[wagglebee]

It has been permissible in this land to remove principles, symbols, practices, policies from the public square explicitly because they are religious.

But we may now show that the removal of these things is also explicitly religious - it satisfies the religious convictions of atheism. As such we have a new opportunity: the state may neither affirm the cross on the council’s wall nor take it down in support of atheism.

This is an excellent point!

[wagglebee]

(Sort of) evolution ping.

[Coyoteman]

Have you actually read this for yourself? Its on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals website (Kaufman v. McCaughtry).

Sorry, its a lot narrower than you probably hoped. Check it out!

[Mike Darancette]

When the Atheists sue for the removal of Christian in now becomes a battle of religions.

[Paloma_55]

the state may neither affirm the cross on the council’s wall nor take it down in support of atheism.

This reminds me of a phrase I once read...

"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Wow! It took this long to come to the beginning of the circle?

[AndyTheBear]

This idea would be using dishonesty to fight dishonesty. Neither Atheism, Monotheism, Polytheism nor other such theism is an establishment of religion nor a practice thereof. It is simply a believe about the nature of the universe.

The practice of religion--which the federal government is forbidden from regulating by the first amendment--involves prayer and worship.

Religious establishments--which the federal government is also forbidden from regulating--include places and organizations of worship.

Both prayer and Churches are supposed to be protected from laws passed by the federal legislature. As for laws made up by the federal bench regulating religion--they are absolutely abhorrent, and should not be entertained on any level.

[xzins]

End zone celebration before the end of the game.

While I do think that atheism is as much a statement of faith as is any other religion, I do not think the courts will rule that the absence of something equals the presence of something in terms of removing 10 commandment monuments from public squares.

Jmho.