Atheists Sue for Freedom From Religion

[cybrsage]

Even though we all know the Constitution does not say we have a right to freedom FROM religion, these idiots think it does so they are suing. They started putting up racist billboards which take Bible verses out of context and pretend they are simply quoting the Bible. The one in Harrisburg was immediately destroyed due to it being overtly racist AND stupid at the same time.

A national atheist and agnostic group is suing Pennsylvania lawmakers for passing a resolution that declares 2012 as "The Year of the Bible."
MyFOXphilly reports the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) filed a federal lawsuit on Monday arguing that the Pennsylvania House's declaration is unconstitutional.
The resolution, which was authored by State Rep. Rick Saccone, passed unanimously in January.
The lawsuit names Saccone as one of three plaintiffs, and claims the resolution is tantamount to the state endorsing "state-sponsored religion."

Saccone has said the resolution is meant to recognize the impact the Bible has had on the U.S. and on the state, and does not inhibit anyone from believing or not believing in any faith.
"Most citizens don’t remember that a joint session of Congress passed a similar resolution signed by President Ronald Reagan on February 3, 1983, declaring that year as the Year of the Bible in America," Saccone said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...012-year-bible/?test=latestnews#ixzz1qKBdk8D3

This is even worse, though:

In February, Democratic Rep. Mark Cohen said he wanted to reconsider the resolution, and that he regretted that he didn't realize the resolution's content at the time of the vote.

The guy voted YES without having any idea what he was voting on!!

 

[zsdersw]

"Freedom of religion" implies the freedom to subscribe to any religion you want or none at all. In that sense, we all have freedom FROM religion.

 

[Born2bwire]

Whelp, I don't have a problem with this.

 

[hal2kilo]

By the action of the state house, they are establishing Christianity as the state religion.

Racism not found 404 error.

 

[cybrsage]

"Freedom of religion" implies the freedom to subscribe to any religion you want or none at all. In that sense, we all have freedom FROM religion.

No, that is freedom OF religion. The SCOTUS has ruled atheism to be a religion for freedom and protection purposes.

 

[cybrsage]

Anyone who claims the Bible did not have a strong impact on the growth and development of Pennsylvania needs to slap their US history teacher.

 

[Anarchist420]

I support a wall between religion and the Federal government. However, PA has every right to be a Christian State.

 

[zsdersw]

No, that is freedom OF religion. The SCOTUS has ruled atheism to be a religion for freedom and protection purposes.

I did not speak specifically of "Atheism". What if you don't identify with or subscribe to any of them, including Atheism?

 

[Anarchist420]

Anyone who claims the Bible did not have a strong impact on the growth and development of Pennsylvania needs to slap their US history teacher.

William Penn was Anti-Christian because he aggressively opposed the majority who didn't want a state in the Colony of PA. They only had good growth for like 7 years.

 

[hal2kilo]

I support a wall between religion and the Federal government. However, PA has every right to be a Christian State.

Not according to the first ammendment.

 

[cybrsage]

I did not speak specifically of "Atheism". What if you don't identify with or subscribe to any of them, including Atheism?

Then you have the freedom to subscribe to whatever you choose. I am now fairly sure you have no understanding as to what the purpose of the Freedom of Religion clause is.

 

[polarmystery]

No, that is freedom OF religion. The SCOTUS has ruled atheism to be a religion for freedom and protection purposes.

http://askville.amazon.com/case-SCOTUS-rule-Atheism-religion/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=58057495

One of the reasons this case is important is some of the dicta which were attached to the final opinion. The term dicta is a plural and shortening of "obiter dictum," or "said in passing." Such statements are personal opinions of the justice - they are not necessary to the final result and have no legal force.

In a dictum footnote attached to this opinion, Justice Black wrote:

Among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.

This is frequently cited by people on the religious right as that the Supreme Court has declared Secular Humanism to be a religion, but such people are simply unaware of the fact that dicta have no legal force. Ignoring this uncomfortable fact, however, allows them to argue that any hint of Secular Humanism in schools is a violation of the separation of church and state - an ironic argument, since they would be happy to dispense with separation anyway.

Side note: I think it was dumb to sue though.

 

[zsdersw]

Then you have the freedom to subscribe to whatever you choose.

There is no subscription. What is that considered?

I am now fairly sure you have no understanding as to what the purpose of the Freedom of Religion clause is.

The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I understand it perfectly.

 

[cybrsage]

There is no subscription. What is that considered?

It is considered not subscribing. Do you need me to tell you everything?

The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I understand it perfectly.

Yep, the freedom of religion. Freedom FROM religion requires the part you bolded to say "and prohibiting the free exercise thereof". In order to be free FROM religion, the government must stop it from being exercised, else religion will still be around and you will not be free from it.

 

[Gunslinger08]

I have never understood why people get so worked up about something that doesn't actually impact their lives at all. Especially a group that is entirely based on not believing in something. Why waste your time and energy? I could understand this if the government was forcing you or your child to actually do something. This is an instance where people are offended just by seeing or hearing something that they don't agree with.

 

[yllus]

Sounds like a good reason to sue. Lawmakers shouldn't be spending a single minute of their time at work doing anything that pointless.

 

[zsdersw]

It is considered not subscribing. Do you need me to tell you everything?

Is not subscribing something we're free to do? I don't need you to tell me anything. I'm making my point with questions.

Yep, the freedom of religion. Freedom FROM religion requires the part you bolded to say "and prohibiting the free exercise thereof". In order to be free FROM religion, the government must stop it from being exercised, else religion will still be around and you will not be free from it.

It's a matter of perspective. Being free to practice any religion you want implies being free to practice no religion at all; you cannot be compelled by law or government to practice a religion or to practice a specific religion.

 

[cybrsage]

http://askville.amazon.com/case-SCOTUS-rule-Atheism-religion/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=58057495

Side note: I think it was dumb to sue though.

6 The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2722, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls "nonreligion." In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as "the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." Id. at *10 (internal quotations omitted). As the Court put it in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985):

7 At one time it was thought that this right [referring to the right to choose one's own creed] merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.

8 Id. at 52-53, 105 S.Ct. 2479. In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of "religion" that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones. Thus, in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 81 S.Ct. 1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 982, it said that a state cannot "pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can [it] aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs." Id. at 495, 81 S.Ct. 1680. Indeed, Torcaso specifically included "Secular Humanism" as an example of a religion. Id. at 495 n. 11, 81 S.Ct. 1680.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/419/678/617423/

 

[cybrsage]

It's a matter of perspective. Being free to practice any religion you want implies being free to practice no religion at all; you cannot be compelled by law or government to practice a religion or to practice a specific religion.

Correct, you do not have freedom FROM religion. Freedom FROM something means that something is forbidden, such as the freedom from illegal search and seizure.

 

[Born2bwire]

I have never understood why people get so worked up about something that doesn't actually impact their lives at all. Especially a group that is entirely based on not believing in something. Why waste your time and energy? I could understand this if the government was forcing you or your child to actually do something. This is an instance where people are offended just by seeing or hearing something that they don't agree with.

Well, I try to imagine all the hubbub that would arise if they passed a resolution naming it the "Year of the Torah" or the "Year of the Quran." The resolution (based on the little we know of it given that the article does not give its contents) sounds ambiguous and does not explain how it means to define the year of the Bible, but at the very least it is not a stretch of the imagination to see it as a possible endorsement of Christianity by the state legislature.

 

[zsdersw]

Correct, you do not have freedom FROM religion. Freedom FROM something means that something is forbidden, such as the freedom from illegal search and seizure.

In the sense that you cannot be compelled by government/law to believe a religion or any specific religion, you're "free from religion". That is all I was ever saying in this thread.

 

[cybrsage]

Well, I try to imagine all the hubbub that would arise if they passed a resolution naming it the "Year of the Torah" or the "Year of the Quran." The resolution (based on the little we know of it given that the article does not give its contents) sounds ambiguous and does not explain how it means to define the year of the Bible, but at the very least it is not a stretch of the imagination to see it as a possible endorsement of Christianity by the state legislature.

If either one was had an equivalent impact the Bible has had on the U.S. and on the state, then it would not be a problem. The Torah obviously has, since it appears (with the books in a vastly different order) as the Old Testament in the Bible.

 

[cybrsage]

In the sense that you cannot be compelled by government/law to believe a religion or any specific religion, you're "free from religion". That is all I was ever saying in this thread.

You are still wrong, which is all I was ever saying in this thread. You are free to be wrong, though.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Setting aside the OP's discussion of billboards and other issues which don't seem germane to this case and which I know nothing about, my thoughts are these:

Yes, athiests are often annoying to non-athiests, particularly where, as in the litigation over the Pledge of Allegiance some years ago, they seem to be suing public entities over what others think to be trivialities. In that particular case, I agreed that their suit was silly and probably baseless.

In this particular instance, I think the Establishment Clause would clearly prohibit a state declaring an official "Year of the Bible," because such a designation would favor Christianity over other faiths, and in essence represent the adoption of Christianity as a state-sanctioned religion. This is precisely what the Establishment Clause bars.

The issue here is not "freedom from religion," as it arguably was in the Pledge of Allegiance case. In that sense I think this entire thread is based on a false premise. (Yes, I know the association bringing suit has "Freedom From Religion" in its name, but that doesn't relate to the merits of the case.)

In the case of the Pledge of Allegiance, the phrase "under God" does not favor any particular faith, just the existence of a God, whether that God be Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, etc. Accordingly, it does not (at least in my opinion) violate the Establishment Clause. An official "Year of the Bible" does indicate an official adoption of Christianity, and that is clearly unconstitutional.

 

[HumblePie]

I have never understood why people get so worked up about something that doesn't actually impact their lives at all. Especially a group that is entirely based on not believing in something. Why waste your time and energy? I could understand this if the government was forcing you or your child to actually do something. This is an instance where people are offended just by seeing or hearing something that they don't agree with.

The worst of tyrannies start with the smallest of steps.

You let this little thing slide and the next measure for declaring a state sponsored religion becomes easier to pass. Eventually you end up with religious measures that start making small impacts as they pass to eventually they make much larger impacts. That is how it works. That is why it must be squashed every time a government official uses the government to advocate anything for any religion. It's one thing for a political figure to believe in a religion themselves and do whatever they like doing for their religion in their own personal time. It's another to make official government proclamations based upon a religion. Now if the proclamation was something like, The Pennsylvania Government would like to thank a very specific religious organization for a very specific action they did to help a the people in Pennsylvania that would be one thing. That's just a recognition for an action done by people. But this generalized proclamation thanking Christianity as a whole needs to go.

Also, the OP is retarded as there no racism found in anything described. The OP is inflammatory and misleading with false information. It needs to be modified and the OP at least warned for making a post like this.