Atheism isn't a religion. But it is just as equally recognized and protected under the law as any religion. Jefferson's letter was also used by the SCOTUS to affirm the separation of church and state, in their landmark case Reynolds v. US (1878).The Danbury letter is an expression of concern over legislation favoring one Christian sect, denomination, over another. The wall of separation is to prevent another church of England situation not to ban Christianity from the public square so as to make the world safe for atheism.
President Jefferson helped organize and regularly attended Christian religious services from various sects conducted in the US Capitol rotunda. The wall of separation as practiced by Jefferson isn't as portrayed by the atheist
Atheism teaches there is no God therefore "worship" calls for the purging of religious symbols. The aberrant interpretation of the wall of separation caters to the atheist ideal favoring one religious belief over all others
Atheism isn’t a religion. You are using a tired and incorrect assumption of atheism to claim that it is a religion.Youu are confusing freedom of religion with freedom from religion. The former is protected by the Constitution. The latter is rule by atheists.
The Constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion is meaningless in the scenario you describe. When religious symbols are banned, atheism becomes the defacto state religion. That's not freedom of religion.
The first amendment specifies religion. If atheism isn't a religion then no protections. That is unless there is some secret provision buried in the Constitution yoi can cite.Atheism isn't a religion. But it is just as equally recognized and protected under the law as any religion. Jefferson's letter was also used by the SCOTUS to affirm the separation of church and state, in their landmark case Reynolds v. US (1878).
No, I disagree. Atheism Does not call for anything.The Danbury letter is an expression of concern over legislation favoring one Christian sect, denomination, over another. The wall of separation is to prevent another church of England situation not to ban Christianity from the public square so as to make the world safe for atheism.
President Jefferson helped organize and regularly attended Christian religious services from various sects conducted in the US Capitol rotunda. The wall of separation as practiced by Jefferson isn't as portrayed by the atheist Left.
Atheism teaches there is no God therefore "worship" calls for the purging of religious symbols. The aberrant interpretation of the wall of separation caters to the atheist ideal favoring one religious belief over all others
Atheism doesn't "teach" anything. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. That is it. Atheism is not a religious belief. It is the lack of belief. The country was founded as a secular nation, not a religious or christian nation.The Danbury letter is an expression of concern over legislation favoring one Christian sect, denomination, over another. The wall of separation is to prevent another church of England situation not to ban Christianity from the public square so as to make the world safe for atheism.
President Jefferson helped organize and regularly attended Christian religious services from various sects conducted in the US Capitol rotunda. The wall of separation as practiced by Jefferson isn't as portrayed by the atheist Left.
Atheism teaches there is no God therefore "worship" calls for the purging of religious symbols. The aberrant interpretation of the wall of separation caters to the atheist ideal favoring one religious belief over all others
The courts disagree. Atheism is just as protected under the law as theism is. Religion cannot be favored over nonreligion and vice versa per the principles separation of church and state, and equality. Freedom of/from religion also means one is free to not have or follow any religion.The first amendment specifies religion. If atheism isn't a religion then no protections. That is unless there is some secret provision buried in the Constitution yoi can cite.
Relax, the judiciary treats atheism not just as a religion but as the most favored one.
Of course it is, both the establishment and the free exercise clause can be applied to people that do not worship any god.I would say not. While some atheistic "sects" or belief systems such as "Secular Humanism' have been legally recognized as religions by courts, I'd say that atheism in general isn't protected. Why would it be?
Freedom to practice religion necessarily includes freedom not to.Youu are confusing freedom of religion with freedom from religion. The former is protected by the Constitution. The latter is rule by atheists.
You are correct…it’s the establishment clause that is relevant. Even if no one’s free exercise is affected, the government still cannot promote or disparage any religious belief..The Constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion is meaningless in the scenario you describe.
That would be true if PRIVATE display of symbols were banned, but whose freedom of religion is affected by the government not displaying religious symbols? And there is no ban on religious symbols, btw, the government just can’t play favorites.When religious symbols are banned, atheism becomes the defacto state religion. That's not freedom of religion.
For eligible veterans who have died, the government will provide, free of charge, headstones and grave markings,The ban on government displaying religious symbols, primarily Christian symbols, favors the atheist teaching over all others. It's therefor unconstitutional.
The Constitution doesn't protect religions or sects. It limits the government from making a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Not all religions are theistic. Buddhism is atheistic, for example. Moreover, if the government may not make a law respecting an establishment of religion and it may not prohibit the free exercise thereof, then it is essentially required to adopt neutrality toward religion - neither being religious nor a-religious. As such, the government or the state may not be theistic or atheistic.I would say not. While some atheistic "sects" or belief systems such as "Secular Humanism' have been legally recognized as religions by courts, I'd say that atheism in general isn't protected. Why would it be?
Well, the law and SCOTUS opinions do not require crosses to be purged from public spaces. The law and the Constitution does, however, prohibit the state from establishing a religion or adopting an official religion, or preferring one religion over another, or preferring religion over non-religion. So, if the government is going to erect a cross, it would generally have to do so in a neutral fashion - such as allowing other symbols to also be erected and by not itself sponsoring or endorsing religion or non-religion. It's kinda like how you can have crosses in a State/government run cemetary, but only if they also allow other symbols to be used as gravestones, too. The idea is that the State should be neutral when it comes to religion, neither favoring nor disfavoring a religion or non-religion.Definitely not. The doctrine of freedom from religion enforced by judicial edict mean the sensitivities of the atheist dictate to the rest of us. A cross must be purged from public space lest it damage an atheists delicate beliefs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?