House of Eratosthenes

A group of New York City atheists is demanding that the city remove a street sign honoring seven firefighters killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks because they say the sign violates the separation of church and state.

The street, “Seven in Heaven Way,” was officially dedicated last weekend in Brooklyn outside the firehouse where the firefighters once served. The ceremony was attended by dozens of firefighters, city leaders and widows of the fallen men.

“There should be no signage or displays of religious nature in the public domain,” said Ken Bronstein, president of New York City Atheists. “It’s really insulting to us.” Bronstein told Fox News Radio that his organization was especially concerned with the use of the word “heaven.” “We’ve concluded as atheists there is no heaven and there’s no hell,” he said.

I’m filing it because many’s the time I’ve been engaged in a discussion about what the First Amendment does permit and doesn’t permit, what it expressly prohibits and what it does not prohibit.

And I frequently run into the “nobody’s saying” hair-splitting thing progs like to use…they fall back on it often. Nobody’s saying take all indications of religion down from everything. Just keep that marble cross out of the public library! Put it in a church instead! Grrrr!

As a general rule, people who demand their arguments be treated with surgical precision, microscopic delicacy, “oh no I said this I never said that,” have no problem at all taking a sledgehammer to the other guy’s argument.

But yes. For the record. The atheist movement is a movement to establish a religion. They want control over what is in public view. No religion but theirs.

And sorry to say, but — once you start to ponder how everything got here, their religion is, indeed, a religion. It settles uncertainty by manufacturing certainty, on nothing more than blind faith. That’s as good a definition as any. And it applies, practically, as well. Ken Bronstein has a private view of the universe, what it is, how it got here, etc. and he’s upset because he’s seen a sign that someone, somewhere, believes something different. He’s exactly the kind of religious zealot from which the First Amendment is supposed to protect us.

Free expression clause. Look ‘er up, Ken Bronstein!

I’m not in agreement with my fellow NY atheists nor you, Morgan.

Freedom of speech/expression are for individuals as I read it. It doesn’t give our government the right to promote religion. And this sign does that.

I can see that and not be “offended” unlike some others. Just don’t tell me is raining when it’s warm and coming from a low trajectory.

I don’t have a problem with the sign anymore than “In God We Trust” being on our money or “endowed by their Creator” in the Declaration of Independence or crosses/Star of David on headstones of fallen soldiers/Marines…etc. I realize the role of religion has played, and plays, in our country. Only jackwagon atheist like to deny and conveniently forget it all.

Put the sign up, juts know we’re keeping you in check.

And the dumbass NY atheists, do ya’ really want to be on the side opposing something that honors 9/11 heroes, even if your right? Really? Seriously? Pick your battles better than that, ya’ bunch of numbnuts.
- tim | 06/22/2011 @ 11:31
I see where you’re coming from, really I do. But the way I see it is: Drawing the line at “If government pays for it even in part, then it has to be secularized” has been given a more than fair shake here. When decades zip on by and we’re still arguing about the same stuff, in my mind that’s a fail. It’s failed.

And it gets more and more fail-ey as government proceeds to handle more and more things in our lives. It also fails logically. Government spends money on something so…what…no crosses, Stars-of-David, or Muslim Crescents on military headstones? It just doesn’t work. Ten Commandments on the Supreme Court building. It just seems so Californian, to me. Meaning, we have this hard-and-fast rule with no exceptions granted, that “works” only because, in selected places here & there, nobody pays attention to the rule.

I therefore must conclude: Government can help pay for things, the things may have a religious content, and that’s fine — establishment of religion would be wrong, and that’s not quite it. If the Supreme Court has said otherwise, it’s simply wrong. There needs to be a different litmus test. A preconceived plan to pick a specific domination, and give it dominance over the others.
- mkfreeberg | 06/22/2011 @ 11:45
I dunn’o, I see your point.

Maybe it’s all just a compromise. Now there’s a thought…
- tim | 06/22/2011 @ 13:35
When decades zip on by and we’re still arguing about the same stuff, in my mind that’s a fail. It’s failed.

Every time this issue comes up in the news, I have the same questions:

– Often times the symbol in question was erected many decades earlier, and nobody had a problem with it at the time. Why now and not then?

Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists (which is where we get the infamous phrase “wall of separation between church and state”) has already been around for a long, long time. But big crosses were still being erected as late as the 1950s.

– Okay, so it’s said to constitute an “establishment of religion.” Which one? Lutheranism? Catholicism? Mormonism? Which one? Don’t say “Christianity.” There are three major branches (Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) and dozens (perhaps hundreds) of denominations, all of which lay claim to the title. Which one are you referring to?

– When a cross or Star of David appears somewhere on public property, does anyone really want to advance the argument that local, state, or federal government REALLY is endorsing or putting its resources behind a particular faith? Seriously?

Or….is it more likely that the public money or property in question….is being used to advance the community values of the people who funded that public enterprise in the first place? This nonsense seems to go on even in the heart of the Bible Belt, where atheists are rarer than Republicans in San Francisco. Isn’t telling these community members that they cannot do so…an equally oppressive swipe at their right to free expression? I notice that the atheist groups aren’t satisfied even if the matter is put up for a vote and still passes; then they’d just go shopping for a judge that will rule in their favor.

I’m sorry, but I don’t have a dime’s worth of patience for the atheist viewpoint, particularly on this issue. I’m tired of an irate minority being able to use the court system to tell the rest of us where to go. I would like to tell *them*, “Sorry, but you live in a Christian country. These are the values most of us hold. Deal with it. We love you, but you’re not going to be allowed to ride roughshod over those values.” This is what should be happening in courtrooms all across America.

It is a given that Poland is Catholic, Thailand is Buddhist, India is Hindu, Saudi Arabia is Muslim, Ukraine is Eastern Orthodox, and Israel is Jewish. You wouldn’t get far advancing the atheists’ line of reasoning in any of those places, and rightly so. In all of those places, public money and property are used to advance the values of the people who live there and who fund the government. (For that matter, all of them probably expect you to speak their language if you’re going to live among them. What a concept….)
- cylarz | 06/22/2011 @ 18:39
“We’ve concluded as atheists there is no heaven and there’s no hell,” he said.

Yeah, I’ll bet they have. They haven’t “concluded” jack squat. That’s a statement of belief. They reject the idea of heaven and hell because the implications make them uncomfortable. It doesn’t even matter to them that it’s a street sign intended to honor fallen heroes, not a sermon.

Meanwhile, a lot of other people have concluded that not only is God real, but that He’s deeply interested in how we spend our day and how we live our lives, and not only wants to observe closely, but also interact and even lead in those decisions. We’ve also concluded that there are serious consequences for not allowing Him to do so, not just in the next life, but in this one. I don’t give a rip what this guy or his friends have “concluded.”

With all due respect to our atheist friends, of course.
- cylarz | 06/22/2011 @ 21:17
cylarz,

“Often times the symbol in question was erected many decades earlier, and nobody had a problem with it at the time. Why now and not then?”

Surly your not suggesting that just because something has already happened that it should continue to happen regardless if it’s legal or not, right or wrong, constitutional or unconstitutional. If so maybe we should still have slavery, women shouldn’t vote…

“When a cross or Star of David appears somewhere on public property, does anyone really want to advance the argument that local, state, or federal government REALLY is endorsing or putting its resources behind a particular faith? Seriously?”

So…you’d be OK if your local government helped build a mosque or at least give them the land or a nice big ole tax break…? Being involved, erected a sign or what not, is certainly endorsing. What if your local gov., after a vote of course, built a memorial to NAMBLA, wouldn’t that be endorsing child molestation?

“I notice that the atheist groups aren’t satisfied even if the matter is put up for a vote and still passes; then they’d just go shopping for a judge that will rule in their favor.”

People can vote all day long, but if it’s unconstitutional…Same with contract law, anyone can put in a contract whatever they want, “You shall relinquish your first born child if your rent is past due…” Doesn’t make it legal.

I don’t care if the congress passed a bill, it could still be unconstitutional. See Oabamcare.

“It is a given that Poland is Catholic, Thailand is Buddhist…”

OK, but this is America, that has not NO bearing on what we do here. And your not promoting the “let’s take into consider international law” are you? How about some of that awesome Sharia law? Should we consider stone women for adultery, hanging homosexuals, cutting hands off of thieves…be careful what you ask for.

“They reject the idea of heaven and hell because the implications make them uncomfortable.”

Based on what? Because they, we, don’t believe in the same thing you do? I could use the very same argument against you. You are uncomfortable with the idea that there is no God. But I would never do that, I’m comfortable enough with my atheism that it doesn’t matter to me. You believe, that’s fine (see earlier comments). No need to tear apart atheists, even the douche bags in the post, because you don’t agree with them.

But we do agree on something, “It doesn’t even matter to them that it’s a street sign intended to honor fallen heroes, not a sermon.” As I said, let it go ya’ knuckleheads.
- tim | 06/23/2011 @ 06:39
Ah, but small-tee, it cuts both ways. If the Supreme Court decides something that’s logically wrong, should we just relinquish our private opinions and just go with it? When they sit to decide matters of constitutional law, that is all they have the authority to decide — the LAW. Their role is to create a unifying verdict, right-or-wrong, about what is to be enforceable. Laws. Period, end of story, just laws.

In fact, that’s written right into the matter that Engel v. Vitale was supposed to be deciding: Congress shall make no law…

Now, think about other laws that could be declared unconstitutional. It is so decided, and then suppose some idiot distract attorney continues to bring charges based on the law that now has no force and no effect. If it makes it to court, it will be thrown out, of course. But suppose someone pleads guilty? I’m not a lawyer, but I believe that conviction stands.

My point is: The SCOTUS does not have the authority to decide how the events are going to turn out. They only have authority to decide what does & doesn’t apply. They can’t hand down a court decision that says “don’t you build that sign.” That whole thing is a layman’s misconception.

But, like I said, I’m a layman, I could be wrong. I don’t think so though.
- mkfreeberg | 06/23/2011 @ 07:54
Well spoken, Morgan.

Tim, I had a feeling that my post would ruffle your feathers. Up until now, I’d presumed you were at least one of the more rational and tolerant atheists.

Now, here you are, comparing putting a cross on public land with enactment of sha’ria law and laws requiring selling your firstborn. Snort. Sir, you REALLY don’t want to go down that road.

As a matter of fact, public money IS used to build religious objects in many other countries, not just Muslim ones. America are the only ones who seem to have a problem with it. We frequently hold our country up as an example to the rest of the world, but quite simply, we’re the ones who are wrong this time around – wrong to make an issue out of this…or more precisely, wrong to allow atheist groups to use the court system or other laws to make an issue of it.

The atheists do presume to tell me there’s no heaven and no hell…about which they’re quite simply, factually, wrong…and so yes, I do quite resent them telling me that my government is not allowed to acknowledge that in any way.

As Morgan said, a faithless life is a religion all unto itself, and those who choose such a life have no right to force those beliefs on me…especially when such persons are in the minority and are actively trying to scrub all such references from the public square – which is itself funded with my tax dollars.

This nation is long overdue for a backlash against atheist-driven activism. I can’ wait to see what happens when that activism collides head-on with the growing numbers of American Muslims – who are passionate about their faith, who are going to be a lot less cooperative about being silenced than Christians have been. You ain’t seen NOTHING yet.
- cylarz | 06/23/2011 @ 09:42
No, Morgan, of course not, the Supreme can, and does, decide things that are logically wrong. (Though than can be subjective). Abortion, flag burning, emanate domain come to mind. Opinions will always come into conflict with that.

I’m not suggesting we toss out our opinions, just that you can have one that is opposed by the law or the constitution.

It all boils to down to interpretation of the law, which is why we have a Supreme court in the first place and our constitution isn’t 30,000 pages long.

As far as your scenario of pleading guilty to a unconstitutional law, I do believe that if that conviction was indeed brought through the court system all the way to the SC, it would in fact be overturned.

“They can’t hand down a court decision that says “don’t you build that sign.”

But isn’t that what happened to that Cross in the desert (Mohave?) recently lat year, that was a pretty specific “signage” decision, no? Even if it was “only” the CA courts.

I think the SC gets very specific on cases brought before them. In fact, it’s why they get brought before them in the first place, a specific situation needs to interpreted by them. General law cases are handled by lower courts and the SC will reject cases they feel have been properly handled according to the law. When it gets sticky (big legal word) or complicated, another words, specific law needs to be decided, they need to hear it and settle it.

And this isn’t one of them, put the damn sign up, I’m not offended, I don’t see this as a conflict of church and state (though the argument can be made) or “Congress shall make no law…”

In fact, I only see this as hurting the case of atheist. As I’ve said, there are plenty of examples of religious symbols in our society sanctioned/paid for by the government. We can compromise. These dickheads don’t represent me. I’m not on their side.

I merely thought some of cylarz comments needed to be addressed.
- tim | 06/23/2011 @ 09:51
You get no argument from me at all what happens when the sentencing is appealed; I agree completely with that. That’s the point of the Supreme Court ruling in the first place – “we can’t all be headed in ninety different directions, so since this is all federal law being decided and applied, this is the way it goes…in our opinion.” Once decisions are appealed, they are decided in that hierarchy.

My hypothetical has to do with — the defendant is an idiot, or his lawyer is a bad one. A guilty plea is entered under a law that, in fact, has been deemed to be null and void. Is the judge then obliged, during this relatively instantaneous proceeding, to say “you can’t plead guilty to that, it’s been ruled unconstitutional”? I imagine he would take pains to do so, no judge likes to be overruled. But what if it’s an obscure, albeit Supreme Court level, ruling? Is there time to get to the part about constitutionality, have it properly researched by both sides, before the arraignment? I don’t know the answer to that. I’m presuming the defense attorney is taking point on that, and he’s dropping the ball because, for my hypothetical to work, he’s a lunkhead.

But I think my point stands. The judicial branch is all about should. It doesn’t have the final word on will be…not even with what goes on in its own purview (due to the imperfections that infest all bureaucracies)…and definitely not with building signs.

Regarding the Mojave cross, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. The Supreme Court actually went my way on this, 5-4, Kennedy writing for the majority. The lower courts were consistent in ruling the other way — that if your religion happens to be atheism, you enjoy a right other religions do not have, to cast your gaze in whatever direction you like without ever once seeing anything that unsettles your cosmic view. You seem to agree with us, that atheists in fact do not have that right…and the point I’m making is, if the religious symbolism is erected with a partial subsidy from a government, this cannot change the matter very much.

I think this issue of incorporation is a major mistake — the idea that the establishment clause is to be subjected to fourteenth-amendment incorporation, such that state and local governments are bound to be denominationally neutral just as the federal government is. The feds, I can see; and I think that’s your argument, small-tee, if we ever become 99% Mormon, it will still be wrong for the federal government to erect Mormon symbols. I agree with you on that, if that’s the point you’re making. But what about a Mormon county? Or a Catholic state? If Wyoming wakes up one morning and finds everyone living there is Catholic, can they put the Virgin Mary in the capitol building? This hypothetical, like my last, is a little bit “out there”; but if it does come to pass, I think the answer is yes. It seems to me the entire point of the First Amendment is that the local authorities, and the individuals, are to have rights that triumph over the authority of the fed.
- mkfreeberg | 06/23/2011 @ 10:13
“Sir, you REALLY don’t want to go down that road.”

In fact, you brought up the whole point. You went down that road. Twice now. I’d rather stick to what we do here in this country, our constitution. I merely used my examples to make a point that I could care less about what other countries do. You should feel the same way.

“America are the only ones who seem to have a problem with it. We frequently hold our country up as an example to the rest of the world, but quite simply, we’re the ones who are wrong this time around – wrong to make an issue out of this…or more precisely, wrong to allow atheist groups to use the court system or other laws to make an issue of it.”

But that’s exactly what makes our country great. Issues get to heard, debated, brought before our courts. What’s the alternative, less freedom? What about next time it’s something you care about – “Sorry, weren’t not going to allow that, it’s been settled, go home and shut up”. That’s not the America I know and love.

“The atheists do presume to tell me there’s no heaven and no hell…”

And you don’t have to listen to them. You guys presume to tell us that there is a heaven and hell, doesn’t affect me one bit. I know what I believe and don’t believe. Some people think and mouth off about a lot of BS, who cares. Some people eat their own poo. OK, not for me, don’t care.

“…those who choose such a life have no right to force those beliefs on me…”

Force??? How? By opposing a sign?

“…especially when such persons are in the minority…”

Equal protection under the law protects doesn’t discriminate between minority or majority. The 1st Amendment says nothing about minority.

“This nation is long overdue for a backlash against atheist-driven activism.”

Actually, cylarz, you may not understand this, but I actually agree with you, to a point.
You guys should meet this stuff head on, with a stronger more unified voice. It does, like this case, go way overboard. Same with the pledge of allegiance, school prayer, military priest not being able to say god, etc. You see, I’m not, and most atheist aren’t militant assholes, we understand and respect your beliefs. Don’t let these clowns, who represent a very small minority of atheist, cloud your picture of the rest of us.

“I can’ wait to see what happens when that activism collides head-on with the growing numbers of American Muslims – who are passionate about their faith, who are going to be a lot less cooperative about being silenced than Christians have been”

Again I don’t expect you to get this, but I’ve said for a long time, when that time comes, I’ll be in your church, singing your hymns, wearing a cross…I know what side I’ll take, I know what is the true religion of peace, the tolerant, the charitable.

But having said that, what would so wrong about atheist going at it with the muzzies? They could use some beat down.

And since you brought it up, who’s gonn’a stop that “Allah” street sign, you guys?

And BTW, if anyone is getting their feathers ruffled, I’d say it’s you.
- tim | 06/23/2011 @ 10:30
“You seem to agree with us, that atheists in fact do not have that right…and the point I’m making is, if the religious symbolism is erected with a partial subsidy from a government, this cannot change the matter very much.”

Yes we the have the right to look the other way, absolutely. But the point, which you addressed, is about the government using tax dollars, presumably some collected from atheists, to pay for an obvious religious street sign. If the SC rules differently, so be it, but like you said, opinions and mileage may vary.

But let’s flip it, would you be OK with a street sign that read…’There Is No God Rd.’, or ‘Religion is a Farce Ave’ or ‘Atheism Way’? Another words, your tax dollars paying to promote the “religion” (you words) of atheism? If the city, county, state you lived in was a majority of atheists?

As far as I know, as far as the state vs. fed debate, state laws can’t trump federal law. Just ask the busted medical marijuana growers and polygamists…

But I’m not a constitutional scholar like our president…
- tim | 06/23/2011 @ 11:02
But let’s flip it, would you be OK with a street sign that read…’There Is No God Rd.’, or ‘Religion is a Farce Ave’ or ‘Atheism Way’? Another words, your tax dollars paying to promote the “religion” (you words) of atheism? If the city, county, state you lived in was a majority of atheists?

Glad you asked. Yes, I’d be completely okay with it. I’d be fine with it even if it was only one atheist who somehow got his way, kind of as a “fuck you” to the hundred devoutly religious neighbors who shared “There Is No God Rd.” with him. I’d actually find it funny…of course, that’s just me. Now, if you have a hundred roads within a county called “There Is No God Rd.,” then I’m going to get seriously pissed off — but that’s because I won’t be able to figure out where I’m going. New York State, as you know, has a bunch of highways called “17” — my girlfriend and I still argue about that. It messed with our first date. And, of course, it’s all my fault…*sigh*.

On a more serious note, I think the whole “could be offensive” thing is messing with a basic building block of civilization. It CANNOT work that way — we cannot have road signs, public buildings, coining of money, school curricula brought to a screeching halt every time some jackass blows on a whistle and says “I’m offended.”
- mkfreeberg | 06/23/2011 @ 11:09
The thing is, the Federal Government didn’t fund that sign. And if it did, it shouldn’t have, not because it’s “religious” (it’s not), but because it’s a local street and the Federal government shouldn’t be involved in it whatsoever.

The first amendment was written in order to keep the Federal Government from establishing a State Religion, like the Church of England, where an unelected Church Official (The Archbishop of Canterbury) was a State position as well as a Church position. The 10th Amendment says that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. So if somebody wanted to establish a Mormon town and name all of their streets right out of the book of Mormon, that’d be cool by the Constitution.

The first amendment doesn’t say anything about religious expression in general other than to say that it is protected (in the free speech clause), it only says that “Congress Shall Pass No Law respecting an establishment of religion.”

The Hard Rock Cafe, one could say, is a drinking establishment. It is an establishment of drinking. Might also be an eating establishment. But it is an officially recognized organization (a company with a charter and a name that does specific things in their own way). Similarly, an “establisment” of religion would be a Church such as the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Episcopalian Church …. etc.

Everyone seemed to get this until about 1949.

In the beginning, some states even had state religions, believe it or not.

Thing is, the Founders never imagined anything other than Christian churches being “legitimate” as far as religion. Yes, a bit culture-centric. But seriously, are we really trying to suggest that any element of culture with religious references is illigitimate? They came from a place where some Christians persecuted other Christians because they had the power of the state behind them to enforce it. Since “Congress Shall Pass No Law”, there’d be no such law to enforce. But it doesn’t say “Cities shall name no street.” It’s flat-out ludicrous on its face.

So as far as “There Is No God Street”, if the City Council or elected county officials decided they wanted to name a street “There Is No God Street”, ok. Fine. Not going to be too many cities where the culture (and cities do have culture, and some of it can be religioius) and if some whacked out council did it and the people of the city didn’t like it the people would vote them out next time around and re-name the bloody street.

Like it or not, a nearly homogeneously Christian population with mostly Christian representation who never imagined the country would be anything other than that started this country — historically, it has Christian roots and most Americans continue to call themselves Christian. We are allowed to have a culture and we are allowed to have symbols and words and holidays that come out of that culture represented in our street names and park names and fountain names or whatever. It’s gonna show up in public. Deal with it. The founders also extended religious tolerance to non-Christians. That’s right. Religious tolerance brought to you by Christians. But tolerance does not mean accomodation.

You don’t see cries for taking down totem poles or yin-yans or statues of Hindu Gods. The Druids thought Oak trees sacred, but you don’t see people screaming about Oak street and until recently, ACORN was federally funded. We refer to the skies beyond our atmosphere as “The Heavens”. Nobody’s forcing you to pray to any God, much less in a particular way, or to keep you from praying to yours or clinging to your claims of non-existence of said being when they talk about “The Heavens”.

In short, get the hell off it. Wait. I said “Hell”. That’s a religious idea. OMG!!!!

And to top it all off, we have a nice illustration from xkcd.
- philmon | 06/23/2011 @ 15:03
I thought we all knew that the official Government religion was animism. If they catch you with too much cash they seize the money and find the money “guilty” in a court of law. Now if you can find cash to be guilty in the same manner that people with a sane conscience can be found guilty, then you simply have to be an animist. Has anyone ever considered that cash might be insane…perhaps have a shrink test it for sanity? Has anyone sued the Government for establishing a religion? No? Why not?
- indyjones | 06/23/2011 @ 16:00
philmon,

This is more of a question that me taking issue with your point, but couldn’t “nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution” (of the 10th) be interpreted as being in conflict with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” if one was agree that a street sign is indeed violating that?

(Was that too convoluted?)

And please don’t take this the wrong way, but if that’s the answer, the 10th, wouldn’t that be simple for the courts to use and make this all go away. And not saying you’re wrong , hell I thik it’s a great point, I’m just wondering your opinion on that.
- tim | 06/24/2011 @ 10:21
No, it wasn’t too convoluted, I get it. Guess the point here is that localities are supposedly free to have their own local cultures. And religion is a part of culture, even if it’s only an influence. Like many of the “Muslims” I know are really what I call “cultural Muslims”. They use a lot of the terms and symbols of the religion, but they rarely, if ever, go to a mosque. They’re “Muslim” like a lot of Americans and Europeans are “Christian”. Merry Christmas. Happy Easter. Happy (St.) Valentine’s Day. Happy St. Patrick’s Day. Happy Thanksgiving. Oh God! Oh Jesus! Heck, even “Geez” came from “Jesus” (as in, a way to “say” it without violating the “taking the Lord’s name in vain” rule). And Heck is a euphamim for Hell. And Golly for God.

I’m not offended by Hanukkah. I wouldn’t be offended by Amitabha Buddha Day. Or street. Look, here’s a condo for sale at 76C Wicca St. in Kewdale, WA. I’m pretty sure the ACLU and/or whoever it is suing over “Heaven” street or whatever aren’t beating down the door to get that changed. Nor are Christians. Towns, rivers, mountains, streets … named after American Indian religious terms. Devil’s Tower National Monument. Devil’s Den State Park. Devil’s Garden in Arches National Monument. Nobody’s offended. Stonehenge replicas and totem poles in public parks. A lot of Christians were outraged when the Taliban blew up those ancient Buddhist statues. Why? They recognize their cultural and historical significance. It’s absolutely insane in the modern world to try to forcefully sanitize religious influence from a culture. At least for the time being, they are not only intertwined, but long-infused. And from my experience with human nature, this is not likely to change.

All of this hubub isn’t really about people being offended. It is about using government as a stick to beat up on people that militant atheists don’t like — because of their religious beliefs. It’s the opposite of the protection the first amendment was intended to provide. It *is* using government to persecute people of certain religious beliefs. It’s worse than that, it’s cultural persecution on a grand scale.
- philmon | 06/24/2011 @ 13:06
Perhaps I should have offered as a disclaimer, before that attempt to get me riled up about “There Is No God Street” fell flat: I grew up in the Pacific NW.

Just look it up on a map. If I wanted to get offended about every little thing from a culture other than mine, how busy I’d be.

Samish. Sammamish. Skagit. Snohomish. Whatcom. Kennewick. Umatilla. Mukilteo. Sehone was an Indian chief; Seattle was another. Lummi. Nooksack. Sumas.

We just don’t have time to go cleansing culture out of things. It’s a waste of energy, and by its nature it relies more on hatred than anything we should permit. Yeah you have to think on it awhile to see it, but that doesn’t mean it gets a pass.
- mkfreeberg | 06/24/2011 @ 13:14
Actually, I really didn’t address tim’s question very well, if at all, now that I look at it. But it’s pretty simple, so here goes.

This is more of a question that me taking issue with your point, but couldn’t “nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution” (of the 10th) be interpreted as being in conflict with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” if one was agree that a street sign is indeed violating that?

Considering that “Congress”, in the context of The Constitution means the Federal Congress and not the States’ Congress’, it gets a little convoluted buying the premise. Congress passed no law to name the street. What law would be broken if the city were to rename the street? None. So, what law passed by Congress named that street? The Constitution gave Congress no authority to name the street, and Congress indeed didn’t name the street by law or any other method, and therefore the 10th Amendment stands out there just pretty much not caring except to say “hey, states, y’all’re on yer own here. Go for it.”

Congress, as I said, had no hand even in making the street outside of getting State and Local governments hooked on Federal money for their streets and highways so that the Federal Government could regulate them — which is a BIG problem we need to correct in the first place.

I think it’s a big stretch to say that if Congress allocated money for street signs and some street maintenance in New York and that the People of New York through their elected officials decided to name a street “Seven in Heaven Way” that that meant that Congress passed a law that had anything to do with “respecting” an “establishment” of religion. One can drive or walk down “Seven in Heaven” way without worshipping or acknowledging nor making any religious observation whatsoever any more than driving to Devi’ls Tower means I’m worshipping Satan. One can even flip off the street sign or fart in its general direction and the law will not lay a finger on you. That is the meaning of and the purpose of that bit of the Constitution. Nothing more.
- philmon | 06/24/2011 @ 14:29
Consider this. A good definition of a Liberal as any is someone who can rationalize anything to mean anything he wants it to mean, regardless of what the author intended. Get two or three generations down the “this could be interpreted to mean” logic chain and you are in a fantasy world.
- philmon | 06/24/2011 @ 14:33

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

New York Atheists Angry About SignWednesday, June 22nd, 2011

New York Atheists Angry About Sign
Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011