Posted on Sep 13, 2014
Do Athiest have the right to demand that individuals remove religious symbols or words from their personal property?
13.1K
154
130
3
3
0
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 48
29
29
0
They have every right to demand and I have every right to laugh hysterically.
(29)
(0)
SFC Mark Merino
MSgt (Join to see) I'm a firm believer that most problems can be worked out on the rifle range. All my frustrations and tension seem to disappear when I am working on the basics and fundamentals. Besides, Mark calls cadence....I can't sing to save my life!
(1)
(0)
SSG Maurice P.
Msgt Borders i havent heard that song since 1962 when we sang it at summer camp sitting around a campfire...i was 10 yrs old but i remember and that is a beautiful song
(1)
(0)
SSG Trevor S.
SFC Jerry Crouch I scrolled down and saw the school reference. That still does not change my answer to the original question and SFC Mark Merino 's response. Assuming it is personal property involved, someone requesting me to remove any religious symbol from my own property can find a place to go cry about how unjust the world is. Or, whatever else they find worthy of their time.
(0)
(0)
11
11
0
Seriously? I can't believe we even need to ask this question! How would this NOT be an infringement on personal liberties and religious freedom?
I guess the subject of "Separation of church and state" is where everyone gets confused. The fact of the matter is, there is absolutely NOWHERE in the constitution in which the words "separation of church and state" are even used. What the constitution actually does say is government shall make no law “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
In fact, a strict separationist view is actually not supported by the constitution.
The constitution forbids an official establishment of religion. This is very different from the much looser, imprecise term “separation of church and state." In fact, the terms "separation of church and state" actually contradicts the First Amendment by creating a war against religion. This is the opposite of the founding father's intent.
"In a nutshell, government may neither compel nor prohibit religious exercise. The Establishment Clause side of the coin says that government may not prescribe religious exercise; the Free Exercise side says that government may not proscribe, disfavor or otherwise punish or prevent religious exercise voluntarily chosen by the people. But the two phrases are two sides of the same coin. It is little wonder, then, that the Supreme Court has abandoned entirely the misleading metaphor “separation of church and state.” It simply does not help explain the true meaning of the First Amendment."
Before we start quoting terms that do not exist, we may want to consider going back and rereading the Constitution. Considering the fact that it is our responsibility as service members to protect the constitution, wouldn't it be wise that we know what we are protecting?
I guess the subject of "Separation of church and state" is where everyone gets confused. The fact of the matter is, there is absolutely NOWHERE in the constitution in which the words "separation of church and state" are even used. What the constitution actually does say is government shall make no law “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
In fact, a strict separationist view is actually not supported by the constitution.
The constitution forbids an official establishment of religion. This is very different from the much looser, imprecise term “separation of church and state." In fact, the terms "separation of church and state" actually contradicts the First Amendment by creating a war against religion. This is the opposite of the founding father's intent.
"In a nutshell, government may neither compel nor prohibit religious exercise. The Establishment Clause side of the coin says that government may not prescribe religious exercise; the Free Exercise side says that government may not proscribe, disfavor or otherwise punish or prevent religious exercise voluntarily chosen by the people. But the two phrases are two sides of the same coin. It is little wonder, then, that the Supreme Court has abandoned entirely the misleading metaphor “separation of church and state.” It simply does not help explain the true meaning of the First Amendment."
Before we start quoting terms that do not exist, we may want to consider going back and rereading the Constitution. Considering the fact that it is our responsibility as service members to protect the constitution, wouldn't it be wise that we know what we are protecting?
(11)
(0)
LTC Hillary Luton
MAJ Carl Ballinger, thank you for your comments. You state exactly what many conveniently forget or choose to ignore.
(0)
(0)
LTC Hillary Luton
I believe the more walls you put up, the more segregation your create in a society and the more you divide that society to the point there is no such thing as peace or community or unity. Just exactly how divided can a society stand to become before it complete destroys itself?
(0)
(0)
LTC Hillary Luton
MAJ Carl Ballinger thank you. I sometimes feel like people are so focused on how they can keep religion out of the public eye, they use separation of church and state as a way to limit religion. The fact that the phrase was first penned by Thomas Jefferson soon after he became president in a series of letters between he and the Danbury Baptist Association is often lost What's more, is when these words were penned by Jefferson, his whole intent was his belief that religion was a God given right, not a government given right and that the government should never be allowed to interfere in the free practice of any religion. That phrase has been distorted over the years to mean we should keep religion out of anything that is owned or controlled by the government.
SSG Scott Williams, I simply believe that creating that wall goes against the first amendment. The point of this amendment and establishment clause is to ensure government does not attempt to control the people through the use of a federally imposed religion. It does not mean that we are to separate all religion from all government. The constitution protects the free practice of religion, anytime, anywhere. By telling a child he/she cannot say a pray at his/her graduation, the school is violating that child's constitutional right.
I know there are people who do not believe in God, and I do believe in free choice. So tell me, how is it free choice if you tell someone they are not allowed to pray just because they happen to be standing in a government owned building?
If you want to know what I meant by my earlier comment, it is simple, it goes back to the old quote "United we stand, divided we fall." We have seen it in battle so many times. When we stand together and work together to defeat the enemy, we are successful. Even when we are outnumbered and outmaneuvered. When we quarrel among ourselves, go separate ways, and don't work together, the enemy defeats us. When you build walls, you divide people.
I'm not saying you have to accept people's religion. What I'm saying is you have to accept people's right to have a religion and to practice that religion, whether you approve of the religion or not.
SSG Scott Williams, I simply believe that creating that wall goes against the first amendment. The point of this amendment and establishment clause is to ensure government does not attempt to control the people through the use of a federally imposed religion. It does not mean that we are to separate all religion from all government. The constitution protects the free practice of religion, anytime, anywhere. By telling a child he/she cannot say a pray at his/her graduation, the school is violating that child's constitutional right.
I know there are people who do not believe in God, and I do believe in free choice. So tell me, how is it free choice if you tell someone they are not allowed to pray just because they happen to be standing in a government owned building?
If you want to know what I meant by my earlier comment, it is simple, it goes back to the old quote "United we stand, divided we fall." We have seen it in battle so many times. When we stand together and work together to defeat the enemy, we are successful. Even when we are outnumbered and outmaneuvered. When we quarrel among ourselves, go separate ways, and don't work together, the enemy defeats us. When you build walls, you divide people.
I'm not saying you have to accept people's religion. What I'm saying is you have to accept people's right to have a religion and to practice that religion, whether you approve of the religion or not.
(1)
(0)
LTC Hillary Luton
SSG Scott Williams, we could continue down this rat hole, but in looking at your's and my responses to one another, I do not predict there will come a time that we will agree on this subject. At this stage of the game, I recommend we agree to disagree and leave this thread before it treads on the side of unprofessional.
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
1SG, I have to answer this in three two parts:
1) The question is asked is a hypothetical one (it lacks details of a specific instance, context, etc) and so to answer your question, no. An atheist does not have the right to demand individuals remove religious symbols or words from their personal property.
2) With regard to the Arkansas State University matter, yes. The equipment is owned by a government-funded school. The students who attend ASU are from a diverse social and religious background and may potentially view such symbolism as government-sponsored religion (no matter the positive intent of the players or the 'common sense' factor at play here).
3) You make a remark about a, "small group of atheists," in a response to SFC Crouch. Our Constitutional rights as codified in the Bill of Rights are specifically written to protect "small groups". The right to freedom of press protects minor dissident groups from the large government. The right to bear arms protects the smaller militias of states from the larger federal military force. The right to freedom of religion protects members of minority faiths (like me) from government-sponsored religion and the tyranny that follows- as we learned in England with the Protestant/Catholic wars during monarchy transition.
Personally, I understand your point. I am not offended by crosses and like that the players wanted to remember their dearly departed, and I believe they had no malice in their hearts by choosing a religious symbol to do so. That said, I would choose the mild inconvenience of those players needing to create another way to remember their friends over the possible infringement of religious freedoms (or even the perception of it) in a government institution.
1) The question is asked is a hypothetical one (it lacks details of a specific instance, context, etc) and so to answer your question, no. An atheist does not have the right to demand individuals remove religious symbols or words from their personal property.
2) With regard to the Arkansas State University matter, yes. The equipment is owned by a government-funded school. The students who attend ASU are from a diverse social and religious background and may potentially view such symbolism as government-sponsored religion (no matter the positive intent of the players or the 'common sense' factor at play here).
3) You make a remark about a, "small group of atheists," in a response to SFC Crouch. Our Constitutional rights as codified in the Bill of Rights are specifically written to protect "small groups". The right to freedom of press protects minor dissident groups from the large government. The right to bear arms protects the smaller militias of states from the larger federal military force. The right to freedom of religion protects members of minority faiths (like me) from government-sponsored religion and the tyranny that follows- as we learned in England with the Protestant/Catholic wars during monarchy transition.
Personally, I understand your point. I am not offended by crosses and like that the players wanted to remember their dearly departed, and I believe they had no malice in their hearts by choosing a religious symbol to do so. That said, I would choose the mild inconvenience of those players needing to create another way to remember their friends over the possible infringement of religious freedoms (or even the perception of it) in a government institution.
(9)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SFC Burroughs, I like what you had to say in that very thorough answer. I agree and would like to add that one of the points that is being missed in modern society is as our founding fathers said the "tyranny of the minority" meaning a small group actually harassing the majority to attain the very thing they rally against; special treatment at the expense of others. Now I must clarify that in this context minority does not mean race but instead it infers that we are considering a smaller group (as a measure of statistical representation of the whole). So whether or not we are speaking about the rights of anarchists offended by formal governments or druids offended by the logging industry we must weigh the rights of the few while considering the cost and burden to society at whole. All too often the best sounding politically correct message wins, even when it doesn’t pass the common sense test.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
CPT Rolston, thank you for the support of my comment and for what you added to it. As long as the decision regarding the rights of the few against the cost and burden to society is made through the democratic process rather than the subjective views of those in power, I can't argue it.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
It most certainly is. Provided they are displayed in environs that do not call the 1st Amendment into question, many government offices and facilities have displayed such symbols.
If you are an optimist, the question becomes whether the use of the symbol outpaces the perceived persecution of the minority faith. If you are a pessimist, the question becomes whether the use of the symbol is worth the expense of a Supreme Court fight. In either case, the answer is generally no.
If you are an optimist, the question becomes whether the use of the symbol outpaces the perceived persecution of the minority faith. If you are a pessimist, the question becomes whether the use of the symbol is worth the expense of a Supreme Court fight. In either case, the answer is generally no.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google