Does the first atheist monument take us forward or backward?
The first atheist monument was constructed on government land in Florida. It was done as a compromise when courts refused to remove a reproduction of the ten commandments. As an atheist, seeing the monument is encouraging; the more recognized we are, the less demonized we will be (hopefully). But the monument technically didn't solve the problem. Our government is supposed to show no preference for religion, but now it's just showing a preference for two (though atheism isn't technically a religion). Do you think this event is taking atheists (and the U.S.) forward or backward?
Backwards, neither should exist on public land. Our government in all aspects should be religiously neutral "a wall of separation" those who disagree do so only so long as it's just their faith that is promoted, start suggesting we should have Koran quotes everywhere and the tune changes quickly.
Actually, the government is not to ESTABLISH a religion...as in a State Church. "Congress shall make no LAW respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Wall of separation doctrine as accepted and shown by the Supreme Court from the letters of the writer.
political falsity appears as metaphors like "wall of separation" routinely quoted when speaking of the first amendment. however, the government has yet to prove that this metaphor is exactly the phrase that defines "Congress shall make no law..."
Nope the phrase has been proved repeatedly, there are several Supreme Court cases doing so. As per the constitution SCOTUS is the final interpreter of the constitution. Therefore the wall of separation doctrine is the only proven reading of the law.
Everyone wishes to depict the phrase within a prior court case to render their meaning for a current event. But, many cases have also determined that the "wall of separation" is not valid for artifacts or monuments. It's not global. For this case ?
As an atheist I can see both sides. On one hand, what's good for the goose. Religious people want to put their monuments on public land, well then the non-religious should get to do the same.
I prefer that NO monuments be used. You can't open up the doors to one belief system and not all the others. There are plenty of churches, temples, synagogues etc. that everyone is free to go to if they choose. You can also worship in your home, why the need for religious displays on government property?
You must believe that everyone should quit using all forms of money, credit, and financial institution forms since many depict some form of monument support for some form of belief system. The USA society is a freedom and peace loving land.
God was added to currency during the 50's it wasn't always there and I'd be perfectly fine with it being removed
I would add that the references to god were added illegally without proper hearings. It should be take off. None of my financial forms, save money which is printed at the command of a non-American Corp, have any such references.
IN God we trust was first used in 1964 on USA coins. It was added to paper currency in 1957 after it was selected as the USA motto in 1956. The statement has nothing to do with any law creating a religion. But the radicals like to make chaos. Truth.
In God we trust is a perfect example of constitutional violation. Having "In God we trust" on our currency makes a mockery of the founding father's desire for: "a wall of separation between church and state" as Jefferson wanted and wrote.
In God we trust is not a religion. it is a national motto. History has shown that citizens trust those who trust God. That has nothing to do with establishment of religion. But it does have everything to do with TRUST. TRUTH.
I didn't say it was a religion I said it violates the wall of separation doctrine and thus makes a mockery of what the founding fathers wrote that they wanted.
Agreed Josak. ta you are a very angry person who seems to think anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "radical" get a grip.
@taburkett, For someone who claims to love freedom and peace so much, it seems that you actually hate freedom so much that you refuse to even enjoy the freedom to think for yourselves, and prefer to give that freedom up. Maybe its fear that u love.
In God we trust is not a law to establish religion. it does not represent anything against the Constitution. Radicals have taken action to discriminate against the Constitution. They state that reference to God is an establishment of religion.
It has nothing to do with the establishment of a religion, it's a violation of wall of separation doctrine do you not understand?
Josak - I understand that "wall of separation" has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Because it does not define the First Amendment. Many have attempted to imply that it does. none have been able to convince the Congress to change the wording
Not true. The supreme court has confirmed the wall of separation doctrine repeatedly.
If we are supposed to smile and wave at all of the religious symbols and bric a brac then all beliefs, or non-beliefs, should be given equal space and time.
Like others here I would rather see none of this.
I am atheist but I don't need a monument to tell me that. Nor do I have any desire to tell others how to believe.
If we are going to post something why not post the most common 10 actual laws of society and leave the religious BS out of it.
All those who seek equal space are permitted.
To provide a better activity, the government should not own any property.
This would eliminate all problems with government property with monuments.
I would not be happy with public property being transferred to private hands or to any entity not publicly controlled.
there is little need for government property that discriminates against the citizen. by removing all government property, all discrimination on that property by the government would be eliminated. this would then provide the equality radicals seek.
The ruling by the judge in this Florida case was appropriate based on the Constitution of the USA and Florida. Any other insinuated purpose is simply an attempt to circumvent the truth. Therefore, it neither takes us forward or backward because it makes no difference to those who have chosen their respective paths. Additionally, it should not affect any who do not traverse the grounds where it may have been placed.
The government made no law permitting it or rejecting it.
The government made no law to establish a religion.
In fact, the government correctly permitted the citizens to provide for themselves these monuments.
Placing a plaque, picture, or any artifact provided by the citizens of this nation on government property is not a law made to establish religion.
But many disruptive citizens choose to insinuate that it is such so that they can generate radical chaos within the nation. When someone utilizes this tactic, they attempt to destroy the freedom loving, peaceful society of the nation.
Those who generate such chaos never take responsibility for the detrimental outcome when the society suffers from those corrupt efforts.
The USA is the greatest nation in the world because the government is the people.
The USA suffers today because many of its citizens have lost touch with this reality.
The USA will continue to suffer as long as any group is permitted to discriminate against another group by calling for the government to refuse the desires of its citizens - the true power of the nation.
The founding fathers understood this truth, and so generated a protective Constitution that when used properly refutes the power of some to rule over others.
The government is not empowered to show favoritism. It is empowered to deny favoritism to one group over the other.
The sooner the citizens of the USA get back to this truth - the better.
by Tessa Schlesinger 5 months ago
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/201 … ive-speechCould it have been because they were cynics or atheists and they didn't believe that the church should rule the country?
by Onusonus 8 years ago
They are actually trying to ban circumsision in Sanfrancisco.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/1 … 63945.html
by Cassie Smith 8 years ago
A NJ judge ruled against a Christian retreat house that refused to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its premises. The United Methodist Church, the owner of the retreat house, holds the view that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. The...
by JP Carlos 8 years ago
Do you believe in the separation of church and state?Many policies and bills being passed by the government seem to encrouch on religious beliefs. Also, the church has been very active in the state's affairs (at least here in the Philippines). Is the separtion of church and state still...
by Thomas M D Hemsley 23 months ago
This forum is for anyone here who wishes to debate on the subject of religion and religious beliefs. Outline your position, whether it be theist or atheist, explain why you hold that position, and then people can debate against you. This forum is not meant to polarize or antagonize people, simply...
by Ben Bush 2 years ago
There are many who say that, not only is the separation of Church & State not a truly legal concept, but it was never intended by God to be the true state of affairs in the United States.So, what is the separation of Church & State as reflected in law? As reflected in the Bible?Do you know...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|