Posted on 09/10/2003 4:45:44 AM PDT by xzins
Federal Judge Makes It Official -- America Now an Atheist Nation
The issue isn't a granite stone with the Ten Commandments inscribed on it. Never has been. The issue is much more diverse and important than a piece of stone.
The issue was best stated by none other than Federal Judge Myron Thompson, who said that the display of the stone containing the Ten Commandments (which also contains a host of other historical documents) is illegal. Thompson said the central, most important issue was this: "Can the state acknowledge God?"
After asking the question, he went on to answer it. "No."
That is the issue. Lest we fail to understand what has occurred here, let me explain. A single, lower-court federal judge has bluntly told every American that America is now officially an atheist nation.
In one swift stroke of the pen, Judge Thompson tossed out over 225 years of American history and law. In one swift stroke of the pen, he has instituted a new form of law based on what he wants it to be. Rex has become lex. He wears a black robe and he says he is the law.
Go back and read the First Amendment, the one Judge Thompson destroyed in the name of preserving it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," the First Amendment says. Congress has passed no law establishing religion. But what Congress refused to do, indeed because Congress refused to do it, Judge Thompson did. He instituted as the law of the land the religion of atheism, which says there is no God.
Not only did Judge Thompson usurp the power of Congress, he also took away the rights of every individual and state. The second half of the establishment clause of the First Amendment reads: "... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
This is precisely what one lower federal judge has done. He told Americans who disagree with his official state religion of atheism that he can and will prohibit the free exercise of their religion -- unless, of course, that religion is atheism. He stripped both Congress and the people of their rights. He set himself above the law because he considers himself to be the law.
From this day forward, our entire judicial system must be based on the religion of atheism. Follow that to its logical conclusion. In the future there will be no frame of reference from which to decide law. Law will become what any person wearing a black robe and sitting in court desires it to be. The First Amendment has been ripped apart in the name of upholding it. Orwell's 1984 has arrived.
No, you will not notice any drastic changes immediately. There is still a remnant left in the hearts and minds of the current citizenry. But when that remnant dies out, those who come after us will see a big difference.
The state will become intolerant of any religion other than atheism. That, of course, will come into conflict with people of conscience whose religion differs from that of the state. That is when the persecution, quite legal I might add, will start. It was the atheist Santayana who said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote: "The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
Indeed, Santayana and Jefferson were right.
I don't think so. I think the question is 'why can't Thompson acknowledge that he isn't God?"
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
The US Supreme Court disagrees with you.
But they are wrong.
It is always a mistake to exercise arbitrary power to dominate a majority. The politicians of this country's principal responsibility is to prevent the boys in blue and the boys in gray from shooting each other in the woods and fields.
Absurd Supreme Court concoctions like Everson and Roe do not accomplish their supposed purpose-they hasten the day the next civil war begins.
And all that is necessary (for the Court to do) is to read "establishment of religion" to mean establishment of religion, a familiar subject in the world of 1789.
Pathetic.
It seems like everyone in the US Supreme Court is wrong. Not even Scalia or Thomas will claim that the First Amendment does not apply to the states.
Furthermore, Rehnquist and Scalia are on the record as claming that the First Amendment prevents the states from displaying certain religious symbols all year around.
Conservative Justices Kennedy, White and Scalia addressed this issue on their dissenting opinion in County of Allegheny v. ACLU
Excerpt:
But coercion need not be a direct tax in aid of religion or a test oath. Symbolic recognition or accommodation of religious faith may violate the Clause in an extreme case. 1 I doubt not, for example, that the Clause forbids a city to permit the permanent erection of a large Latin cross on the roof of city hall. This is not because government speech about religion is per se suspect, as the majority would have it, but because such an obtrusive year-round religious display would place the government's weight behind an obvious effort to proselytize on behalf of a particular religion.How do you envision to change the current US Supreme Court? Do you think that any judge who disavows the "incorporation doctrine" and the restriction on religious symbols will ever be confirmed to any federal court?
Therefore, if it is true that some non-organized belief system is aided by the stone monument, then it is true that a non-organized belief system is aided by removing the stone monument.
How is non-belief aided?
Better to just allow everyone in charge of the building to have their turn to set up the displays/artwork that interests them. The next guy in charge will decorate differently and/or put up different displays. If he's an atheist, he can put up nothing. If a Buddhist, he can put up Buddhist art. If he's a Christian, he can hang Michaelangelo on the walls.
I would rather see government out of the religion business entirely.
As to this suggestion, do you think the religious right would quietly stand by while a statue of the Buddha is erected? What if he’s a Pagan, and erects a statue of the Mother Goddess?
2. The questions were based on your saying in the previous post that you could not see how a "non-religion" is viewed as a religion.
I still fail to understand how a lack of something can be a thing.
Do you make it a habit to insult the intelligence of people who take opinions that counter yours? If so, you must not have very many open and honest debates.
I do not intend to insult any one’s intelligence.
Once again I pose the question “Why is it that some – who appear to be very weak in their religious beliefs – insist that not encouraging a particular religion indicates atheism?”
It is really a case of Christian belief or atheism, nothing else exists?
I use the term, “appear to be very weak in their religious beliefs” because it appears to me that the people who want their religion on public display at public expense must be weak in their faith if they need continual reinforcement. Religion should be a very personal matter. I don’t believe it should be on the street.
No.
I think the future is very dark. I think we will be at war with each other within 35 years.
Of course, then those men who like to sneak porn where people can't see them wouldn't be able to do thatNow why should people be able to "see them"? Does the right of privacy not apply???
Quite frankly, I think the busybodies who have any objections to people being able to "sneak porn" where others can't see what they are doing are a far greater threat to liberty than those whose tastes in entertainment are less than what Wildmon and his ilk would consider "decent".
-Eric
Isn't it a good thing that I, a private citizen of the United States of America, can express my beliefs in my religion anywhere and any time I want to? Isn't it also good that I don't have to wade through religious proselytizing from my local judge, police officer, or government official in the performance of their official duties?
I'm so glad that I do not live in a theocracy.
My statement was used to show that he intended to literally "practice what he preached," which is a no-no when it comes to a government official establishing religious principles under color of law.
Further, as for the "a judge is not Congress" arguments I've been seeing around here, what legislative body do you think provides judges (and other government officials) with the power to be judges and oversight and control for same?
If a state judge of Alabama is a Buddhist, and his job is to decorate, then he should be able to decorate however he wishes. It's just art or an information display, for pete's sake. The next judge will change the furniture to suit his tastes.
To say that he can hang up Norman Rockwell or Pablo Picasso but he cannot hang up Salvador Dali is blatant religious discrimination. It's saying that religious opinions are less protected than other more acceptable opinions.
Indeed? Please describe, in detail, which governmental or extra-governmental organization or organizations prevent one from praying any time one wishes. Be specific.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.