Merlyn_LeRoy

That means if someone gets to erect a sign in front of town hall promoting baptists, "I" also have the SAME right to erect a sign promoting atheism (or whatever).

The problem is that YOU don't live in my town. You and your lot want to come to my town and tell me what to do. If the local unbelievers want a sign, that's fine.

If I "come to your town", I'm a local now, right? I can move into your town whether you like it or not.

But, like I keep pointing out, what people keep attempting to actually do is use public money to promote their religion and disallow (or simply not subsidize) displays by anyone else.

Now, regarding your statement:

If the local unbelievers want a sign, that's fine

Does it get exactly the same treatment as other signs? If the other sign(s) are paid for with government funds, is this one? If the other sign(s) are in front of city hall year-round, is this one? It sounds like you're describing a public forum, if all signs are treated equally, and any group can create a sign.

That's the problem when city hall puts up the ten commandments; it's put up by a government committee who decide what religion(s) to promote, instead of creating an open forum where anyone can present their views. And yes, such forums have to be what's termed "viewpoint neutral", you can't exclude people just because you don't like them, as Rooster7 would do. Equal rights means equal rights, not "special rights" only for people who have the "right" religious views.

As for atheists being destructive, do you have any idea how common atheism is among scientists?

Oh, you silly boy. We're not speaking of physical construction or destruction, we're speaking of spiritual destruction.

No, you apparently were. I wasn't; I consider "spiritual destruction" to be in the same class as the politics of elves.

shiva/bramah/vishnu cycle anyway

Last time that I checked, that was Hindu.

D'oh!

"That's why towns can't erect signs that say jesus is lord"

Why not? If everyone who lives in the town is a Sothern Baptist, it is infringing their rights to not allow the town to do that as it is their town, their tax money and you have no standing in the issue.

Government entities, like towns, don't have rights (they have powers); only individuals have rights. That's why the town doesn't have a right to practice "its" religion; only individuals in the town do, and EVERYBODY in the town has the SAME rights on an equal basis. That means if someone gets to erect a sign in front of town hall promoting baptists, *I* also have the SAME right to erect a sign promoting atheism (or whatever). If you "vote" to only allow signs the majority likes, all you're really doing is shutting out minority views; the democratic thing to do would be to allow ALL views (but, as I've pointed out before, a lot of mayors would like to promote only religions THEY personally like, because they don't really LIKE democracy, they'd rather be tinpot dictators).

The town also can't prevent non-baptists from moving in; it's much like a sign saying "this is a white town". The unstated implication is that anyone who isn't baptist (or white) is not welcome. Towns can't do this, either.

And can the idiotic canard about atheists fearing your particular god; it's no more convincing than if I used the same argument on you that you, deep down, really believe in Zeus. As for atheists being destructive, do you have any idea how common atheism is among scientists? Besides, if you were a buddhist, you would know destruction is just part of the shiva/bramah/vishnu cycle anyway; "without change, there is no growth, and without destruction, there is no change"

"As I asked before, why would any sane person WANT the government to decide what religion to promote? You have no respect for the religious rights of others. "

Well Boris, we have an elected government in this country so it is really up to the people in the community, isn't it?

Uh, no. That's what I mean when I say you have no respect for the religious rights of others. The local community can't vote to promote their pet religion because that violates the rights of others. That's why towns can't erect signs that say "jesus is lord" any more than they can erect the ten commandments, or signs that say "don't be jewish in our town".

Both I and the supreme court disagree. Guess what that means?

Simple, it means that you're both wrong. The supreme court is not infallible and its words are not carved in stone. Their decisions may be reversed by later courts or by the will of the people.

As I asked before, why would any sane person WANT the government to decide what religion to promote? You have no respect for the religious rights of others.

The `establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

Sorry Bullwinkle, Supreme Court not withstanding, you really don't understand the English language. As a verb, "establish" means to "set up or found." Hence, the government can make no laws regarding setting up or founding religions. It is not prohibited from putting The Ten Commandments" on the wall of the court house or from having a manger scene in front of town hall.

Both I and the supreme court disagree. Guess what that means?

Besides which, it's a terrible idea to have the government attempt to tell its citizens which gods they "ought" to believe in; you end up where the local tinpot dictator has his religion plastered all over, and damn the rest.

Look at Ogden, Utah; they have the ten commandments up, and initially refused to allow a summum group to put up their religious tenets. The circuit court told them they either had to allow all religious views or take down the ten commandments. But the city is fighting to keep ONLY the religious tenets of the "favored" religion on display on public property. They'll lose, but not after burning up more of the public's money.

The only things the actual document says is that Congress cannot establish a national religion nor force anyone to adhere to a certain faith.

No, what the actual document SAYS is what you quoted earlier:

"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."

Funny how so many people can be led into believing that the Constitution says something it doesn't.

Funny how you insist it only refers to *A* national religion, when it says "establishment of religion". The supreme court does not agree with your rather narrow, limited-rights interpretation, when it said in Everson v. Board of Education:

The `establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.

The newspaper report isn't so great, either; a stayed decision has hardly been "withdrawn", it's just pending further court action.

I can't help but address the atheists that occasionally post on this site. Here's a truth that I find rather ironic. If you're right, we'll never know it.

Generally true, but not for all atheists; atheists are just people who don't believe in gods. Existence after death does not necessarily depend on gods. There are atheists in India who believe in reincarnation, for example, because that's a common belief there, and it doesn't require a god belief.

If I'm right, you'll know all too well.

And if the Jews are right, I'm obeying the 7 Noachide Laws (which the Jews consider binding on non-Jews), while Christians are breaking the law against idolatry.

And if the Muslims are right, we're both screwed.

And if the universalists are right, we're both OK.

Etc. etc.

If you haven't made any real attempt to find God, then you're making a horrible mistake.

I don't see any good reason to assume this, and no reason to conclude this; if Cthulu exists, it's much better not to attract its attention. Again, the outcome depends entirely on your initial assumptions, and there's no reason for me to pick YOUR particular assumptions.

No matter how much we discuss this it will still be a theory until there is a complete fossil record found of a species in evoultion.

There ARE. TO quote Handy, "READ A BOOK!"

And the last time I looked at a Encyclopedia it was called the Law Of Gravity and not the theory of gravity. Evoultion is called the theory of evoultion not the law of Evoultion.

No, it's still the theory of gravity (and "Newton's Law" is simply WRONG - it doesn't work for large masses or speeds near c). A "law" is really just another term for a theory, sometimes just part of a theory that describes a direct relationship, like "f = ma" or "e = mc^2".

I take the stand that until we actually can prove the theory of Evoultion that is what it is a theory.

"Theory" is as good as it gets in science. Nothing is ever proven in science, proofs only exist in formal systems like mathematics. And as I mentioned earlier, speciation has been observed.

Nobody can prove the theory of gravitation, either; it's still a theory that explains how masses interact (and Newton's theory wasn't quite right).

While trying to cram an entire branch of science into a few lines of text is futile, I will answer this one:

However, as a layman, can you tell me in simple English how simplistic beings such as the early primates, realized that standing erect was something to aspire to?

Here's an experiment you can try:

Go into a meadow (or any grassy area that isn't mowed) with a friend. You are a primate; your friend is a large, carnivorous mammal. Both of you go down on all fours in the meadow; see how far away each of you can detect the other (keep in mind that the predator will probably be able to smell prey). Sight isn't too useful in tall grass if you're on all fours -- you will probably hear them before you see them. Stand up. Compare how far away you can detect large, carnivorous mammals now, while standing. Notice you can also carry food now.

Now, if you'll actually observe apes on this planet, you'll notice some of them normally walk on all fours but stop upright to look around.

The funny part about this is that more and more scientists are beginning to doubt the theory of Evoultion as a viable explanation.

No, this isn't true at all; this is the wishful thinking of creationists. It's like hoping that crystal-sphere orbital mechanics (propelled by angels) will come back to replace the theory of gravity.

Here are a couple of reviews of Denton's anitevolution book:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

http://www.2think.org/eatic.shtml

...

on another point I believe in adaption that as time goes by we adapt to our surrondings but if evoultion was a fact why aren't there new species sudenly popping up?

New species ARE popping up:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Speciation has been observed; evolution (a change in allele frequencies over time) has also been observed.

That was completely uncalled for - you may support the actions of the ACLU and view their championing of causes as being consistent, but that is from your viewpoint - others don't see it that way and to call someone a liar for giving their opinion is uncalled for.

I wasn't calling him a liar due to his opinion, I called him a liar for making false statements about facts, e.g. "what's the deal with not allowing Christmas trees or creshes on government property but saying nothing about a menorah in the same location?"

If he's referring to the Allegheny decision, the ACLU sued over *both* a creche and a menorah, and the supreme court decided that the first was unlawful and the second wasn't:

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/alle_v_aclu.html

Making factually wrong statements (about an organization he clearly dislikes) is called "lying".

SO what you are saying is the ACLU fights the fights they can win not the fights worth fighting?

I'm saying the ACLU is more consistent than you seem to think, and it would help if people like you didn't lie about what kinds of cases they do and do not support.

No I don't like the ACLU. For a group that is supposed to defend the Constitution & Bill of Rights they sure have a funny way of going about it. I agree with the Skokie case but what's the deal with not allowing Christmas trees or creshes on government property but saying nothing about a menorah in the same location?

The ACLU has consistently fought all such displays by the government; the supreme court hasn't been very consistent in its rulings, so you should blame the supreme court, not the ACLU.

They fight to have the Ten Commandments reomved from government building but say nothing about Congress beginning each session with a prayer.

It's been ruled illegal for government agencies to install the 10 commandments, yet governments keep doing it anyway, so the ACLU has to repeatedly bring suits. If government agencies didn't keep violating the constitution, the ACLU wouldn't have to keep suing them. The ACLU probably disagrees with Marsh v. Chambers, which found Nebraska legislative prayers constitutional, but since they would probably lose such a case with congress, they've decided to not throw money away. You might want to compare their prudent decision with all the various cities across the US that have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in public money trying to defend 10 commandments monuments erected to .... promote a Cecil B. DeMille movie.

"This is the concept of "standing": You cannot just sue when you see something wrong, you have to be personally affected by it."

Then how the heck does the ACLU get involved when some small town in Alabama has a Christmas scene at town hall and no one, including the local Jews, has complained?

If you'll check real court cases, you'll see that someone HAS complained (though they might be anonymous, since some people who want government promoting religion aren't above death threats).

Dr. Newdow has standing because, as a parent, the school is infringing on his right to decide what kind of religious instruction his daughter receives. It's even more important when (as in this case) the parents disagree on religion, because the public school shouldn't promote one parent's view.

You can read the whole decision here:

http://sfgate.com/gate/acrobat/2002/06/26/prayer_16423.pdf

Here's where it explains that Dr. Newdow has standing:

Newdow has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter. Parents have a right to direct the religious upbringing of their children and, on that basis, have standing

to protect their right.

Bob White said:

When you stop to think about it, scoutings doors are far more open than most other youth activities and as open as any get.

This is just false; I wouldn't agree with a youth group that excluded Jews that claimed they were "far more open than most other youth activities and as open as any get", and I'm certainly not going to agree with your characterization. I think you're just doing this to avoid facing the BSA's discrimination.

The BSA is a religiously discriminatory organization, just like a youth group that excludes Jews.

Aside from quoting case law, where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say the wording "under God" promote religion?

It doesn't; it also doesn't say "under Jesus" does or doesn't violate the first amendment, or mention "separation of powers" or "right to a fair trial" and lots of other things established by case law.

And I'd like to point out that "under Jesus" doesn't establish A religion either, since there are lots of different sects that would agree with that. Same with "under the god of Abraham".

And by trying to ban the phrase, the remainded of the 1st Ammendment is being violated.

Completely wrong; I'm only trying to stop my government from using the phrase, and the government doesn't have rights, it has powers. Citizens have rights, and you can say it all you like.

There is nothing unconstitutional about the government promoting religion. Our founders never intended that message. It should be obvious by their writings, our Declaration of Independence, our money, and probably thousands of other examples throughout history, including Supreme Court rulings.

Not true; for example, Lee vs. Weisman says:

While the Establishment Clause's concept of neutrality is not self revealing, our recent cases have invested it with specific content: the state may not favor or endorse either religion generally over nonreligion or one religion over others.

Right there, it says the state can't endorse religion over nonreligion.

The first prong of the Lemon test is from the 1971 decision Lemon v. Kurtzman:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose;

second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither

advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not

foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

When congress passed a law whose sole purpose was to add 'under god' to the pledge, it only had a religious purpose. Under the guidelines of the Lemon test, the law is unconstitutional because congress had no secular reason to create such a law. Striking this law does nothing to restrict your speech or anyone else's speech, because you can still add 'under god' (or anything you like) when reciting the pledge.

And the usual canard about 'god' not establishing a specific religion has never been the standard the supreme court uses; they don't use such a narrow standard, they use ones like the Lemon test above. South Carolina tried to require all notary publics to be theists just a few years ago, and they lost bigtime, even though all they required was a belief in one or more gods; this requirement still violated the first amendment, even though it didn't establish a specific religion.

If you'd bother to actually read the decision, the judge explains all of this in some detail. And it isn't a standard I made up, the supreme court did decades ago; if you don't like it, your complaint is with them.

It looks like a lot of people here don't understand what the 9th court decision actually said. It held that:

1) the 1954 legislation adding 'under god' to the official pledge is unconstitutional, because it violated the first prong of the Lemon test; all legislation needs to have a secular purpose to be constitutional, and the only purpose to adding 'under god' to the pledge is religious.

2) public schools having official recitals of the post-1954 pledge violate the constitution by advocating the idea that monotheism is the 'official' religious view to have (especially where young schoolchildren are involved), and doing this violated the rights of Dr. Newdow (the plaintiff) in deciding what sort of religious instruction his daughter receives.

The court ruling is at:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE05EEE79C2A97B688256BE3007FEE32/$file/0016423.pdf?openelement

Here's an URL that probably won't break from wraparound:

http://sfgate.com/gate/acrobat/2002/06/26/prayer_16423.pdf

Merlyn LeRoy(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

>The PTO or other neighborhood parents group sponsors the unit, not the school.

Sorry, there are plenty of units chartered by the schools, not a PTA/PTO. The Dale decision noted that about 750 units in New Jersey were chartered by public schools or other government agencies.

Here's an example:

http://www.vikingbsa.org/Districts/Mustang/Mustang_Units.asp

Notice that many units are chartered by a PTO, but Pack 346 is the school.

here's a Pack web page that says they're chartered by the school:

http://www.cts.nu/pack330/aboutus.htm

Apparently, people STILL can't read what I write; while I keep talking about public schools CHARTERING scout units, other people respond as if I'm talking about scouts meeting in schools.

It's the difference between a whites-only organization meeting in school (legal), vs. a whites-only organization run by a public school (illegal).