The problem is that the Budhist shrine was not granted permission.

We live in a country that supposedly honors the right of freedom of religion. That means that all forms of worship are considered legitimate and are protected by the constitution unless they infringe upon another person's sacred rights.

So there is nothing non-constitutional about having a cross on public lands. What is non-constitutional is forbidding the Budhist shrine. THAT was the constitutional sin - not refusing to rip down a 70-year old sacred symbol that others have appriciated and enjoyed worshiping at for decades.

What must be remembered is that atheism is a religion: a personal set of religious attitudes and beliefs. Atheism happens to hold an attitude and belief structure that states any belief in super-normal or para-normal existance is false... but that is itself an unproven belief.

People need to remember that the constitutional freedom to worship as one wishes DOES NOT require the government to practice atheism. It merely restricts government from using it's authority to pressure anyone else to conform to any specific religion. So there's nothing wrong with allowing a religious symbol on public land - so long as other religious symbols are ALLOWED similar access (there is no requirement for equal-representation if such is not requested).

By stating that government must remove all religious symbols and refuse any religious symbols the right of representation - we are explicitly placing government in a position to support and sponser atheism - a strict removal of any display that might make someone think about paranatural or supernatural considerations.

So while this case is clearly one in which congress took a giant shit all over the constitution and passed complete bullshit laws trying in vain to justify themselves, the answer isn't to rip down a sacred symbol that has been loved and respected by the local people for decades... the answer is to allow others to have their symbols as well.

Tundrayeti:

What must be remembered is that atheism is a religion: a personal set of religious attitudes and beliefs. Atheism happens to hold an attitude and belief structure that states any belief in super-normal or para-normal existance is false... but that is itself an unproven belief.

Tundrayeti, I'm sorry, but you are dead wrong in your assertion that atheism is a religion. This is a common falsehood spouted glibly my many.

First of all, it's circular to define religion as "a personal set of religious attitudes and beliefs."

Second, atheism isn't a belief in the falsity of the supernatural; it's the disbelief in god(s) due to lack of evidence. You presumably possess a similar disbelief with regard to the existence of Santa Claus or ghosts. You would never refer to this disbelief -- this assessment of the likelihood of their existence based on evidence -- as a "religious attitude" or "belief."

A devout Christian (to paraphrase Sam Harris) is an "atheist" with regard to Islam; atheists just take it "one god further" and do not believe in anything for which there is no evidence.

Atheism is not a religion, any more than being a non-astrologer is a religion (to paraphrase Harris again).

No. The placing of religious symbols on government property is tantamount to government endorsement of religion. Therefore, no religious symbols on government property.

Lack of endorsement of any religion is not the same thing as endorsement of atheism.

"By stating that government must remove all religious symbols and refuse any religious symbols the right of representation - we are explicitly placing government in a position to support and sponser atheism" This is rubbish. You are trying to assert that the absence of any symbols is the symbol of atheism! So, everywhere there is no symbol, atheism is being promoted. Obviously we need religious symbols everywhere, else atheism is covering the planet! Unbelievable thinking. The flaw, of course, is trying to declare that atheism is a religion,which it most certainly is not.

Hah, funny. The oceans the deserts and the vast reaches of outer space...all giant monuments to atheism ;- )

pb53:

Atheism is not a religion, any more than being a non-astrologer is a religion (to paraphrase Harris again).

nope. an Agnostic could get away with that, but an athiest doesn't say there is not enough proof to believe in a potential, god, they assert that there is NO god, which is a statement of *belief*, and hence a religious belief.

bsharporflat:

Hah, funny. The oceans the deserts and the vast reaches of outer space...all giant monuments to atheism ;- )

And indeed they are.

The pertinent portion of the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion nor prohibiting free exercise thereof:"

Has that happened in this case? Has Congress passed a law establishing a religion?

I can't see that this has happened. Congress owned a small piece of land. Many years ago, someone else put a cross on the land (not the government, so this wasn't a government endorsement of that religion -- but ENDORSEMENT of a religion isn't prohibited, anyway). Now, that cross has become a political issue because of a misinterpretation of the Constitution. So Congress did something it is explicitly authorized to do -- it sold off land that it owned, putting the cross not on government land but on private property.

Bondsman:

pb53:

Atheism is not a religion, any more than being a non-astrologer is a religion (to paraphrase Harris again).

nope. an Agnostic could get away with that, but an athiest doesn't say there is not enough proof to believe in a potential, god, they assert that there is NO god, which is a statement of *belief*, and hence a religious belief.

Nope. Atheism is the absence of any particular belief, hence not a religious belief.

To state that disbelief is not a specific belief concerning something... is simply not true. To disbelive is to believe that something is not true. (-)A=B is the same as A=(-)B... you should have covered this in elementary school.

If you specifically DO NOT believe in something, without any proof or evidence to support that belief, then you are in fact BELIEVING that something does not exist.

Yes, I do not BELIEVE in Santa Clause, and that is not a component of my overall set of beliefs regarding the supernatural and paranatural that are broadly catagorized as "Christianity". It is not a component of my personal religious (definition of religious: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an aknowledged ultimate reality or deity) beliefs - which is the definition of "religion". Unless someone worships Santa Clause as a deity or believes that Santa is an aknowledged ultimate reality... it would be hard to determine that believing that Santa does not exist is a "religion".

If you want to examine that one specific article of my personal set of beliefs, I feel comfortable that there is not sufficient evidence for me to BELIEVE that Santa Clause exists. Therefore, I BELIEVE that he doesn't exist. While it would be foolish for me to call my lack of belief in Santa a "religion", it does fall comfortably within my overall BELIEF structure based on reality, which some refer to as "empiricism", while others think of it as "science".

As an illustration of something that is not a belief: I UNDERSTAND that evolution is the means by which life has come to exist in its current diversity - because there is sufficient evidence to justify that as an explanation, and it is in fact the best fit/least complex explanation that fully encompasses all the data we have at hand. All other explanations are more complicated and are therefore eliminated by use of Okham's Razor... So evolution, and gravity, global warming, the conservation of mass and energy, the supply/demand dynamics of free trade, and many hundreds of other issues... are intances of UNDERSTANDING or KNOWLEGE. But even these are based on a BELIEF in science and the underlying truth of what is seen and experienced - Descartes ending of the speculation of the caverns of Socrates.

To paraphrase myself, Harris is an idiot. Not believing in astrology is one of many personal beliefs that comprise my set of personal beliefs - which fall into the broad catagorization of "Christianity".

If you have no evidence to support your conclusion, then it is purely a statement of belief. Period. If those beliefs concern the realm of the religious - including sets of belief that state there are no deities - then those are still religions. Period. Atheism is a religion because it is an unproven set of beliefs concerning the aknowledged ultimate reality.

Bondsman:

pb53:

Atheism is not a religion, any more than being a non-astrologer is a religion (to paraphrase Harris again).

nope. an Agnostic could get away with that, but an athiest doesn't say there is not enough proof to believe in a potential, god, they assert that there is NO god, which is a statement of *belief*, and hence a religious belief.

Nope back at you. Just because you may know someone who identifies as an atheist and asserts "there is NO god" doesn't mean that person is correct. This important distinction comes from <link>:

Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.

I think you've got the law wrong, Permafrost Abominable Snowman, but your complaint is valid to my ears.

The Constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."

This indicates that the government should remain neutral in its actions, in regard to religion, while allowing citizens to be as active and expressive in their religion as they wish to be.

There have been lawsuits about whether it is appropriate, therefore, to make or request that a person swear under oath to God in a court of law or when taking office. This has been worked out to allow for the fact that citizenry can be religious, while the government does not side with any given religion, or promote any given religion.

I can not see how allowing religious symbols on public lands is anything but a matter of government "...respecting (of) an establishment of religion..." It does not say that the government has to promote all religions equally, but stay out of the matter entirely. Smart move by our Founding Fathers.

As to your complaint, I too find it very difficult to believe that a non-believer of any religion or lack thereof is actually offended that religious symbol is put up on public lands during certain occasions as religious holidays which many people in a given community celebrate. That's just pissed off angry people who don't want to believe they are responsible to anyone but their own limited conscience.

is an atheist action.

Agnostics don't care, and each religion has their own symbols which they would want displayed... forceably removing all symbols is pure atheism.

Attempting to deny that atheism is a religion shows that you have a very poor understanding of the definition of the terms "belief", "religion", and "religious". You should take a couple of philosophy courses.

You are right; freedom of religion does not equal state atheism. But the clause in the First Amendment that immediately precedes the free exercise clause, which is the provision you have in mind, is the clause known as the establishment clause.

The First Amendment reads: “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.”

It is the establishment clause, not the free exercise clause, that is at issue in this case. And while that clause does not equal state atheism—which itself is a belief—it does prohibit the government from adopting or promoting any particular religion, or religion at all.

As for the free exercise clause—the clause you are talking about—it does in fact protect against the government-coerced adoption or recognition of any one particular religion, or of religion itself. That includes the non-Christians who are buried in that WWI veterans’ cemetery, and their descendants who also may not be Christian.

Take a little walk through here:

<link>

Being an Atheist, which allows me to be quite a bit more flexible in my thinking, it is safe to assume that what you say, at least in your path of reasoning, could be a subject for careful examination. After all, what you call "God" we call Nature, which is a bit more complex than any dogma which ever existed. Yet, Atheists do not follow any patterns of worship, or prayer, or share delusional concepts which often disagree with each other and yet claim to fall into the same creed. That is, unless you wish to include the scientific term "theory". So now you will claim that Science is a religion as well? Ah, the things Theists will say to sell their snake oil.