I can't believe this is news AGAIN

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Personally, I feel it's an all-or-nothing deal. If you allow ANY religious messages (which I don't agree with anyway), you have to allow them all. This includes atheists. It constantly amazes me that some people's religious beliefs are so weak that they feel threatened by opposing views. If your faith is strong enough, it shouldn't be affected by displays from atheists or any other religion.

Seperation of Church and State. We were founded on it since many immigrants were escaping a Church run government. We need to learn what they already knew.

Funny, I don't recall the phrase "Separation of Church and State" being anywhere in any of the founding documents, and the 1st Amendment only says that congress cannot establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of it.

Putting religious displays up, even on government property, is still free exercise.

sidroski wrote:Seperation of Church and State. We were founded on it since many immigrants were escaping a Church run government. We need to learn what they already knew.

That is patently false! Separation of Church and state didn't exist until the 1940's. I think it was nine states that had official religions when the Constitution was ratified, they died out on their own. The founders didn't want to establish a Church of the United States is all they were doing.

Q-Tip wrote:Funny, I don't recall the phrase "Separation of Church and State" being anywhere in any of the founding documents, and the 1st Amendment only says that congress cannot establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of it.

AGREE!! The courts have turned this issue around 180 degrees. Judges are the greatest enemy of and threat to the Constitution.

It has been Ingrained in every ones head that there should be a separation of church and state. PhillipM hit the nail on the head. As a Christian myself and a Conservative, we as a group have started (30 years ago) to just set back and keep our mouths shut. We need to speak out when something like this comes along.
scott

Q-Tip wrote:Funny, I don't recall the phrase "Separation of Church and State" being anywhere in any of the founding documents, and the 1st Amendment only says that congress cannot establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of it.

Putting religious displays up, even on government property, is still free exercise.

100% correct.

mascott wrote:It has been Ingrained in every ones head that there should be a separation of church and state. PhillipM hit the nail on the head. As a Christian myself and a Conservative, we as a group have started (30 years ago) to just set back and keep our mouths shut. We need to speak out when something like this comes along.
scott

I figured out why they started to shut up. In the old days churches spoke out a lot about politics then the income tax law came about and made churches tax exempt if they kept their mouth shut about politics.

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bclawr/42_4/06_TXT.htm

SilentHitz wrote:Atheism isn't a religion...it's the lack of belief of ANY religion. So why the hell are they offended so much by something they don't believe in? They just wanna stir up crap...period!

As some of you know, I am an atheist, which simply means that I find no credible evidence for the existence of any gods. In our secular country I am free to believe this. In the past, I could have been executed by the christian church for expressing this "belief".

The view of the freedom from religion foundation, who places the sign on behalf of its MS membership, is in alignment with jakeg's original post, which is that there should be NO religious displays of any kind in or on state owned property. It is placed purely as a protest saying "If you think you have the right to do this, then so do I." Wiccans, a recognized religion, also have this right; just like Islam, and older religions than christianisty like the buddhist and hindu.

There a lot of bold talk that comes from christians regarding church state violations and the perceived need to speak up about it or just disregard the constitution and do what you want. All I can say about that is that its much easier to disregard the law when you are surrounded by your peers.

The fact is that the law is being violated when these nativities, crosses, 10 commandments, and such are placed on gov property. That being said, the law also used to say that black people could be owned as property. Just because something is law doesn't mean its right or wrong. So in the mean time, if christians want to be able to legally enable a change from a secular (non-religous) government, to the theocracy (religious government) they want, all that need be done is make your case to the people, take a vote, and change the law to enable the actions you desire to become legal. If christians are the majority in america, that should be an easy task. So why hasn't it happened in our 230+ years?

For anyone interested, here is how for the last few decades that the courts have decide what is and is not constitutional when it comes to religious things done or condoned by government. The Lemon Test.

Lemon test refers to the process of determining as to when a law has the effect of establishing religion. The Lemon test was formulated by Chief Justice Warren Burger in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 411 U.S. 192 (U.S. 1973).

The court in Lemon v. Kurtzman ruled three requirements for government concerning religion, they are :

1.The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;

2.The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and

3.The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

Lemon test states that if any of the requirements are violated by government, the action is deemed to be unconstitutional under the Establishment clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution.