Separation of Church and State

[Dr Strangelove]

I'll setle this: Church and State should be seperated - at the wrists and ankles.

[Berzerker]

who was the first known proponent of separation of church and state?

Jesus

[Dracon II]

Originally posted by Berzerker
who was the first known proponent of separation of church and state?

Jesus

Would that make it a religious concept?

Are you referring to that "render unto Caesar..." stuff?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker
who was the first known proponent of separation of church and state?

Jesus

QFT

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Dracon II


Would that make it a religious concept?

hm, then to assure the separation of church and state we should abandon the separation of church and state, interesting

[Berzerker]

Are you referring to that "render unto Caesar..." stuff?

Yeah, but somewhere in time Christians decided it was okay to apply for the job of Caesar. I guess around the time of Constantine...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Well duh I also read other instructions literally. It makes it alot easier putting stuff together.

Well duh. A document written in the 18th Century is not the same as flatpack furniture assembly instructions from IKEA.

The fact that there have been 'amendments' to said document to amplify and clarify and extend rights should perhaps clue you in to the evolving nature of the document.

The conditions in which the document was created and the society for which it was made no longer obtain. Slavery indentured or otherwise was a fact of life when it was drawn up, women did not have the franchise, and neither did Roman Catholics.

Perhaps you imagine that the document and the intent of the framers should therefore be interpreted only in the light of those conditions ?


I'll clue you in to how Thomas Jefferson thought about his religion, and what other people should think about it:

Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone.

Thomas Jefferson writing to John Adams, 11th January 1817


Hmm, doesn't sound like he'd want ostentatious displays of graven images associated with a particular subset of Christianity on state property, does it ?

...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

The Declaration of Indpendence.

Now as far as I can recall, taxpayers of every religion, belief, political association and non- religious belief contribute to the maintenance of state and federal properties and lands.

Should we assume that the 'consent of the governed' has been obtained for the erection of idols and images associated with particular faiths on the lands and in the buildings that all pay to maintain ?

Has some pressing need been shown, perhaps a shortage of church land or buildings, or a dearth of Christian or Jewish homesteads or religious buildings where items associated with those particular faiths can be erected and displayed for all and sundry to see ?

Having visited the United States more than once, I'm unaware that mass confiscations of Christian owned or leased lands and buildings have occurred, or that Jewish congregations have been turfed out of synagogues and yeshivas in some large scale pogroms.

That liberty [is pure] which is to go to all, and not to the few or the rich alone.

Thomas Jefferson writing to Horatio Gates, 1798


I wonder how he'd react to Judge Moore's assumption of a privileged role for Judge Moore's faith, or indeed the privileged role assumed for Christian or Jewish religious symbols, or indeed ANY religious symbols.

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.

Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4th, 1801


It does not seem to me to be reasonable, to expect others ('the governed') to have given their consent to the erection of displays associated with particular religions without their agreement having been solicited beforehand.

Do you also believe a manger scene is coercive?

Who gave their consent for its display ? All, or a minority who assumed rights and privileges not given to them ?

"It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject. The situation, too, of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the states episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in other presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in other, quakers; in others again, there was close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it has not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests."

'Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States', pp. 596-597, Justice Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Justice

"[The First Amendment] requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of believers and non-believers."

Hugo L. Black, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, majority opinion in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

"The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause, which guarantees at a minimum that a government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which "establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so."

U.S. Supreme Court, Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 678

"The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not."

U.S. Supreme Court, Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)

from:

Separation of Church and State
A Rebuttal
by Wayne Aiken, North Carolina state director American Atheists

[Berzerker]

Well duh. A document written in the 18th Century is not the same as flatpack furniture assembly instructions from IKEA.

It is in that you need to understand what is written (literally) and the context in which is it written. Show those furniture instructions to someone with no understanding of its context - a bushman who never saw a wood screw much less a screwdriver - and see how much context matters. And its not like these people who wrote that document didn't leave ample supporting text for those in need of help. Your argument is a bizarre, pointing out the age of the document to ignore what it says, then ignore its context, and then attach whatever meaning you want while chastising people who reject such an arbitrary process. This is how you achieve accuracy? Congress shall make no law... is simple... How did you read those 5 words out of the 1st Amendment?

The fact that there have been 'amendments' to said document to amplify and clarify and extend rights should perhaps clue you in to the evolving nature of the document.

Which amendment allows or requires gov't to ban manger scenes? Which right is being amplified?

The conditions in which the document was created and the society for which it was made no longer obtain. Slavery indentured or otherwise was a fact of life when it was drawn up, women did not have the franchise, and neither did Roman Catholics.

Perhaps you imagine that the document and the intent of the framers should therefore be interpreted only in the light of those conditions ?

Slavery was banned...by amendment...manger scenes were not.
How should I interpret the Framer's intent? Since they incorporated the amendment process into the Constitution and quickly amended it more than any other subsequent gov't over a 10 year span, I'd say they wanted future generations to change the Constitution as they see fit...

'll clue you in to how Thomas Jefferson thought about his religion, and what other people should think about it:

Hmm, doesn't sound like he'd want ostentatious displays of graven images associated with a particular subset of Christianity on state property, does it ?

So naturally he wanted to ban religious symbols? I dont display religious symbols = no one should be allowed to display religious symbols? Where is the logic in that?

The Declaration of Indpendence.

Now as far as I can recall, taxpayers of every religion, belief, political association and non- religious belief contribute to the maintenance of state and federal properties and lands.
Should we assume that the 'consent of the governed' has been obtained for the erection of idols and images associated with particular faiths on the lands and in the buildings that all pay to maintain ?

We should assume the 1st Amendment trumps your ridiculous interpretation of the Declaration of Independence. Plenty of people do not consent to paying for all sorts of stuff others support, but now we cant put up a manger scene because an atheist objects?
Can we ban the wearing of crucifixes? Ban the Bible and all other religious documents from public libraries? Hey, if an atheist didn't consent...

Has some pressing need been shown, perhaps a shortage of church land or buildings, or a dearth of Christian or Jewish homesteads or religious buildings where items associated with those particular faiths can be erected and displayed for all and sundry to see ? Having visited the United States more than once, I'm unaware that mass confiscations of Christian owned or leased lands and buildings have occurred, or that Jewish congregations have been turfed out of synagogues and yeshivas in some large scale pogroms.

Why is that relevant? I'd say religious liberty is a "pressing need", not the need to suppress religious liberty.

That liberty [is pure] which is to go to all, and not to the few or the rich alone.

Thomas Jefferson writing to Horatio Gates, 1798

I wonder how he'd react to Judge Moore's assumption of a privileged role for Judge Moore's faith, or indeed the privileged role assumed for Christian or Jewish religious symbols, or indeed ANY religious symbols.

Funny, an overwhelming majority (over %90) support the freedom to display manger scenes and you quote Jefferson rejecting your proposition that a few can deny everyone else their liberty? How did Judge Moore deprive me of my liberty by putting up a stone monument?

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.

Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4th, 1801

It does not seem to me to be reasonable, to expect others ('the governed') to have given their consent to the erection of displays associated with particular religions without their agreement having been solicited beforehand.

Do I need your consent to speak my mind because you helped me pay for the land on which I stand? Does a priest need your consent to walk down the street in religious garb? Are you a dictator or do others share ownership of that street? If others share ownership, i.e., "public" property, how do the owners decide what can be done on their land? They vote? Does the vote have to be unanimous? According to you, yes...nothing can be done on public property without unanimous consent... That quote only supports the notion that the minority cannot be prevented from displaying their symbols by the majority...

Who gave their consent for its display ?

The people who bought it.

Is a manger scene coercive?

"It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject.

And yet you ask gov't to act - to ban religious symbols from public lands.

"[The First Amendment] requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of believers and non-believers."

Hugo L. Black, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, majority opinion in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

And this neutrality means atheists can go around (with or without symbols) telling people god does not exist. The neutrality is lost once the athiests get to ban religious symbols.

"The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause, which guarantees at a minimum that a government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which "establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so."

U.S. Supreme Court, Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 678

Hey Imran, did you see the word "coerce" in there? Thus my question, is a manger scene coercive?

"The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not."

U.S. Supreme Court, Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)

Why dont you bold the parts you think help your case... Now, what law was written requiring manger scenes in the town square? Where is the direct or indirect coercion?

Imran says a manger scene is coercive because it serves as a religious test, i.e., the rich and powerful apparently keep track of people who visit and pay homage to the baby Jesus. You say its coercive because atheists pay taxes and some of them did not consent to their taxes being used to maintain the land under the manger scene. But the manger scene did not coerce the athiest into paying taxes, politicians did that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hey Berzerker, did you see:

or otherwise act in a way which "establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so."

Especially the "tends to do so" part. Does not an endorsement of religion tend to establish a state relgion? It's quite obvious it does.

And yes, I think the manger scene is coercive because it demonstrates to someone what is the favored religion in the town. Is not peer pressure coercive? You seem to think so in other contexts. And you can stop putting words in my mouth now, though I know it's difficult for you.

[Berzerker]

"The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause, which guarantees at a minimum that a government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which "establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so."

Especially the "tends to do so" part.

I love it when you guys use quotes that help make my case. Earlier in the thread you denied the 1st Amendment was about coercion. Now you cite a decision that equates the establishment clause with coercion. And you still think a privately funded "endorsement" backed up by no law - a manger scene on public land - violates the 1st Amendment? Hell, it isn't even an endorsement any more than having a privately donated Bible in a public library is an endorsement. Should all religious texts be banned from the library? If the gov't "allows" me to speak of God on public land, is that a gov't endorsement of my views?

Does not an endorsement of religion tend to establish a state relgion? It's quite obvious it does.

Not without a law...remember? Congress shall make no law...

And yes, I think the manger scene is coercive because it demonstrates to someone what is the favored religion in the town. Is not peer pressure coercive? You seem to think so in other contexts. And you can stop putting words in my mouth now, though I know it's difficult for you.

You accused me of claiming a cross on a school wall is constitutional when in fact you asked me if a cross on a wall is coercive, not constitutional. You then proceeded to announce how my views should be ignored by all because I failed to see coercion in a cross on a wall, so spare me the blather about putting words in your mouth unless you can back it up. What words did I put in your mouth? You just re-affirmed your opinion that a manger scene serves as a religious test which is how I characterised your argument.

So how does a manger scene constitute peer pressure? Did the town elders pass a law requiring a manger scene? Nope. Did they "suggest" we show up to pay our respects? Nope. Are the town elders standing outside keeping tabs on who shows up to pay homage? Nope. Where is the peer pressure?

Sloppy thinking, boys, real sloppy...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Berzerker


It is in that you need to understand what is written (literally) and the context in which is it written.

No it isn't.

Dear me, as anyone could show you, the flatpack furniture assembly instructions don't deal in philosophical concepts of 'wood', 'chair' 'carpentry' 'nails' 'metallurgy' 'ore extraction' 'assembly lines' or 'factories'.

They assume that certain facts already obtain- that the person is literate at a basic level, is sighted, knows what a chair or set of shelves is, knows how to use them- in language and concepts that are rather more simplistic than:

'No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed'

or :

'The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.'

The Constitution Of The United States Of America

I could go on- but the language is now antique, and the document and amendments deal in philosophical concepts of government and taxation and representation and powers of legislation, all rather more complex and requiring more thought than assembling a chair or Ivar shelving unit. See, even at the time, this was already thought to be the case:

'All new laws, though penned with the greatest technical skill and passed on the fullest and most mature deliberation, are considered as more or less obscure and equivocal, until their meaning be liquidated and ascertained by a series of particular discussions and adjudications.'

The Federalist Papers, No. 37, Madison (discussing the Convention, the Constitution and the variety of laws obtaining in the United States at the time)

'The use of words is to express ideas.'

James Madison

Gosh, 'ideas', Mr. Madison ? Aren't they just a tad vague, hard to put precisely in words and open to interpretation?

Your argument is a bizarre, pointing out the age of the document to ignore what it says, then ignore its context, and then attach whatever meaning you want while chastising people who reject such an arbitrary process.

That's not my argument all; rather it's your interpretation and misrepresentation of my argument.

Congress shall make no law... is simple... How did you read those 5 words out of the 1st Amendment?

Can't see that I did; I simply agreed with those jurists and constitutional historians who take a more flexible, less simplistic approach to language and legal terminology:

"[The First Amendment] requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of believers and non-believers."

Hugo L. Black, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, majority opinion in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

The state cannot be neutral if it, or its elected agents arrogate to themselves the right to give precedence or a privileged position to a particular religion, sect, or creed with tacit state support.

Difficult to misintrepret what the erection of avowedly Christian or Jewish symbols on state property entails, I would have thought- a state ceasing to be neutral with regard to the display or support of religion.

So naturally Jefferson wanted to ban religious symbols? I dont display religious symbols = no one should be allowed to display religious symbols? Where is the logic in that?

Not what Jefferson said, and not what I said. I think his and my words are plain enough. Jefferson's position is that his faith is his own concern- nowhere did I say he wanted to ban religious symbols.

Stick 'em where you like- on your lawn, around your neck, on top of your house, in your church, just don't assume that your religion entitles you to preferential state treatment at the expense of other faiths and those who profess no religious belief.

Because, unless you can find it in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, I don't see any such privileged position guaranteed to Christianity or Judaism.

Hey Imran, did you see the word "coerce" in there?

I'm sure we can all see it:

"The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause, which guarantees at a minimum that a government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise,... "

closely followed by:

...or otherwise act in a way which "establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so."

U.S. Supreme Court, Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 678


How can the display of a manger scene, which is indelibly associated with a particular interpretation of the supposed life and history of a Jewish prophet and which occurs in conjunction with the date and time appropriated by the early Christian Church to remind its adherents of his supposed birth, not therefore act in a way to 'establish a state religion or religious faith, or tend to do so' ?

If it has no meaning or purpose, why is it there ? If it has a meaning or purpose, then what is it ?

Can we ban the wearing of crucifixes? Ban the Bible and all other religious documents from public libraries?

Does the state make you wear a crucifix or Star of David ? How many non-believers' taxes pay for the upkeep of the private individual's rosary beads, crucifix, yarmulke or feather rattle ?

Absurd. It is not the private observance of religion that is objected to, nor the presence of books of religion or about religion in public libraries that is at issue. If the library were to have only the Bible, or the Torah or the Qu'ran or Popol Vuh and stock no other title, that would be a different matter.

As it is, individual Christians and Christian organisations seem to have no qualms about seeking to get books banned from public and school libraries because they object to their content or supposed subject matter.

Why is that relevant? I'd say religious liberty is a "pressing need", not the need to suppress religious liberty.

Dear me- no one is suppressing religious liberty by ensuring that the state does not act as the agent for a particular creed- in fact, if anything it's a guarantee of religious liberty.

I would have thought it plainly obvious that the existence of a multiplicity of religious establishments, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and so on, would have shown that no religionist was in dire need of having to use state property to display their religious zeal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I love it when you guys use quotes that help make my case. Earlier in the thread you denied the 1st Amendment was about coercion. Now you cite a decision that equates the establishment clause with coercion.

Are you kidding me?! I'm 'citing' a decision ! I'm refering to what you cited, you fool! And pointing out the part that you missed.

If I wanted to cite a case that said endorsement of religion violated the 1st Amendment, I easily could do so. Just look at the first two prongs of the test in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).

Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); [p613] finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 674.

And as I said "Congress shall make no law" has been interpreted as all state action after it was incorporated by the 14th Amendment:

Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual's religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging religious freedom.

Now those cases I have cited. You can start bashing them for 'making up the law' even as you cite other cases that apparently you like.

[q=Berzerker]You accused me of claiming a cross on a school wall is constitutional when in fact you asked me if a cross on a wall is coercive, not constitutional.[/q]

So wait. I'm confused. Didn't you say that the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause only prohibits things that are coercive? So if I ask you if a practice involving religious symbolism is coercive, aren't I asking you if it is Constitutional?

If not, then you have some explaining to do.

Does it require coercion to be unconstitutional? If you believe that is so, I fail to see your problem with my equating both.

So how does a manger scene constitute peer pressure?

Are you high, or are you really serious? Yeah, because the religious symbol of one religion sitting in front of the courthouse or town hall doesn't exert any peer pressure whatsoever .

If you went to Muslim communities in Michigan and the town hall had a statue of a Koran in front of the building, but no Star of David or Nativity creche (or cross), I bet you that a vast number of Christian folk would be claiming how they are being coerced to believe in Islam or not be given a fair shake in front of the town council.

The question is also posed as to whether you've ever lived in a small town where everyone knows everyone and can tell if you went to church or not.

It utterly baffles me how you can't see the peer pressure here.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


It utterly baffles me how you can't see the peer pressure here.

He can't see the manger's wood for the creeping theocratic trees.

[Berzerker]

I could go on- but the language is now antique, and the document and amendments deal in philosophical concepts of government and taxation and representation and powers of legislation, all rather more complex and requiring more thought than assembling a chair or Ivar shelving unit.

What is "antique" about "Congress shall make no law"? You're still effectively arguing that the document is too old to read correctly, but I dont see how ignoring the actual text in favor of modern biases gets us closer to an accurate rendition. If this was about other freedoms, like speech, the press, assembly, would the language be too "antique" to understand? I can exercise all these other freedoms on "public" land, but not display a religious symbol? I dont see a manger scene any differently than making a public speech, a message is being conveyed. And I suspect the bushman would have a better grasp of concepts like freedom than furniture instructions.

See, even at the time, this was already thought to be the case:

The Federalist Papers, No. 37, Madison (discussing the Convention, the Constitution and the variety of laws obtaining in the United States at the time)

And it took about 200 years for politicians and their "judges" to discover a federal power to ban manger scenes?

Gosh, 'ideas', Mr. Madison ? Aren't they just a tad vague, hard to put precisely in words and open to interpretation?

How does referring to what he wrote as "antique" as an excuse to replace it with our own biases increase clarity? Is there not irony in you quoting Madison and others to make your case while dismissing the Constitution they wrote as too old to read accurately? Hmmm... your arguments are plagued by contradictions.

That's not my argument all; rather it's your interpretation and misrepresentation of my argument.

Its too "antique" to understand so it must change to meet our modern world. Isnt that your argument?

Can't see that I did; I simply agreed with those jurists and constitutional historians who take a more flexible, less simplistic approach to language and legal terminology:

You did read the first 5 words out of the 1st Amendment, thats how you created this "flexibility". No law is needed according to you, but a law is needed according to the opening five words.

The state cannot be neutral if it, or its elected agents arrogate to themselves the right to give precedence or a privileged position to a particular religion, sect, or creed with tacit state support.

The state isn't doing anything, private citizens put up religious symbols.

Difficult to misintrepret what the erection of avowedly Christian or Jewish symbols on state property entails, I would have thought- a state ceasing to be neutral with regard to the display or support of religion.

If the state makes a law forbidding certain peoples from putting up other religious displays, then you'd have a case - not to ban manger scenes, but to allow other symbols. Why? Because a law was passed excluding other symbols. That law would be unconstitutional... But this debate isn't about that so stick to defending your arguments. You said an atheist gets to ban religious displays from public lands because he pays taxes to maintain those lands.

Not what Jefferson said, and not what I said. I think his and my words are plain enough. Jefferson's position is that his faith is his own concern- nowhere did I say he wanted to ban religious symbols.

Then why are you quoting him if what he said is irrelevant to manger sccenes? You're quoting him as if he supports youir position and he doesn't.

Stick 'em where you like- on your lawn, around your neck, on top of your house, in your church, just don't assume that your religion entitles you to preferential state treatment at the expense of other faiths and those who profess no religious belief. Because, unless you can find it in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, I don't see any such privileged position guaranteed to Christianity or Judaism.

Who is arguing that the state should ban all religious symbols except for manger scenes.

How can the display of a manger scene, which is indelibly associated with a particular interpretation of the supposed life and history of a Jewish prophet and which occurs in conjunction with the date and time appropriated by the early Christian Church to remind its adherents of his supposed birth, not therefore act in a way to 'establish a state religion or religious faith, or tend to do so' ?

Because there is no law involved. Geez, once again you've ignored the opening 5 words of the amendment. Congress shall make no law... Manger scenes are not a law...

Does the state make you wear a crucifix or Star of David ?

No, nor does the state make me display manger scenes.

How many non-believers' taxes pay for the upkeep of the private individual's rosary beads, crucifix, yarmulke or feather rattle ?

You said if an atheist pays taxes he gets to ban religious symbols from public lands. Atheists pay taxes to maintain public libraries and streets, so my question was about Bibles in public libraries and wearing religious symbols on a public street. Does the atheist get to ban all that too or is your argument falling apart before our very eyes?

Absurd. It is not the private observance of religion that is objected to, nor the presence of books of religion or about religion in public libraries that is at issue. If the library were to have only the Bible, or the Torah or the Qu'ran or Popol Vuh and stock no other title, that would be a different matter.

You said if an atheist (or anyone else) does not consent, nothing religious can be displayed on public lands. So which is it?

As it is, individual Christians and Christian organisations seem to have no qualms about seeking to get books banned from public and school libraries because they object to their content or supposed subject matter.

According to you they have that right if they dont consent to those books being displayed in a public library supported by their taxes.

Dear me- no one is suppressing religious liberty by ensuring that the state does not act as the agent for a particular creed- in fact, if anything it's a guarantee of religious liberty.

Banning religious symbols from public lands guarantees religious liberty?

I would have thought it plainly obvious that the existence of a multiplicity of religious establishments, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and so on, would have shown that no religionist was in dire need of having to use state property to display their religious zeal.

Since when do you get to decide?

[Berzerker]

Are you kidding me?! I'm 'citing' a decision ! I'm refering to what you cited, you fool! And pointing out the part that you missed.

If I wanted to cite a case that said endorsement of religion violated the 1st Amendment, I easily could do so. Just look at the first two prongs of the test in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).

Did you not notice my reference to "you guys" using quotes? Did not both of you use a quote? Molly bloom posted the quote and both you and I have cited it so stop with the drama.

Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); [p613] finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 674.

I wish you guys would bold what you think helps your arguments. Where in that does it say the state must ban manger scenes?

So wait. I'm confused. Didn't you say that the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause only prohibits things that are coercive?

You didn't ask me about the Constitution, you asked me if a cross on a wall is coercive. It is not coercive. Whether or not it is constitutional depends on other factors. If a law was passed requiring or allowing only the cross that would fail constitutional muster because state coercion is involved.

So if I ask you if a practice involving religious symbolism is coercive, aren't I asking you if it is Constitutional?

If not, then you have some explaining to do.

Does it require coercion to be unconstitutional? If you believe that is so, I fail to see your problem with my equating both.

Of course, I've said that before. That doesn't mean a cross on a wall is or is not constitutional. Here is one of the quotes from molly:

government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise

That is the essence of the establishment clause. Notice how coercion is the key? Now, you said my arguments should be ignored by everyone because I said a cross on a wall is not coercive which you took to mean constitutional. And yet we can see how coercion is relevant to understanding the establishment clause.

Are you high, or are you really serious?

Yeah, because the religious symbol of one religion sitting in front of the courthouse or town hall doesn't exert any peer pressure whatsoever .

Oh gee, "any peer pressure whatsoever"? Now we're going to debate how to measure even the tiniest amount of peer pressure?
No thanks, the peer pressure created by the Pledge cannot be compared to what some overly sensitive atheist feels at the sight of a manger scene, nor can you equate the Pledge with whatever peer pressure an atheist feels knowing most of his neighbors are religious. The Pledge was enacted by law, the peer pressure of my neighbor's ideas was not. Dont even try to equate the two.

If you went to Muslim communities in Michigan and the town hall had a statue of a Koran in front of the building, but no Star of David or Nativity creche (or cross), I bet you that a vast number of Christian folk would be claiming how they are being coerced to believe in Islam or not be given a fair shake in front of the town council.

I dont speak for hypocrites, I speak for the 1st Amendment. But how much do you wanna bet? According to that logic, I should feel coerced at the sight of every religious symbol because I don't belong to any organised religion. Thats just silly... If the Christian or Jewish minority want to display their symbols, they can go right ahead. Look at your argument, you say we should coerce eveyone to ban religious displays on public lands because the 1st Amendment dis-allows coercion.

The question is also posed as to whether you've ever lived in a small town where everyone knows everyone and can tell if you went to church or not.

It utterly baffles me how you can't see the peer pressure here.

I live in rural Kansas and no, I do not feel any peer pressure to attend church. But if I did, so what? There is no law that says I must attend church. This peer pressure you keep citing and chastising me for ignoring was not a result of a law, so its irrelevant. There must be a law that coerces me, not peer pressure I feel knowing most of the country is Christian. My God Imran, according to your logic, the gov't should ban Christianity because the knowledge most of the country is Christian creates peer pressure on non-Christians and that coercion isn't allowed by the 1st Amendment.