Federal Judge Makes It Official -- America Now an Atheist Nation

American Family Association ^ | Sep 5, 203 | Don Wildmon

[xzins]

see #20

[george wythe]

.
IMHO, this case boils down to two questions, one general question and another more specific:

Question #1: Is it constitutional to display the Ten Commandments in a government building?

Answer: Yes.

Question #2: Is it constitutional to display the Ten Commandments in a government building by:

A. Making the Ten Commandments a huge monument that overwhelms and crowds everything else at the main entrance to the building.

B. Ignoring all the local regulations about changes in the government buildings, such as not informing the building superintendent or fellow justices who have proper jurisdiction in the review to changes to this building.

C. Claiming publicly in front of TV cameras that the reason the Ten Commandments monuments being placed in the building is to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian God by the state, and that any other gods, such as the god worship by Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Shintoists is not the same as the Judeo-Christian God.

D. Testifying under oath in federal court, that the reason for the monument is to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian God, and that non-Judeo-Christian religions are not religions recognized by the state, but just "faiths."

E. Ignoring legal procedures, such as failing to file motions and ask for injunctive relief in timely fashion because the First Amendment does not apply to the states.

Answer: No.

That’s exactly what the federal judge in this case has said.

Glassroth v. Moore

Based on the evidence presented during a week-long trial and for the reasons that follow, this court holds that the evidence is overwhelming and the law is clear that the Chief Justice violated the Establishment Clause.

But, in announcing this holding today, the court believes it is important to clarify at the outset that the court does not hold that it is improper in all instances to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings; nor does the court hold that the Ten Commandments are not important, if not one of the most important, sources of American law.

Rather the court's limited holding, as will [*3] be explained below in more detail, is that the Chief Justice's actions and intentions in this case crossed the Establishment Clause line between the permissible and the impermissible.

Using Lemon v. Kurtzman the judge concluded that this:

display of the monument fails this test, frequently called the Lemon test, in two ways: (1) his fundamental, if not sole, purpose in displaying the monument was non-secular; and (2) the monument's primary effect advances religion.

[Publius6961]

I no more welcome a "hard core" Christian nation as I would an atheist or an Islamic one.

Bible thumpers scare the bejesis out of me, exactly as the sandmaggots do.

Having said that, professional militant atheists as below scum, childmolesters and perverts in my estimation.

Wait...
Am I repeating myself?

[stainlessbanner]

"Can the state acknowledge God?"

He is so wrong. Of course the state can - the people do.

[tpaine]

Yep, -- "hard core" Christians, professional militant atheists, and
Bible thumpers scare the bejesis out of most everyone, exactly as the sandmaggots do.

They are all fanatics:

"The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation."

We are thus driven to the conclusion that the trouble with our species is an excess capacity for fanatical devotion.
-Arthur Koestler-

[John O]

I agree entirely. (And no apologies needed for asking God to save America.)

Our condition is the church's fault:

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Note that He says "MY PEOPLE". We, as Christians, have the responsibility to pray and seek his face for our land. We have not consistently done so.

But in some of our churches that is changing. We are now actively seeking God's blessing for our country in at least the church I attend.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

He will withhold all blessings till this wrong is righted.

I used to think this was hyperbole.

Not so sure anymore. History shows nations fall when they fragment into atheistic, licentious, gnostic rebellion.

It happened to Greece, to Rome, to England. There's little doubt that much of the U.S. has set its course for oblivion.

God willing, He is using America as the one example of a nation which turned from its error to learn from the past.

A Republican President and a Republican Congress should, if so inclined, be able to right the country.

It hasn't happened yet.

[ArGee]

Bible thumpers scare the bejesis out of me, exactly as the sandmaggots do.

Can you please define your terms? Those who devoutly believe in the Koran created Iraq. Those who devoutly believe in the Bible created the U.S.

I think there is a clear difference. It's not faith that is dangerous, it's what you have faith in.

Not that there aren't good examples of bad people who claim every faith on the planet, including "fundamentalist" atheists. (Remember Stalin?) But I can never understand why people want to equate believing Christians with the Taliban.

As I said, maybe I just don't know what you mean by a "Bible Thumper."

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Please see #28 and respond if you have time.

Shalom.

[ImphClinton]

So right.

God doesn't act against individuals but does against entire nations that disrespect him. You can add the USSR to that list they were Godless and didn't last very long. Germany as well I believe God made sure Germany lost.

[xzins]

see #14

[ImphClinton]

Correct not the way God works.

He allows us all freedom to do as we will. But this freedom does not extend to entire nations. If they fail to acknowledge him he withdraws from them and makes sure that people that invent things are not born. Satan is given more power and that allows the Nation to crumble. GOD might cause droughts, earth quakes and other natural disasters. The righteous who die in these act as witnesses against the wicked.

Patt Robertson has no right to speak for GOD. In this case he was just out of his mind. He might have wished it and even prayed for it. But those prayers are never answered in that way. God gives Disney the freedom to have Gay Days and does not punnish them directly for doing so. At least not in this life.

[tpaine]

Can you please define your terms?
It's not faith that is dangerous, it's what you have faith in.
-RG-



In effect, you answered your own question..
It's the fanatical, unreasoning zealot who insists that ALL other men MUST obey the beliefs of his cause, -- his sickness is the trouble "with our species".
Reread Koestler for his definition of the fanatic:




"The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his --
~[the fanatic's]~
-- excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation."

We are thus driven to the conclusion that the trouble with our species is an excess capacity for fanatical devotion.
-Arthur Koestler-

[jimt]

How about "This should read, “America is now a Nation that does not use government positions or facilities to discriminate in favor of one religion.”

I believe individuals should be free to discriminate. Just not government.

[70times7]

I'm sorry to disagree, but what I think Judge Thompson has done is make [us] an officially agnostic nation.

I heartily disagree. When it comes to history and scripture, we have been in hot pursuit of the title "ignoramus nation" (ignoramus = agnostic) for many years. And we have been accomplishing the task without him just fine, thank you very much!

[jimt]

Your #22 is very well put.

[ArGee]

It's the fanatical, unreasoning zealot who insists that ALL other men MUST obey the beliefs of his cause, -- his sickness is the trouble "with our species".

Do you believe that this is what Judge Moore is when he tries to put a monument to the 10 Commandments in the rotunda of his courthouse?

Shalom.

[Lurking Libertarian]

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."

Two points: (1)I don't believe any such language appears anywhere in Thompson's decision.

(2)People who focus on "a single federal judge" neglect to mention that a 3-judge panel of the Court of Appeals (including one Reagan appointee and one Bush Sr. appointee) unanimously affirmed Judge Thompson's decision, and that the Supreme Court unanimously denied a stay.

[xzins]

I've read numerous reports that Moore and Thompson agreed on the question: "Can the state acknowledge God?"

It is possible that this did not appear in the decision. I haven't seen the decision. That, however, doesn't mean that Moore and Thompson did not agree on that. The section of the article you quoted leaves that point open.