Atheist's New Target - Remove the Gideon Bible! (evolution, miracle, Scientology)

[bUU]

Originally Posted by Vizio

You do realize that there is no law that states that the state can't distribute Bibles or allow someone to do so, right?

There is no law that states that the state can distribute Bibles.

You seem to be unaware about how government works. Governments can only do things that they are chartered to do. A school administrator cannot open up a sandwich shop in the music classroom.

What I find amusing is how the people who try to use the "there is no law against states distribution Bibles" nonsense are often the very same people who argue that there is no law saying that the government can collect income tax - changing their argument to the contradictory argument depending on whether they want government to do something or not want government to do it.

So in order for the government to do something they have to establish a law, and government cannot establish a law that supports one religion and not all others.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by bUU

There is no law that states that the state can distribute Bibles.

You seem to be unaware about how government works. Governments can only do things that they are chartered to do. A school administrator cannot open up a sandwich shop in the music classroom.

What I find amusing is how the people who try to use the "there is no law against states distribution Bibles" nonsense are often the very same people who argue that there is no law saying that the government can collect income tax - changing their argument to the contradictory argument depending on whether they want government to do something or not want government to do it.

The decision to let the Gideons was made by the person or persons in charge. They are in that position to do just that -- make decisions regarding what to do and not to do on a daily basis. Allowing the Gideons or disallowing them would be one of those things. Kind of like the lunch lady in the cafeteria serving Salisbury steak on Wednesdays.....there might not be a "charter" telling her to do it, but she does have the freedom to make a decision regarding the job.

So in order for the government to do something they have to establish a law, and government cannot establish a law that supports one religion and not all others.

I don't know who told you that, but there is nothing that restricts a state from establishing a law that supports one religion or another. Even if there were, allowing Bibles to be passed out is not an example of such an action. Many religions use the Bible.

[DewDropInn]

Originally Posted by bUU

You seem to be unaware about how government works.

The vast majority of far-right fundamentalists have little idea how government in the U.S. works. I think it's willful ignorance. Which is the worst type of ignorance. They have no desire to educate themselves....in fact they seem quite content exposing that ignorance. As is illustrated ad nauseam on CD.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by Vizio

They are in that position to do just that

Incorrect. A government employee does not have the power to authorize support for one religion and not all others. You're simply wrong.

Originally Posted by Vizio

Kind of like the lunch lady in the cafeteria serving Salisbury steak on Wednesdays.

Wrong. You can be sure the school board authorized the operation of the cafeteria. You can be sure that if the school board authorized support for one religion and not all others that it is violation.

Even though you don't like it.

Originally Posted by Vizio

I don't know who told you that, but there is nothing that restricts a state from establishing a law that supports one religion or another.

Yes there is. You simply refused to acknowledge the truth.

Originally Posted by Vizio

Even if there were, allowing Bibles to be passed out is not an example of such an action.

Covering you butt in case you're wrong with the next rationalization you would put forward to excuse the offensive Dominionist actions you would see excused?

Originally Posted by DewDropInn

The vast majority of far-right fundamentalists have little idea how government in the U.S. works.

I doubt that. I think it more likely that they just pretend to be ignorant.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

This extremist attempt to involve the establishment clause about establishing a religion has got to stop. It is beyond absurd! A place of lodging is a place of lodging and has NOTHING to do with establishing laws or religions.

Case law has established precedent that government-owned, that is, taxpayer-funded entities such as a hotel run by a state university, can NOT appear to be pushing any one single religion. It's not about "establishing" a religion. The law specifically states that "establishing" a religion also includes supporting or promoting a religion, as well. This means that the Establishment Clause is correct in this instance given that the hotel IS a state-run business.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The single-minded prejudice against religion perpetuates these preposterous and egregiously iignorant campaigns to make any institution that receives government funds "The State." The only STATE we need to worry about with regard to establishing a religion is the one that legislates and regulates, NOT every institution that receives state funding!!

Uh ... no. If we atheists adopted that definition of "state," then we would have prayer back in our schools inside of a month. Teaching creationism in science class would follow close behind. In fact, religion would have an open door to do pretty much whatever the hell it wanted to do -- like it did during the Reagan administration and the rise of Falwell's "Moral Majority." The 80's was one of the worst decades of the 20th Century when it comes to freedom, and that occurred because atheists were asleep at the wheel.

Today's religious leaders, the pushy ones, aren't interested in following the law or the Constitution. They're only interested in ensuring that conservative, fundamentalist, and evangelical religion is the dominant paradigm by which society derives its morality. This is why several GOP presidential candidates have said, "The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being" and why Trump had to so obviously lie and state that his favorite book was the Bible.

They don't really respect the right for we atheists to even exist and claim that there is no such thing as protection "from" religion. That way, they can claim they are free to make non-believers and non-Christians dance to their religious tune.

Therefore, atheists, secularists, and even liberal Christians have to be constantly on guard against pushy religion ... and some feel that going on the offensive is the best course.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

We are in COMPLETE agreement on this issue, Vizio. The campaign to pretend that ANY institution that exists on government funding is "the Government" and subject to the establishment clause is beyond preposterous!! It doesn't even rise to the level of sophomoric thinking (at a High school level)!! These ignorant campaigners need to grow up and get a life!! I couldn't agree more with Katz's assessment.

Okay then ... if a state-funded university hotel doesn't count, how about the university itself? How about our public schools, then? Where does THAT stop? Atheists already have limitations built into the legal system -- even if we wanted to, we can't force a private citizen or privately owned company to do much of anything. The Constitution doesn't apply. What rules do the religious have to play by? Where is there line in the sand that they cannot cross?

Because the religious already have a stranglehold on the military. They already have a stranglehold on our political machine. Why not just hand them our schools, too? That way science teachers can invite William Lane Craig to be a guest speaker rather than someone like Michio Kaku or Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

Now, I'm not saying that making an issue about Bibles in hotel rooms is a very important victory -- just like, to Christians, it shouldn't be a very important loss. I've said before on this forum that both sides are going to win some and lose some. The difference is that, when the Christians lose, they immediately go on a war footing. Everything is about large scale persecution, candidates start claiming Christianity will soon be criminalized, and the next thing we atheists realize is that a host of televangelists are demonizing and stereotyping atheists on major media channels like Fox trying to instill fear and hatred against us.

When atheists lose, we just kinda shrug and move on to the next battle.

Which should tell you who is the most rational of the two groups.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The Constitution restricts government POWER to enact and enforce a religion, period.

Wrong. The government in all of its forms, from the federal down to the local -- and anything funded by the government -- is subject to the Establishment Clause. Like I said earlier, the Establishment Clause also isn't just about the government establishing a state religion (which is how the fundamentalists like to define it). In addition to being prohibited from establishing a state religion, they are not allowed to support or promote religion, either. In other words, if the government seems to be advertising religion, they are in violation of the Constitution. Therefore, a government-funded hotel giving access only to Bibles IS a violation. Whether calling the hotel to book for having Bibles is a productive battle to fight or not, well, that depends on the person, I suppose.

But you know as well as I do that if the fundamentalists don't like something, they'll chuck the Constitution right into the fire. Moreover, they'll play cutesy little semantic games in an effort to do an end run around the Establishment Clause -- which is precisely how those 30+ states managed to get away with banning gay marriage.

Hotel Bibles is not an issue I would take to war, but at the same time, cases like these DO send a message to religious leaders which tells them that, no, just because it's religion doesn't mean you're allowed to ignore the law -- no matter how small the infraction.

Believe you me, they didn't waste ANY time trying to get Planned Parenthood defunded by releasing a doctored-up video and using emotionally charged and hyperbolized phrases such as "baby parts" in order to get what they wanted. And defunding planned parenthood would have FAR more drastic consequences than the lack of Bibles in a university hotel (regardless of what Jeff and Eusie might claim about people killing themselves because a Bible wasn't available.)

It should be noted that atheists managing to get rid of Bibles from a university hotel is nothing when compared with things like denying gays the right to marry or removing access to Planned Parenthood for millions of poor mothers (remember that only a tiny percentage of their services involves abortion).

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

These out-of-control PC anti-religionists have to be reigned in using common sense.

Mystic .... c'mon. You've read enough of my posts, even agreed with enough of my posts, to know that what you just said is utterly ridiculous. Never mind the fact that it's "reined" in rather than "reigned" in (hehe), you can't go charging hellbent for leather every time atheists and secularists score a victory, especially one so small.

The message that sends is that atheists and secularists have to be "reigned in" almost from the moment they begin pursuing a battle ... because religion is allowed to commit any number of small little breaches of the law and we don't have the right to call them to the carpet for doing so. For an atheist, that simply means succumbing to a "death by a thousand stings" as the saying goes.

And yet, even though we atheists and secularists are the ones defending the law, somehow WE are the ones who need "reined in" so that religion can continue violating the law.

As I said, this Bible issue is insignificant and shouldn't be evoking the kind of anger you or any of the other fundamentalists are displaying in this thread. Especially someone like you whom I know is a reasonable, level-headed guy.

To throw fits over something so trivial is once again making the playing field VERY uneven for the atheists. Even the slightest, most insignificant victory for us seems to be grounds for a massive outpouring of rage for the Christians -- but if the Christians win a victory (as they did regarding the issue of contraception on insurance plans) we're just supposed to eat the bullet. And, in fact, much of the time, we DO. Once the decision has been reached and finalized, that's it.

Not with these Christians, though, because everything is seen through the lens of persecution, oppression, tyranny, and the certainty that, some day in some unknown future, Christianity will be criminalized. I wouldn't be surprised if this issue doesn't find its way into the rhetoric of the GOP candidates, using it as PROOF that we atheists are out to dismantle the entire institution of religion everywhere and under all conditions.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I have no respect for extremists of ANY stripe.

They're not extremists. Just ... misguided. Now, if they burned the hotel down because there were Bibles inside, then yeah, they'd be extremists. They didn't kill anyone, take hostages, vandalize property, make threats, grandstand for the media, or fight a battle which could affect the lives of millions of people.

They complained about the Bibles and the Bibles were removed. It's hard to label someone an "extremist" when the Constitution agrees with their position. Ya know?

Like I said, I think bothering with such a banal and useless "attack" on religion was taking things a little too far. But only a little. After all, it WAS a violation of the Constitution as the courts interpreted it.

Plus, I don't know if you read my post regarding my explanation of WHY this is happening since it is quite buried now, so if you haven't I'll briefly reiterate:

The reason why even small violations are being sought out and remedied is because of a secularist fightback regarding the gay marriage issue. In other words, the secular world (among other folks) were so outraged over the entire "gay rights" battle that went on for 10 years that some of them are out for blood. They will seek out any and all violations of religion and do their utmost to correct the situation. Agree with them or not, it's not a coincidence that these kinds of cases have been cropping up since the advent of a vocal gay rights campaign -- and the nasty, even flagrantly hostile response by Christians.

All of this will die down eventually, but if Christians fight for every last Bible and then vilify atheists as a whole for every trivial little victory, it won't die down. It'll get worse.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Those institutions that provide service or products in the marketplace will be subject to success or failure based on the free choice of its customers, REGARDLESS WHO owns it. There is no government coercion involved and no Constitutional issue.

Well, like I said, it actually is a Constitutional issue. The problem is that your definitions are too narrow; case law and precedent has a much wider take on the separation of church and state.

[DewDropInn]

Originally Posted by bUU

I doubt that. I think it more likely that they just pretend to be ignorant.

Think so?

Which means they don't mind making fools of themselves.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by bUU

Incorrect. A government employee does not have the power to authorize support for one religion and not all others. You're simply wrong.

Of course they do. There is nothing restricting it.

Wrong. You can be sure the school board authorized the operation of the cafeteria. You can be sure that if the school board authorized support for one religion and not all others that it is violation.
Even though you don't like it.

Of course they authorized it. But they don't authorize every single minute detail that happens in that cafeteria. They hire someone to make those decisions.

Yes there is. You simply refused to acknowledge the truth.

No. There isn't. I know you guys love to chirp about this supposed "separation of church and state" but it doesn't exist. The Constitution doesn't mention it.

Covering you butt in case you're wrong with the next rationalization you would put forward to excuse the offensive Dominionist actions you would see excused?

Dominionist?

I'm sorry dude. I don't know who peed in your wheaties this morning, but I have no "Dominionist" dreams. I realize God didn't command us to take control fo the government. I recognize that we don't have a right to tell government what to do. But on the other hand, many of our founding fathers were religious, and they certainly never intended for the local government to be religion-free if they didn't want it.

[Freak80]

Originally Posted by Vizio

I don't know who told you that, but there is nothing that restricts a state from establishing a law that supports one religion or another.

States are not exempt from the US constitution. A state can't pass laws which favor Christian citizens over Muslim citizens, or vice-versa.

[somebodynew]

So I object to this activity as well. There were times when I arrived at a hotel without hope of being able to elevate my baby's head during a head cold. Without the bible, I would have been lost.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by bryan85

I don't believe in debating my Faith with non believers- I can count on one hand in my entire lifetime when people have actually admitted they were wrong over something important.

Wonder when you are going to start admitting that you too have been in error... many times.