. patients and that would fit properly with his beard intact. After receiving telephone calls and letters from the ACLU, the state employer agreed to accommodate the nurse's religion.

Amish farmers benefited from the ACLU of Pennsylvania Greater Pittsburgh Chapter's letter threatening a lawsuit if the Elk Lick Township rescind a municipal ordinance that prohibited farm tractors with steel wheels from traveling on or over the township's roads. Amish religious beliefs dictate that they maintain steel wheels on their tractors and the ordinance prevented Amish farmers from moving their tractors from one farm to another, and in some cases from one part of their property to another. The township rescinded the ordinance in 1995 and dropped all charges against the various persons charged under the ordinance.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1995) represented a 17-year-old foster child who was being forced to attend her foster family's church. The foster child was Methodist and the church she was being forced to attend was not of the Methodist faith. After the ACLU threatened to sue the county allowed the child to attend a Methodist church and placed her in a different foster home.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1995) secured the right of a minister from the United Methodist Church to hold meetings in the Harmony Township Borough building that was open for use by community groups.

Iowa affiliate of the ACLU (1995) represented and vindicated the free speech and religious expression of a conservative Christian activist, Elaine Jaquith of Waterloo, who had been denied access to broadcast her message on public television. www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12852prs20050429.html

The ACLU of Texas (beginning in 1995) represented Catholic and Mormon Santa Fe High School students who opposed the proselytizing prayers offered by the school's student council chaplain over the public address system prior to home football games. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed that public schools should not be used to proselytize on behalf of religion. Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/683

The ACLU of Vermont (1994-95) represented evangelical Christians Freda and Perry Hollyer, who were denied Medicaid and food stamp benefits because they refused to obtain social security numbers for their children. The Hollyers believed that obtaining social security numbers for their children ran contrary to their understanding of the Book of Revelations. The ACLU appealed the denial to the state's Human Services Board. The Board ruled in favor of the Hollyers holding that the state's legitimate interests in preventing fraud could be achieved without use of a social security number. The Board's ruling is on file with the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.

The ACLU of Utah (1990s) represented an evangelical Christian ministry that had been evicted and denied future access as a vendor at a state fair because fair-goers objected to the religious content of the message. www.acluutah.org/01report.htm

NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
The ACLU of New Mexico (2005) represented Muammar Ali, a Muslim football player for New Mexico State, who was released from play following repeated questioning about al-Qaida. sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2204478

The ACLU of North Carolina (2005) filed a lawsuit challenging the state's practice of refusing to allow non-Christians from taking an oath in court using a religious text other than the Bible. www.aclu.org/religion/gen/19910prs20050726.html

In response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Colorado (2005), the Department of Corrections agreed to resume providing kosher meals to Timothy Sheline, a Jewish prisoner, whose kosher diet was revoked for one year as punishment for allegedly violating a dining hall rule by taking two packages of butter and two packages of salad dressing and placing them in his pocket to remove them from the dining hall. www.aclu.org/prison/restrict/21226prs20051013.html

The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2005) sued on behalf of a devout Muslim firefighter, Curtis DeVeaux, for suspending the Muslim for refusing to shave his beard as required by city regulations. www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16268prs20050601.html

The ACLU of Wisconsin (2005) filed suit on behalf of Cynthia Rhouni, a practicing Muslim woman, who was required to remove her headscarf in front of male prison guards in order to visit her husband at the Columbia Correctional Institution. Ms. Rhouni offered to remove her headscarf and be searched by a female guard, but the prison would not accommodate her request and respect her religious belief that her head should not be uncovered in the presence of unrelated males. www.aclu-
wi.org/wisconsin/religious_liberty/20050525rhounipressrelease.shtml

The ACLU of Northern California (2005) filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging restrictions on an asylum seeker's right to wear a religious head covering. The plaintiff, Harpal Singh Cheema, is a devout Sikh, imprisoned since 1997 while awaiting a decision on his asylum application. The Sikh faith requires men to cover their heads at all times, but Yuba County jail authorities will not permit Mr. Cheema to leave his bed with his head covered. 130.94.233.45/pressrel/050518-cheema.html

The ACLU of New Jersey (2005) settled with the New Jersey Department of Corrections on behalf of Patrick Pantusco, an inmate who practices Wicca who was denied religious books and other religious items while in prison. Persons of other religions were permitted to obtain religious books and items specific to their religious practice. The prison's denial of Mr. Pantusco's requests was based on the fact that the prison refused to recognize Wicca as a legitimate religion. In the settlement, the state agreed to permit Mr. Pantusco access to all requested items and pay damages. The case is Pantusco v. Moore, et al. (D.N.J.). www.aclu-nj.org/pressroom/aclunjprotectsinmatesright.htm

The ACLU of Washington (2005) represented The Islamic Education Center of Seattle, which was denied a conditional land use permit by the city of Mountlake Terrace. The Center is a small nonprofit membership organization founded primarily by Farsi-speaking (Iranian & Afghani) Muslims living in the greater Seattle area. It holds prayer services on Friday and Saturday evenings, sponsors educational programs like poetry reading and language training, and holds various cultural and traditional observances. The City denied the Center's land use permit even though the property next door to the Center was a Christian church that had received a similar permit. With the aid of the ACLU, the Center was eventually awarded the necessary permit to allow it to operate. www.aclu-wa.org/detail.cfm?id=294

The ACLU of Nebraska (2004) filed a suit against the city of Omaha on behalf of Lubna Hussein, a practicing Muslim woman who wears a headscarf and long sleeves for religious reasons, who was twice denied entry to Deer Ridge pool property to watch her children swim for refusing to wear a swimsuit. She did not intend on entering the pool to swim. The city has since changed its policy allowing for medical and religious exceptions to the swimsuit policy. www.wowt.com/news/headlines/822012.html

The ACLU of Virginia (2003) represented and filed suit on behalf of Cynthia Simpson, a Wiccan who county leaders refused to add to a list of religious leaders who could be invited to offer invocations at meetings of the Chesterfield County board of Supervisors. The reason given for refusing to add her to the list was that her religion was not of the Judeo-Christian tradition. A federal magistrate judge found restricting the invocations to Judeo-Christian prayers violated the constitutionally required separation of church and state. www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16100prs20031113.html

The Iowa Civil Liberties Union (2002) brought suit on behalf of two sophomore students and their parents against the Woodbine Community School District challenging the district's decision to have the school choir sing the Lord's Prayer at the graduation ceremony. The sophomores, Donovan and Ruby Skarin, are members of the choir and do not want to be forced to "sing praise to a God that we don't even believe in." www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16044prs20020401.html

The ACLU of Oklahoma (2000) filed a federal lawsuit against Union Public School District No. 9 on behalf of 15-year-old Brandi Blackbear, a Wiccan who was accused by school officials of making a teacher sick by casting a hex. School authorities suspended Brandi, an honor student, for 15 days for allegedly casting spells, 19 days for the content of personal writings, and forbade her from wearing or drawing any symbols related to the Wicca religion. www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16295prs20001026.html

The ACLU of Maryland (2000) called on the Baltimore Police Department to rescind grooming rules prohibiting dreadlocks and reinstate Rastafarian police officer Antoine Chambers who was suspended for refusing to cut off his dreadlocks, which violates his religious beliefs. www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16289prs20000711.html

The ACLU of Michigan (1999) obtained a favorable settlement on behalf of Crystal Seifferly with Lincoln Park High School. As part of the settlement, the school changed its policy prohibiting the wearing of pentagrams, a symbol of the Wicca religion, of which Seifferly is an adherent. The school deleted the policy's provision that stated that pagans and witches are inappropriate in a school setting. www.aclu.org/temp/pr1999/13596prs19990325.html

The ACLU of New Jersey (1999), the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and the Anti-Defamation League won a lawsuit on behalf of Muslim police officers who were barred by department grooming standards from maintaining their beards, as required by their religious beliefs. The officers, Faruq Abdul-Aziz and Shakoor Mustafa, are devout Sunni Muslims. The case is Fraternal Order of Police Newark Lodge No. 12 v. City of Newark, 170 F.3d 359 (3d Cir. 1999). www.aclu-nj.org/pressroom/muslimofficerswinrighttowe.html

The ACLU of Oregon (1996-present) filed suits on behalf of Portland student Remington Powell and his parents against the Portland School District for allowing The Boy Scouts, a religious organization, to recruit in public schools during school hours. The first case alleged constitutional and statutory violations of the separation of church and state. The second case alleged violation of state anti-discrimination laws based on public schools allowing the Boy Scouts to recruit in school despite the organization's history of religious and sexual-orientation discrimination. www.aclu-or.org/litigation/powell/powellmain.htm

In short, if the ACLU said it was OK to cut that girl's speech, I'll go along with them--having read it, I agree. Don't believe the hype that the ACLU is out to get rid of Christianity. That just seems too similar to the right-wing attacks on the ACLU. The ACLU is out to protect the Constitution and out rights. Period.

On Edit: The ACLU helped Jerry Falwell for fucks sake; how can anyone call them left wing radicals bent on destroying Christianity.

[Zebedeo]

52. Thank you

I didn't mean to take you away from grading your students' papers. I appreciate the work you did to find these links.

I disagree with you about Brittany's speech, but your point about the ACLU defending religious expression is a good one. You seem to be right that they have defended the free exercise rights of religious people. Then again, I never said that I was against the ACLU. The story about Brittany was about the government silencing a citizen on the basis of the content of her speech, and specifically discriminating against her on the basis of her religion. To me, that is a violation of both the free speech clause and the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

Also, I don't think that the ACLU or the government should be in the business of deciding what we citizens are allowed to say. If the government censors a speech and the ACLU says the censorship is OK, that doesn't make it any less censorship, to me.

[Goblinmonger]

53. The problem with Brittany's speech

was not what she wanted to say but where she wanted to say it. This wasn't a spontaneous declaration by Brittany that was shut down. This was a commencement speech which is clearly a government SPONSORED event. That being the case, the government, in this instance the school administrators, have the duty to make sure that they do not become entangled (the establishment clause portion of the first amendment) with religion. Even if it is the student make the speech, the fact that it is a school sponsored even means that it is communication coming from the school. Letting Brittany say what she had planned would have clearly entangled the school with Christianity as the speech was clearly making the case for people accepting Christianity into their lives. If she wanted to stand on public property and give that speech over and over all day long without causing a disturbance, she could and I'm sure the ACLU would defend her.

The government needs to control the speech at commencements because it is defacto THEIR speech.

I'm damn near done with the essays so you didn't take me away from anything.

[BillE]

33. Plenty of people tell me I should believe in god

I get this both in forums(not here) and the outside world. I am not sure where you would find people telling you not to believe unless you frequent religion/atheist debate forums. I find it very difficult finding non-believers in the outside and even harder to get them to talk about religious subjects.

But you are probably referring to the government telling people not to believe. So far, the government does not tell people not to believe. But the government does tell people that they are not allowed to express their religious beliefs. For example, numerous high school valedictorians, who have been ordered not to discuss the most important aspect of their lives in their commencement speeches.

The law requires "government representatives" not to use their religious views in their official capacity. Examples can be requiring prayer during official meetings, having large obvious religious symbols displayed at public meeting places such as court rooms or government offices, quoting their holy book during official speech or addressing subordinates.

I know of one case but not the details, so I will keep the comment general. When a person is selected to give a speech at a high school commencement, they in affect become Representative of said school. The speech should at least be Representative of the schools function or purpose. If a person talks about god or religion was the main reason they've done so well, the impression may be that the school was encouraging such behavior. Or that the school encourage her to give such a speech which is both a Church/State issue and could involve legal issues.

Yes, the government is there to serve all the people, not just the religious ones. But also not just the irreligious ones. That is my point.

Being neutral doesn't serve irreligious any more the it serves the religious. Being neutral is just that, it doesn't tell you what or what not to believe.

Many of them are right here in this forum. They describe religion as a "delusion" and a "fairy tale" and state or imply that anyone who believes in religion is stupid.

This is more of a political correctness thing. To be sure any term we (unbelievers) use is bound to be offensive to someone. (though calling all believers stupid is going over the line)

[Crunchy Frog]

45. I doubt very much that a student would be allowed to use a commencement speech

to promote his atheism either. There's a reason they don't want official school events used as a platform to promote any particular set of beliefs or non-beliefs. These official functions are for ALL the members of the community, including those who do not share in the dominant belief system.

Would you really be happy if a student used her commencement speech to talk about her committment to Allah and the Islamic faith? There's certainly lots of Christians who wouldn't. Just remember the flap about Keith Ellison wanting to be sworn in on a Koran.

The main problem is, that many people want there to be freedom of religious expression in the public arena, but only if it's for their own religion. If it's somebody else's religion, forget it. If you can figure out some way to make everyone tolerant of everyone else's beliefs, you might be able to build a society where commencement speeches could be about religion. Otherwise it's not going to work, because people will always object when the belief system differs from their own.

[Zebedeo]

50. Why not allow a commencement speaker to talk about her atheism?

Since we are told that atheism is not a religion or even a religious point of view, censoring such a speech on the basis of its religious content makes no sense.

If a Muslim wants to talk about Allah in a commencement speech, I say fine. You've never heard me complain about any such thing.

"The main problem is, that many people want there to be freedom of religious expression in the public arena, but only if it's for their own religion. If it's somebody else's religion, forget it." Well, you're not talking about me. You might be talking about some atheists, who want only their views to be allowed to be expressed. But me, I say let everyone say what they want, as long as it's not inciting people to riot or causing an imminent threat of harm to someone.

[Crunchy Frog]

54. The reaction to Keith Ellison's decision to be sworn in on the Koran

tells me that this country is not ready for that which you propose. Maybe someday we'll be there, but currently our nation simply doesn't have the level of tolerance needed for it.

I admire your tolerance, although in some other posts, it seems that you're not willing to extend it to atheist students who want to meet for their own Bible study. Maybe we all need to work on our own tolerance, so that the ideal world that you speak of might eventually be brought about. At this stage of the game, the reaction of the Christians to the atheist students seems to predominate in our society. As long as that attitude prevails, Christians will continue to take themselves out of the public square as a consequence of their own actions, just those Christians managed to bring about an end to the Christian Bible study group at that school.

[Az]

12. Thats not quite the sequence of events

First of all its not just the atheists. There are all manner of people that understand and treasure the idea of the separation clause.

Second if the diversity of the society is respected you will not find many objections from the groups such as atheists and others of their sort. It is only when a single belief is represented that trouble begins. And that is the heart of the separation clause.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

This is the first thing mentioned in the first Amendment. It may just be important. The Government cannot prop up or stand behind any single religion. Thus its all or nothing.

What you often find though is that some Christians do not take that bit of legislation to heart. They believe that because they are in the majority (whether they are or not) they get to determine what goes in the public square. Atheists and others would love to have access to the public square and place their symbols within it. But the minute such a thing occurs there is a hue and cry from the religious right claiming that Satan worshipers and such have tainted our nation and should be driven out.

Let me give you a story of an event that occurred locally here in Michigan(iirc). A school had a healthy after hours curriculum. All sorts of groups met in the classrooms after school was out. This included a bible study group. This is perfectly allowable as it was student sponsored and not sponsored by the school or the faculty.

But then a group of atheists decided they wanted a bible study group of their own. So they petitioned the Principle for a study group of their own. At first the Principle rejected the idea. But the students were clearly in their right to hold such a group. Eventually he relented but put a condition on it that they had to find a teacher to chaperon their group. No teacher would touch this group with a ten foot pole. Eventually they found a science teacher that agreed to monitor the group via PA instead of being in the actual classroom with them.

Thus they got their study group. Even before they could meet the PTA rose up and demanded that they be denied access to the school. There was a huge reaction and much pressure was put on the Principle to deny these students their rights. The Principle would open the school to a huge lawsuit if he banned the atheist study group for being atheists. So he did the only other thing open to him. He canceled all the after hours programs.

It was not the atheists insisting that the Christians stop meeting. It was the Christians that could not find it in their hearts to tolerate other ways of thinking. This is of course not representative of all Christians. But of a sufficient number in that particular community to force an ugly solution to a problem.

Atheists get diversity. We depend on it. We would never insist that our way be the only way. Being a victim of that type of thinking creates a rather nasty reaction to such thinking. It is monolithic thinking that we tend to react to. Insist that your way is the only way and yeah... you are going to get the atheists coming out of the woodwork to have words with you. But show you get the idea of embracing diversity and we will be there with you sharing in that diversity.

[Zebedeo]

17. I have heard from atheists in this forum

that atheism is not a religion, not a religious belief, not a belief of any kind, not a religious belief system, not a belief system of any kind, not a religious world-view, and not a world-view of any kind.

If atheism is not a religious belief system, then why do you say that the "rights" of the atheist club in the school in Michigan were being violated? Do you mean their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment? That's what gives the Christian group a right to meet. They have a right to the free exercise of their religion. If atheism is a religion, then I would agree that the same right applies to an atheist club. But if atheists insist that atheism is NOT a religion, or a religious belief, or a religious world-view, then they should not be able to claim protection under the Free Exercise Clause. Basically, you cannot have it both ways. Either atheism is a religion or it isn't. If it isn't, I don't see how their rights under the First Amendment were violated.

[charlie]

21. No, it has nothing to do with the Free Exercise Clause

There is no imperative that schools must accomodate religious gatherings. In fact, it used to be harder to hold bible club meetings because some courts thought they violated the Establishment Clause. The right the atheists expect to enjoy is equal access, which is mandated by federal law. If a school hosts extracurricular Chess Clubs, then the door is opened to Bible Clubs... and Atheist Clubs.

[Az]

22. Neither atheism or theism are religions

They may be components of various religions. But on their own they are just labels detailing a particular belief or lack of belief on an individual.

The point of this has nothing to do with the separation clause. It has to do with the dynamics of the social situation. It is to raise awareness to the fact that atheists and others that demand fair treatment are not simply reactionaries that hate to see Christians getting away with things. It is that we wish to be treated fairly. We wish to see everyone treated fairly. The wall we fight to defend is not just for atheists. It is for Jehovah Witnesses. It is for Buddhists. It is for Pagans. It is for liberal Christians. It is for Jews. It is for Muslims. And it is even for fundamentalist Christians too.

All or None. That is what the separation clause means.

[Zebedeo]

23. There is no separation clause

There is the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

The "wall of separation" is a phrase taken from Jefferson's letter dated January 1, 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, CT, and referred to by the Supreme Court in various legal opinions, but there is no such clause in the Constitution, which was ratified in 1789, or in the Bill of Rights, which were added in 1791.

[Az]

24. My mistake

I did mean establishment clause.

But I trust you do see that the establishment clause does function to erect the wall of separation.

[Goblinmonger]

29. Not just Jefferson

Madison, the guy that actually wrote the 1st Amendment, felt very strongly about the seperation. I can find it from my source at home if you want, but Madison felt that the clergy should be ineligable to run for Congress since if the won they would be paid with public funds which, he felt, would be a violation of the constitutional amendment which he authored.

I can get the specific reference but it is also discussed in The Godless Constitution.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

32. Zeb, have you ever heard that "freedom of" also means "freedom from"?

Really.

:eyes:

[MistressOverdone]

35. You made a good point here

Now, personally, I think they should have allowed the group to meet simply based upon academic freedom, but you can't claim freedom of religion if you aren't a religion.

An interesting technicality.

[Goblinmonger]

39. What gave those kids the right to meet

was that the door was open to any student club that had a faculty advisor to meet. There was probably a chess club, a fly fishing lure tying club, a science club, an improv club (all of those clubs exist after school at my high school so that is why I use those examples). But, you see, the ACLU fought for the first amendment rights of the religious to also be included in those clubs. Damn them and their theist hating ways. So the atheists that wanted to get together and discuss the bible had as much right as the chess, science, Christian clubs as long as they had an advisor. See, it's all or nothing. If you don't let any clubs meet then you can tell them all no. But if you let one meet, you have to let them all. So in an effort to step on the rights of the atheists, all the good god-fearing people of that community did what they had to do to not let the godless meet. Proud of that?

[Zebedeo]

48. I wouldn't prevent atheists from meeting

Who gives a crap if they meet or don't meet? My point was that it would be hypocritical to claim that atheism is not a religion, but to simultaneously claim that these atheists had their right to free exercise of their religion violated.

[Goblinmonger]

49. The claim is not a violation of free exercise

The violation is equal treatment. If you allow groups (regardless of content) to meet at the school after hours, then you need to let them all meet. You can have a supervisor requirement, but you can't say one group is OK by content and not another. There was never a claim that it was a violation of free exercise. I believe it was offered as a counter example of Christians silencing atheists.

[cosmik debris]

57. I don't buy that

The free exercise clause protects the exercise of all beliefs about religion, not just beliefs in religion.

My right to reject religion is just as valid an exercise of my belief about religion as your exercise of belief about religion.

If the government takes away my right to reject religion they violate my right to exercise my belief about religion.

You are just parsing the words to support your opinion, but I don't believe you.

[Zebedeo]

62. You are the only atheist on this board

who admits that your atheism is a "belief" about religion. If it is a religious belief, then I agree with you.

[cosmik debris]

65. My belief is that religion is false

That's hardly the same as having a belief in religion or a religious belief.

[Crunchy Frog]

42. I've never, ever seen the government expressing or adopting

the atheistic view. I'm not aware of ANY elected officials who don't claim some sort of religious affiliation. If you've seen any atheist public officials, I'd be interested in knowing about them.

Saying that the government should be religiously neutral is not the same as saying it should officially adopt atheism. I don't understand why people have so much difficulty comprehending this.

[struggle4progress]

13. I want no government sponsorship of religious activities, but I do believe in free speech.

I don't want religious displays set up on government property -- but I think individuals and groups are certainly entitled to express themselves in public.

And when I say in public, I mean in general spaces open to the public, including supposedly private spaces such as shopping malls. Freedom of speech is meaningless if available only in one's home or on the courthouse steps -- and it absolutely includes the right to say things people don't want to hear.

I find most public expressions of religious belief irritating and self-serving but usually consider people are entitled to say what they believe. There's a limit, of course: where I once lived, there was a so-called "street preacher" whose regular diatribe included loudly streaming "slut!" and "whore!" at every passing woman of reproductive age -- but the women in town finally put an end to that public nuisance with an appropriate police complaint.

[Goblinmonger]

15. I believe

that you and I are in 100% agreement.

[struggle4progress]

19. Horrors!

:hippie:

[Goblinmonger]

26. Thought that might scare ya

:evilgrin:

[cain_7777]

27. The United States should endorse FSM as the "One True God"

its less of a fantasy than all the others, its easy to cook up in your kitchen, and tastes great too! The whole flying part makes a mess though.

[Rabrrrrrr]

28. No, I am absolutely in favor of public secularism

I don't need the government to reinforce my faith; nor do I need the government to beat down my faith - religion in public, by government agencies, results always in the lessening of one faith over another, and especially the lessening of atheism over any religion.

I find it sad when religious people feel that unless the government is spouting their doctrine that they are being "dissed" or that somehow their faith is threatened.

As Cal Thomas (a man I never agreed with before) said two years in the first "War on Christmas" bullshit, "I don't need a WalMart checker to affirm my faith". Nor do I need the government to affirm it. In fact, I *don't* want the government to affirm it (though I want them to allow it), because once the government affirms a religion, it destroys the goodness of that religion.

[Goblinmonger]

30. Actually

there are some indications that Jefferson and many other founders wanted the wall of seperation as much to protect against a theocracy as to protect the religion from the damaging effects of government. Many Founding Fathers felt that government would muck up the religions a la Church of England.

And I agree with what you say; I feel from the tone and content of your post that you feel the right to not believe is also covered under the first amendment unlike some posts.

[Rabrrrrrr]

73. Yes, the right not to believe is also a precious right that deserves protection.

I might even call it a sacred right if I were in a teasing mood and had a couple Martinis in me. Though I would say that with a wink and a nudge toward my atheist friends. :7

[WritingIsMyReligion]

58. Strongly support.

All in or all out. Choose one. Personally, I think "all out" is easier.

[Zhade]

59. "All out" is the only way to protect everyone's rights.

There's no way to include atheists with an "all-in" system, as we lack religion.

[bryant69]

70. This thread really took off after i figured nobody cared that much

I guess you never know.