Atheists, nonbelievers to rally for godless US, political change on National Mall

So your tax dollars are better than mine? Why don't you keep your unbeliefs on private property? The double standard here is sickening. Can you guys do anything not hypocritical? I don't even go to church, and I see this BS happening, and I laugh at the justifications that just keep getting put up.

 

that only says christians outnumber atheists. Laws appear to be in atheists favor.

 

As far as I understand it, it's an all or nothing thing.

You can put up religious displays on public property, but you have to allow all religions the same freedom -- and also allow atheists the same.

By the same token, if you ban one, you have to ban them all.

 

I wish atheists would follow that piece of advice.

 

Ban em is fine with me.

 

Or do you mean the constituion?

 

Your rights end at my nose. Keep your silly imaginary friends to yourself.

 

name one law that says there is no god....

we have a pledge and our money that says there is, would you be happy if our money and pledge said there was no god

I say the government shoudl not say there is or say there is not a god

 

no one wants to remove religion from America, what they want is the government not to promote any one belief over another, the private sector can practice any religion they want...

 

The Founding Fathers grafitti'd it all over the Nations Capital and every major document from the Declaration to the Constitution. Blame them for wanting to inject the Higher Power of Freemasonry into every aspect of our existence.

I mean...what idiots, right?

 

some also supported slavery, not sure your point

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

""Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." "

they did not support Jesus, so even by your logic anything Jesus should not be allowed, right?

best for the government to remain neutral imo

 

You can ask till your blue in the face, you won't get an answer. To answer that they'd have to tell the truth. That only a very tiny faction of people are so insecure with their own self being that the thought of the Easter Bunny, an Easter Egg hunt (Now called a Spring Egg Hunt where I live) or even a "Christmas Tree" is just too much to bear. OR they are the hatefully closed minded.

 

no problem with it at all, put it up in your house, yard, business, ect... doesn't bother anyone, but stop trying to force it on public land, it has no place there any more then the flying spaghetti monster

 

AA is a religious institution.

Your participation is often mandated by the government. Once in a program you must submit to a higher power, it is one of those steps... failure to comply/complete such a mandated participation results in punishment.


This is unconstitutional and infringes on non-believers. There are lots of examples of this sort of mess, this one was first to come to mind.

 

And this should not be allowed either. Sentencing someone to AA meetings is unconstitutional.

I'm surprised this has not been challenged yet.

 

Fresh Air,

you assume a lot about me. Does it ever occur to you that people don't always fit into a left-right, evangelical-atheist paradigm?

The media and it's subtle, subconscious messages of both word and image has created this very dishonest intellectual debate and an ever-widening gap based off of a (false) presumption that any of us can only ever be of two minds.

For example, if I post to say that I don't care if its a pentagram on Beltane or a creche at Christmas, that everyone has a right to donate an item which shares their joy or cultural experience with members of their own community to be placed in a public locale what you receive from it is some "liberal" (I use this loosely) party line that I wish to codify the Christian religion into law and create a theocracy.

It is the only way you see the debate framed--without nuance.

I don't want, for example, the government to define marriage--only to provide marital benefits to taxpayers equally. I don't want, for example, the United State Congress to say a prayer to Jesus. I don't even really want a National Prayer Breakfast.

I don't want the government to be a "Christian" government, nor do I want it to enforce any type of ethic or morality.

I want the United States government to provide for the general welfare and to provide means to defend our shores should we be attacked. That is it.

Freemasony, in its own way, is a religion and it is very much embedded into the fabric of our nation whether I like it or not.

I want a life where I can make decisions for myself and my family without interference. I have no wish to make decisions for others either. I agree with Jefferson in that we were born with inalienable rights and I elect to utilize them...only our government daily attempts to stop me and others from doing so.

A donated creche on a lawn indoctrinates or pushes religion on no one, neither would a wiccan symbol or Muslim one. A law that tells Ellen she cannot marry Portia at a Federal level does. This is the nuanced religious debate.

Nothing is simple in life except joy. We know it when we feel it. I would no more rob a Muslim or atheist of their joy than I would myself, but sometimes I do believe that an atheist would rob me of mine. And that is where I become offended.

 

The law that rewrote the Pledge of Allegiance which requires one to proclaim out nation is under the Judeo/Christian god.

 

The true hate rears it's ugly head. Nice jobs stones. I was wondering how long you we're going to keep up the hypocrisy before the truth came out. Your just a hateful SOB who hates others for their beliefs. My interest here is about done. I was only waiting for you to fall into the hole you we're digging.

Oh really? I guess the court system missed the memo. The judicial branch is usually late on the uptake of things....

 

Do you think we should be required to pledge loyalty and allegiance to a piece of cloth?

Why are we "required" to pledge ourselves to anything?

In fact, we are not. We may stand silent. I did and do.

 

It doesnothing to ones "physical being" or "direct harm" but then that is not the issue. It is government sponsorship and promoting of a religious establishment, government engaging in such sponsorship and promotion of certain religious beliefs is want is disturbing and dangerous.

Are you a Christian? Why would you want government involved in your religious beliefs and practices and why do you need to put such displays on government property? Does it harm your physical being not to do so? Does the sight of government property devoid of religious displays do harm to you?

 

I want those things too, just pointing out many things have changed for the better sense the founders, what they did was great, because what they did set in motions all that was to come

their greatness was not so much what they were personally like or believed, but because they saw a future that could be better, and set that in motion

I have often said I do not want a government that prevents religion or promotes it, neither one is good, government should remain neutral

 

I do not want the government to endorse a religion, to touch, or even think about religion. I do not want a government to supplant religion by making itself one, either.

I does me no physical harm to see a county government building without any religious artifacts, statues, or pigeons, nor do I receive joy at the sight of religious artifacts entertwined with those of the government. I don't like anyone speaking for me or others assuming what I think based off of others who might express similar opinions on some topics. I believe everyone is a complex individual should they enable that "switch" to turn on.

I will say that it pains my heart when people pretend that it does harm them to see it in order to prevent other people from having even 1 second of happiness in this world. We have a happiness and joy shortage.

I don't need a church building or a statue to believe what I believe. I don't need laws to keep me from hurting my neighbor. I do not require anyone's instructions on how to eat, what to put into my body, what to do with my body, or how to express myself and where.

I want to be wholly free.

 

Yup...right out of the religious playbook: Use the you're angry card when all else fails

 

It that piece of cloth represents our country why not?

You aren't, but if I want to state my allegiance to my country using the official pledge of our country then I must state it is under the Judeo/Christian god. The law should be vacated.

Because of the reference to a god?

 

Isn't being pro-single payer healthcare a desire to see your particular moral view forced upon others?

Atheists aren't any less likely than the religious to want to see their morals forced on others.