Atheists lose their stupid suit against I-beams

[orpheus]

I wasn't responding to you, Seth. I was just observing a contradiction in the comments people had made when this whe thing began.

[Animavore]

Trying to have the cross removed was a dick-move in my opinion. It's just a stupid piece of metal. If people want to venerate it like it was something more than that then let them. It's no skin off anyone else's nose. There's a time and place to enact seperation of church and state and this one came across to me as highly inappropriate.

[Audley Strange]

I have to concur, it seems less about lack of belief in a God and more offence that other don't and want to paint their evil witchcrafty glyphs and sigils everywhere if people want to worship a stick, who gives a fuck? This is less about being an atheist and more about being a group of arseholes who define themselves by their nitpicking and mean spirited self righteousness, kind of like atheism "plus".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I have to concur, it seems less about lack of belief in a God and more offence that other don't and want to paint their evil witchcrafty glyphs and sigils everywhere if people want to worship a stick, who gives a fuck? This is less about being an atheist and more about being a group of arseholes who define themselves by their nitpicking and mean spirited self righteousness, kind of like atheism "plus".

Just goes to show there's no capital A atheist.

[Seth]

I wasn't responding to you, Seth. I was just observing a contradiction in the comments people had made when this whe thing began.

And I was responding to your statement and expanding on it. That's called "debate." Also, "free speech."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Appears there are capital A assholes.

[Tyrannical]

"It was not intended to and will not promote any religion or discriminate against any religion"...

So why choose a crucifix shaped piece of wreckage out of all of the myriad similar scraps available? Why not a "Crescent and star" shaped lump? Or a "Wheel of Karma" shaped tangle? Or maybe the infamous "Dreadlocks girder"?

I call shenanigans! The judge's a priori consideration was not upsetting nor criticising fellow christians - but doing so in a way that appeared to be "fair".

And what would the opinion of the passers of the First Amendment be? What was and what was not allowed under them while they were active politicians under that amendment? We have a process for changing the Constitution, and it in no way encompasses the changing opinion of Judges sitting on the Supreme Court.
It was never intended to be any protection for Atheists, just to keep the United States from forming a State decreed religion like the Church of England.

[Seth]

"It was not intended to and will not promote any religion or discriminate against any religion"...

So why choose a crucifix shaped piece of wreckage out of all of the myriad similar scraps available? Why not a "Crescent and star" shaped lump? Or a "Wheel of Karma" shaped tangle? Or maybe the infamous "Dreadlocks girder"?

I call shenanigans! The judge's a priori consideration was not upsetting nor criticising fellow christians - but doing so in a way that appeared to be "fair".

And what would the opinion of the passers of the First Amendment be? What was and what was not allowed under them while they were active politicians under that amendment? We have a process for changing the Constitution, and it in no way encompasses the changing opinion of Judges sitting on the Supreme Court.
It was never intended to be any protection for Atheists, just to keep the United States from forming a State decreed religion like the Church of England.

Correct, it's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

[Robert_S]

"It was not intended to and will not promote any religion or discriminate against any religion"...

So why choose a crucifix shaped piece of wreckage out of all of the myriad similar scraps available? Why not a "Crescent and star" shaped lump? Or a "Wheel of Karma" shaped tangle? Or maybe the infamous "Dreadlocks girder"?

I call shenanigans! The judge's a priori consideration was not upsetting nor criticising fellow christians - but doing so in a way that appeared to be "fair".

And what would the opinion of the passers of the First Amendment be? What was and what was not allowed under them while they were active politicians under that amendment? We have a process for changing the Constitution, and it in no way encompasses the changing opinion of Judges sitting on the Supreme Court.
It was never intended to be any protection for Atheists, just to keep the United States from forming a State decreed religion like the Church of England.

Correct, it's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

So, that means if atheism is a religion, then it is protected, but if it isn't then you've been wrong all this time about atheism being a religion.

[JimC]

In this case, I agree with Seth, though perhaps not for exactly the same reasons.

It was a stupid suit.

[macdoc]

not freedom FROM religion.

in dired need of that.....tax the fucking religious twits and their scammy organizations....help the deficit.

[Jason]

The bigger the cover the fatter the bottle. Pack up and run weh and we will end your week, just like a sunday!

[Seth]

Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

No it doesn't. The Free Exercise Clause makes no provision for anyone being able to suppress the religious expressions of others.

In the limited context of the Establishment Clause, however, it includes the right to be "free" from being obliged to worship a state-sponsored religion, and through judicial expansion of that simple law ("Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion...") it now includes the right to be free from advancements or inhibitions of religion by the government or its agents.

Nowhere are you entitled to be "free from" someone else's peaceable expressions of religion in the public square. You are in fact required to peaceably tolerate all such peaceable forms of religious expression in the public square by the Free Exercise Clause.

These rights (all of them) are of course subject to reasonable regulation as to time, place and manner of exercise, but that power is strictly limited by the First Amendment and government may not unduly burden anyone's free exercise of religion in so regulating.

[Seth]

Correct, it's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

So, that means if atheism is a religion, then it is protected, but if it isn't then you've been wrong all this time about atheism being a religion.

Well, interestingly, for the purposes of the law, the Supreme Court has expressly stated that Atheism is a religion. So there.