Posted on 08/20/2005 12:11:11 AM PDT by Lexinom
A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
What you say makes more common sense.
You're ALL missing the point...
NOW we can go after "Separation of ACLU and State!"
Cheers!
Bill Clinton was apparently a humanist. He wanted people to kneel in front of him.
Well, OK, he mainly wanted the women to kneel in front of him...
Cheers!
LOL!
I would think so.
This is great!
By their own "tenets", they don't have any more right to have the government embrace their beliefs than any other religion does, do they?
So because we can't have court houses and other public buildings displaying symbols of all the world's religions until said buildings look like stock cars, public buildings should only display the dominant religious symbols of their culture.
In the US, I would expect that to be Christianity, in India I would expect those symbols to be Hindu etc.
Your question about what God the nation was founded on is easily answered. The fact you don't like the answer isn't relevant.
However it won't help for me to quibble over such.
In addition to those attributes that you reasonably ascribe to secularism, it has one important attribute for the purposes of this discussion. It is held by people in lieu of religion. It is the antagonist to religion. Instead of believing in a God, or in gods, or in the certainty that there is no God, they put their ultimate faith and trust in human institutions and concepts, and hold traditional, theist religions as evil.
If by "religion" you mean a faith in God, then secularism is no religion.
If you extend (or abuse, if you prefer) the word religion to include whatever manifestation the receptacle of one's ultimate faith and trust takes, then secularism is such an alternative.
It's the anti-religion.
The essential point here is that the Left has essentially made the anti-religion of secularism an establishment of the state.
In ordinary terms, the establishment clause of the Constitution does not speak to this blasphemy. It states that no religion, presumably meaning ordinary theist or similar such faith systems, may be favored as an establishment of the state. The crystal ball of our founding fathers did not forsee the need to prohibit the official establishment of anti-religion as well.
Not that it would have done much good if they had.
The courts show no reluctance to violate the most plain spoken constraints of the Constitution.
Why not? Could not apathy apply? I.e., is it not possible for someone to not really care whether there is a God or not? In this case, no religion applies, because there is no worship or evangelism involved.
"This is huge and long overdue."
This is absolutely great. Is the absence of the Ten Commandments in a courtroom therefore an expression of the atheist religion! ! !
An expression of atheism would be a sign stating there is no god.
So this case agrees to ban such signs. Whoopee do. Signs refuting the existence of a god are not on anyone's short list of greatest threats to civilization.
I doubt it. Although under the 7th circuit opinion, a display proclaiming the non-existence of any deity would be an expression of "atheistic religion."
SCOTUS ruled that Secular Humanism is a religion over twenty years ago. Since atheism is a primary tenet of Secular Humanism, I wonder why it took so long for this decision?
Doesn't it say on your homepage, "atheism is not a religion?"
One takes a definitive stand on a theological issue. The other trusts science in lieu of theology.
A secularist might suspect that there is a God, but just denounce human efforts to learn about God as misguided. An atheist might find profound importance in the great religions (I exclude Islam here), while remaining certain that God does not exist.
In population terms, there are far more secularists than atheists. Most Democrats instinctively trust science, the federal government, main stream media and the faculty at the great Universities above all else. Few Democrats are certain that there is no God. Most Democrats are secularists, instinctively, even if they don't know what the word means. Few Democrats are atheists -- not that their belief in God guides their life, but that they don't actively disbelieve.
"No - the absence of the Ten Commandments is not an expression of atheism."
If the absence of a religion (i.e. atheism), is now a religion, then it follows that the absence of a sign, can be a sign.
This is quite possible. If you were on a freeway full of obscuring signs, and finally you found an area devoid of signs, AD an area devoid of signs was what you were looking for, you mght very well by that property.
I don't know.
It would be eery indeed if we woke one morning and discovered that there were no crosses in any of the Catholic churches in our neighborhood.
But this applies only in the particular case that a sign was expected.
To which you might reply -- but but a sign is expected. This is a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles, by those who believed in God, or at least chose to encourage such in public. The absence of the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court house in Alabama is much like the absence of any crosses in a Catholic church - a sign of anti-religious zealotry run amuck.
From the perspective of the religious right, that makes good sense.
From the perspective of the (mostly liberal) courts, that doesn't make sense.
When I responded as to the meaning of this ruling, I was responding from the perspective I imagined the courts would take. For them, the court houses are supposedly to be presented as neutral on the point of religion, and the absence of a Christian symbol or text is not the indication of an actively anti-religious perspective.
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.