And O’Reilly got his ass handed to him by her time and again. He needs to retire, he’s a has-been.

I didn’t denigrate you or your opinion.

Your outrage indicates religiosity.

I didn’t actually direct that last comment at you; it was more of a general observation.

Your sensitivity to it indicates religiosity.

The crux of this argument comes down to one simple thing: what does the Constitution say? It says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Now, from this very clear text we learn several things. First, we learn that the First Amendment, by its own terms, is limited only to Congress. Second, we learn that it only limits what Congress may pass as a law. So, not only does the first amendment not bar the state of Washington from displaying one sect’s religious display while excluding any and all others (because the amendment only applies to Congress), it also does not bar such specific displays from being placed in any federal building, including Congress (because Congress need not pass a law in order to set up a display within its walls).

Any discussion about the Constitution should always begin with the text of the provision in question. As I have shown, when that text is central in the discussion, the discussion actually disappears. Perhaps that is why such participants in such discussions (say between Kelly and O’Reilly), haven’t bothered to discuss the actual text; for if they did, it would become clear that there is absolutely nothing wrong with placing one sect’s religious display in a public building, while at the same time refusing to also place any and all other sect’s religious displays in the same public building.

Religion is the vehicle by which Man communicates, communes and bonds with God.

If you think that that has nothing to do with God, keep on thinking.

seanrobins on December 17, 2008 at 9:12 PM

Then pinning the term Religion by people of faith on those for whom faith isn’t enough, shouldn’t be of such great importance except as a vehicle to support their own belief in God.

Truth often appears simplistic to those who don’t yet see it, or who do but would prefer it not be true.

splink on December 17, 2008 at 8:51 PM

I didn’t denigrate you or your opinion.

Your outrage indicates religiosity.

What does God have to do with religion?

Religion is the vehicle by which Man communicates, communes and bonds with God.

If you think that that has nothing to do with God, keep on thinking.

Very simplistic.

Yet accurate.

Truth often appears simplistic to those who don’t yet see it, or who do but would prefer it not be true.

Today’s anti-religious rant against government is based in the insupportable notion of “separation of Church and State”. What that leads us to is entirely different from the free speech elements of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment is subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. To the extent that the “speech” at issue is religious, it TOO is subject to those restrictions, the establishment clause (or that “separation” nonesense) notwithstanding. What can’t be regulated is content. (Mostly)

If you disgard (as we should) the idiotic notion of the “Separation”… then what’s really in the First Amendment could require allowing religious displays in the town square, while permitting the restriction of athiestic hate-mongering.

So again, why do so many atheists fly off the handle when atheism is called what it is: just another religion?

splink on December 17, 2008 at 6:48 PM

Symbolism.

What does God have to do with religion?

Speakup on December 17, 2008 at 6:39 PM

Nothing, which is the point of case law as well as common sense. Any system that tries to explain life, the universe and everything is a religion, whether it has deities, the supernatural or not.

Very simplistic. Doesn’t even account for all of one versus none of the other or the difference in belief versus when and now, just lumps all belief together good, bad, ugly.

Case law has foundations, its not benign. That’s why the ACLU is wrong, community standards are the grassroots up national consensus law of the land and that’s our originists intent, not the top down bulling approach civil rights groups impale us with.

Try equating human nature with the law our Founders gave us and a little deeper: what does God have to do with religion equation.

But, as has been said before Allah, the atheists weren’t promoting their religion so much as denigrating another. If they were giving props to the Solstice or something like that, I would understand that argument. But that isn’t what they are doing. They were just attacking another religion. Something that Christians or Jews would likely be taken to task on. If instead of depicting a nativity scene, the Christians posted a sign saying that Jews were all condemned or something like that, it would be an outrage, and rightfully so. Celebrate how you want to celebrate this season, but I don’t consider it celebrating to just bash another religion.

XWing5 on December 17, 2008 at 7:12 PM

Wow. That really is an awesome post and one I fully agree with and believe to be true. Well done, sir,

If God does exist and I end up in hell

When someone’s heart sinks, they start to feel sad or worried, just like I felt when I read this.

but the state’s concern has more to do with the former, that they’ll be guilty of endorsing faith if they don’t let atheists have their little spite display in the lobby.

But, as has been said before Allah, the atheists weren’t promoting their religion so much as denigrating another. If they were giving props to the Solstice or something like that, I would understand that argument. But that isn’t what they are doing. They were just attacking another religion. Something that Christians or Jews would likely be taken to task on. If instead of depicting a nativity scene, the Christians posted a sign saying that Jews were all condemned or something like that, it would be an outrage, and rightfully so. Celebrate how you want to celebrate this season, but I don’t consider it celebrating to just bash another religion.

But hey, maybe we conservatives could use this concept to counteract the global warming alarmists, cap & trade tax hikers, nanny staters, and all others whose viewpoints discriminate against us.

What does God have to do with religion?

Speakup on December 17, 2008 at 6:39 PM

Nothing, which is the point of case law as well as common sense. Any system that tries to explain life, the universe and everything is a religion, whether it has deities, the supernatural or not.

So again, why do so many atheists fly off the handle when atheism is called what it is: just another religion?

All I have to say is…
***Merry Christmas***

mindhacker on December 17, 2008 at 6:42 PM

And A very merry Christmas to you and everyone!!!

So why do I see so many atheists say atheism is NOT a religion?

splink on December 17, 2008 at 6:26 PM

What does God have to do with religion?

A correct interpretation of the Constitution would restrict application of the First Amendment to the federal government alone. Question solved.

medguy on December 17, 2008 at 6:24 PM

Actually, I should correct myself. A correct interpretation of the Constitution would restrict application of the First Amendment to Congress alone. Problem solved.

The blonde is right when she says atheism is a religion, as courts have found. Many of us have been saying that for, oh, over 100 years, courts or no.

So why do I see so many atheists say atheism is NOT a religion?

I hate to answer a question with a question but how does the current way of doing things benefit the nation?

The majority of this nation believes in the Christian morals that have successfully guided this nation 231 years even if they don’t worship in the Christian faith.

Just like celery and peanut butter or death and taxes, you don’t get much certainty without getting some kit along with the caboodle.

The main issue here is outrage, not substance.
You can’t be offended unless you take it of your own accord.

Radical Hindus in india are martyring Christians in india by the thousands annually.

SaintOlaf on December 17, 2008 at 4:55 PM

Didn’t know that, but found stuff about that easily by searching.

WND FAITH UNDER FIRE
Christians demand help against Hindu violence
‘It is clear local, state officials are unable to protect minority’

If God does exist and I end up in hell

If you don’t think God exists, your hell is probably here on earth.

My collie says:

Since the atheists refuse to play by the same rules, the rest of us should be permitted to choose the season of their annual religious observance on their behalf. I hereby nominate the date of February 29th as “atheist celebration of nothing” day. Furthermore, atheist displays on government property should be restricted to the month of February. That way, they’d have an entire month to celebrate nothing (well, at least 3 out of 4 years, anyway). Is anyone willing to second my motion?