Whiny Atheists

[Jose Fly]

And if the decals said "thou shall not murder"?

It's not religious in context even if the exact phrase is also found in the bible. Hence, no government endorsement.

"In God we trust" is still on our currency, is it not?

Except the decals had "Matthew 5:9" on them.

 

[WizardofOz]

Except the decals had "Matthew 5:9" on them.

Thou shall not murder
Exodus 20:13

Quoting a religious text is not automatically an endorsement of its corresponding religion.

If you sneeze is it illegal for a police officer to say "god bless you"?

 

[Jose Fly]

Thou shall not murder
Exodus 20:13

Quoting a religious text is not automatically an endorsement of its corresponding religion.

In this case, it was. I'm sure you'd feel the same if the police put a sticker on their vehicles that said, "Allah loves those who are just. Quran 49:09".

If you sneeze is it illegal for a police officer to say "god bless you"?

I think that can be perceived as a social custom, more than an a deliberate endorsement of religion.

 

[aikido7]

when asked for a cite you're sposed to give something other than your own opinion


like a linky to some expert?

All I have learned about the Bible have to come from folks who have studied it far, far longer and with more intellectual heft and acumen than I could ever hope to do.

When I took part in my church's "Corinthian Covenant" classes, we were shown how to read the New Testament in parallel, the way Christian scholars began doing in the 1700s. I always read the gospels one after the other, but when we all finished the class, we were astonished to find out the patterns and traditions that were embedded in them.

So I can only give my own opinion. It is based on many decades of study and it is all I have. I am certainly not going to assert that my historical knowledge is right.

***But whenever I give a scriptural reference from Jesus, however, most of you folks do not seem to be able to let the verse or passage register for you at all.

***So clearly, Jesus still disturbs us on some level. Just as he did 2,000 years ago.

The gospels themselves were written long after the crucifixion, so all of Christian theology or conjecture is provisional.

We are talking about getting inside the minds of people 2,000 years ago. That should bring to the table a measure of humility.

 

[aikido7]

when asked for a cite you're sposed to give something other than your own opinion


like a linky to some expert?

Here is one example that backs up my comments....

THE NICEAN CREED:

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.



It says nothing about Jesus's life or his Kingdom of God teachings. It has an empty center.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Group Demands Removal of ‘God Bless the Military’ Sign Over Religious Reference

Update:

Marine Corps Refuses to Remove ‘God Bless the Military’ Sign Following Complaint

A Marine Corps base in Hawaii is refusing to relocate or remove a sign that asks God’s blessing on the Armed Forces following receipt of a complaint from a group that seeks to separate God from the military.

As previously reported, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) sent an email last month to Col. Sean Killeen, the commanding officer of Marine Corps Base Hawaii, to take issue with a sign near the marina that reads, “God bless the military, their families, and the civilians who work with them.” It was reportedly erected following the September 11th attack of 2001.

Blake Page of MRFF asserted that the sign is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” He demanded that the sign either be moved to the chapel or removed altogether.

“This sign is a brazen violation of the No Establishment clause of the Constitution, as it sends the clear message that your installation gives preference to those who hold religious beliefs over those who do not, and those who prefer a monotheistic, intervening God over other deities or theologies,” Blake wrote in the email to Killeen.

“We recognize the value that religious activity brings to the lives of many,” he continued, “however, this sign is not in keeping with the time, place, and manner restrictions required by law [or] for any military commander to bolster religious principles through the official authority given to their rank and position.”

But the religious liberties group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) also sent Killeen an email, asserting that MRFF’s demands were unconstitutional.

“As it stands, the sign is not grounds for an Establishment Clause violation. However, removal of the sign would certainly be in violation of the Establishment Clause, showing preference for no religion over religion,” Director of Military Affairs Daniel Briggs wrote.

“Our nation has many constitutionally permissible reminders of our historical and cultural roots, from our national motto, ‘In God We Trust,’ to ‘so help me God’ in the Commissioned Officer’s Oath to the presidential proclamations
accompanying each National Day of Prayer,” he continued.

After deliberating the matter, Killeen sent a reply to MRFF on Friday refusing to relocate or remove the sign.

“Several Supreme Court court cases and other federal cases, to include the 9th Circuit, support the conclusion that the message on the sign does not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution,” he wrote. “‘God bless’ is commonly used in our culture in a number of contexts and there are numerous references to God in this nation’s symbols, songs, mottos and oaths.”

“To date, we have not received any direct complaints concerning this sign from service members or reports of service member complaints through any official chain of command,” Killeen continued. “We will always support all service members’ rights to pursue and practice their own belief sets, whether religious or not.”

Excellent news

 

[Angel4Truth]

Kentucky Mayor Refuses to Remove Cross from Water Tower Following Atheist Complaint

WILMORE, Ky. — The mayor of a city in Kentucky is refusing to remove a cross from a water tower that belongs to the city but is on private property despite demands from an atheist organization to remove the crucifix.

The Madison, Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) recently emailed Wilmore Mayor Harold Rainwater to state that the presence of the cross is “unlawful.”

“The Wilmore cross, displayed on the city water tower, unabashedly creates the perception of government endorsement of Christianity,” wrote staff attorney Rebecca Markert. “It conveys the message to the nearly 30 percent of the U.S. population who are not Christians that they are not ‘favored members of the political community.”

The water tower sits on the property of Asbury University, a private Christian institution. The cross was placed on the tower when it was owned by the university, and remained after the city bought the tower back in 1976. According to reports, it was part of the transferal agreement to leave the cross in place.

But FFRF said that makes no difference.

“We are aware that the water tower itself stands on the campus of Asbury University, a private Christian college, but this is irrelevant,” Markert wrote. “Any reasonable observer would understand the city to endorse any messages on the water tower because the water tower has ‘Wilmore’ printed on it in large letters, and because the tower is displayed on the city’s website to represent the city’s water and sewage services.”

She insinuated that FFRF might sue if the cross is not removed, pointed to another suit filed against the town of Whiteville, Tennessee.

However, Mayor Rainwater, who is also an associate professor at the university, says that he is not backing down.

“To be honest with you, I look at an email as spam. That is not the way you contact someone in a legal position,” he told the Jessamine Journal. “When I get a subpoena or I get served, then I know I have to respond … but I’m not going to take a cross down because of an email.”

Rainwater stated that the citizens of Wilmore want the cross to stay.

“There’s a groundswell of support to keep [the cross] and I’m certainly going to fight to keep it with everything I’ve got,” he said. “I think it’s symbolic of our town. I one hundred percent support keeping it there. We won’t take it down unless we’re forced to take it down.”

:baby:

 

[Angel4Truth]

Texas Principal to No Longer Speak at ‘See You at the Pole’ Prayer Events Over Atheist Complaint

PROSPER, Texas — A Texas principal has agreed to no longer speak at future “See You at the Pole” school prayer events in his capacity as a public official following the demands of a prominent atheist activist organization.

According to reports, for the past 21 years, Dr. Greg Wright, the principal of Prosper High School has been leading prayers and delivering sermons at the annual youth prayer event. But recently, parent Janie Oyakawa contacted the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) about Wright’s practice, as well as his alleged formation of a Christian club for students.

“If he wants to be the principal of a Christian school, he has all the freedom to do that. But I just want our high school to represent the people that are part of the community and contribute financially to it and not all of those people are Christians,” she told local television station NBCDFW.

Her complaints, which were also posted online, resulted in a prayer rally on campus in late September in support of Wright.

As a result of the situation, FFRF sent a letter to Superintendent Drew Watkins to demand that school officials refrain from participating in prayer events or forming religious clubs.

“When a teacher or principal is on school property as part of the school day, even if it is before the official 8:24 a.m. start, they are there for their official duties, just as students are,” the letter from the organization read. “School staffers cannot lead, encourage, or participate in student-led religious activity. And any religious event or religious club at a PISD school must be genuinely student-led.”

The correspondence also took issue with a cross and plaque in the assistant principal’s office that reads, “God didn’t promise days without pain, laughter without sorry, nor sun without rain. But he did promise strength for the day.”

“We understand that PHS Assistant Principal Grant displays a Latin cross and a plaque about god in her office,” the letter said. “That these displays are in Grant’s office is immaterial. Students enter her office regularly and the displays are orientated towards those student visitors.”

On Monday, FFRF announced that it had received a reply from Charles Crawford, the attorney for Prosper Independent School District, advising that Wright will no longer speak “in his capacity as district employee at future on-campus, student-led See You at the Pole events.” Crawford also agreed that officials will not “prominently display religious materials in school buildings where students are likely to be present.”

But he also asserted that “Principal Wright is not forming a religious club for students.” Crawford contended that the club is rather “being student formed and led.”

FFRF says that it is going to continue to monitor the school to ensure that it is following through with the group’s demands.

What law makes it so a school official cannot practice their faith or express it?

In fact trying to make laws to prevent them from doing so is against the constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Where does this say unless you are a government employee????

 

[quip]

You sure whine alot .... not being an atheist 'n all. :idunno:

 

[gcthomas]

What law makes it so a school official cannot practice their faith or express it??

The Constitution put limits on the government's endorsement or specific religions, such as prohibiting proselytising in government schools.

You quoted the Constitution, but don't you think you are cherry picking it somewhat?

 

[Right Divider]

The Constitution put limits on the government's endorsement or specific religions, such as prohibiting proselytising in government schools.

You quoted the Constitution, but don't you think you are cherry picking it somewhat?

The first amendment is specifically about what CONGRESS can and cannot do.

I know that we are in the 'stupid' era where words have no meaning. But that's what the Constitution actually says.

 

[Jose Fly]

What law makes it so a school official cannot practice their faith or express it?

The answer is in the very first sentence in the article you quoted from...

A Texas principal has agreed to no longer speak at future “See You at the Pole” school prayer events in his capacity as a public official​

I'm surprised that despite all the time you put into posting about these sorts of cases, you still don't understand the legal issues behind them.

 

[gcthomas]

The first amendment is specifically about what CONGRESS can and cannot do.

I know that we are in the 'stupid' era where words have no meaning. But that's what the Constitution actually says.

The Constitution sets up the Supreme Court as the arbiter of what the Constitution means. And they have said that the 1st Amendment applies to the whole government. The Fourteenth Amendment protects these freedoms from interference by the states.

It seems it is you who has remained in the 'stupid era' if you think that you can interpret the Constitution without paying attention to Supreme Court rulings.

 

[Right Divider]

The Constitution sets up the Supreme Court as the arbiter of what the Constitution means. And they have said that the 1st Amendment applies to the whole government. The Fourteenth Amendment protects these freedoms from interference by the states.

It seems it is you who has remained in the 'stupid era' if you think that you can interpret the Constitution without paying attention to Supreme Court rulings.

Sure.... I'm quite certain that the "original intent" was NOT that the SC gets to RULE the country.

 

[gcthomas]

Sure.... I'm quite certain that the "original intent" was NOT that the SC gets to RULE the country.

Wasn't the judiciary supposed to be a major branch to balance the power of the executive? If that was the case, then the original intent really was to give the SCOTUS real powers.

It seems you don't know as much about your constitutional arrangements as you thought.

 

[Right Divider]

Wasn't the judiciary supposed to be a major branch to balance the power of the executive? If that was the case, then the original intent really was to give the SCOTUS real powers.

It seems you don't know as much about your constitutional arrangements as you thought.

NO ONE branch of OUR government was supposed to have "the real powers". You're the one ignorant of US history.

 

[gcthomas]

NO ONE branch of OUR government was supposed to have "the real powers". You're the one ignorant of US history.

I said real powers, not 'the' real powers. You are criticising something I didn't claim.

 

[Right Divider]

I said real powers, not 'the' real powers. You are criticising something I didn't claim.

Regardless of the definite article, it's the same thing you're claiming.

 

[gcthomas]

Regardless of the definite article, it's the same thing you're claiming.

Don't be an idiot. The government has real power, so does POTAS, and all does SCOTUS. Real power is shared.

 

[Right Divider]

Don't be an idiot. The government has real power, so does POTAS, and all does SCOTUS. Real power is shared.

Don't be an idiot. OUR government is supposed to rest in the POWER OF THE PEOPLE and NOT their elected government.