Of course atheists should be considered citizens. I am a little shocked that a modern sitting vice-president would say anything so outrageous and utterly inconsistent with America's long history of freedom of religion. "Patriots" is a more subjective term but still it's very unsettling in this context. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Athiests have no sense of humor.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
This news is 16 years old.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I really don't think a presidential candidate would go out of his way to unnecessarily alienate voters like that.
Of course, if you can provide additional links from less biased sources, I do think this is important news worthy of discussion, regardless of how old it is.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
I think that in order to gain CITIZEN status, one should be required to serve in the military, like in that flashy movie STARSHIP TROOPERS. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
But if that happens, then we might be stuck with Doogie Howser as the leader of our military. Nobody wants that. Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
You mean that very interesting and highly political Heinlein novel Starship Troopers, right? Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
Which bears little resemblace to the movie that shared it's title.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Should've been called Starship Troopers 90210.
quote: But if that happens, then we might be stuck with Doogie Howser as the leader of our military. Nobody wants that.
Actually, I saw a lot of the same things in the movie that I loved in th book...it's just that many people didn't get the obvious (to me, anyway) sarcasm and hipocracy.
For an action flick, I thought it was fairly well done, even if a lot of people only saw the action parts of it.
Kwea
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Actually the issue of military service is central to the quote at hand. "There are no atheists in foxholes" is a phrase many miltary atheists have to contend with throughout their service. If atheists aren't acknowledged in the military, then it's pretty difficult to be considered patriots.
Atheists get dogtags stamped "NP"(no preference) for religion, rather than "atheist," or even "none." The military does a better job of recognizing Satanists and Wiccans than it does recognizing atheists.
[url= http://encarta.msn.com/related_761571000_12.16/United_States_I_don%27t_know_that_atheists.html]MSN reference to quote[/url]
one of the things I found most scary was that it was not jsut Bush sr. that said that, but his entire administration backed him up. I have a lot of respect for the older Bush, even if I dont like his politics. So, this quote is makeing me rethink that... It is really quite insulting quote that goes agenst a lot of the things that the USA is suposed to suport.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
ARRGH!
Why can't I get that URL to work?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
OK.
Athiests have it tough from the mean "Convert of suffer crowd".
OK.
But is there any proof other than this one web-site, that there A) President Bush Sr. actually said Athiests aren't citizens, and B)There are programs that exclude military atheists?
This is a WEB-SITE people.
Give me more proof than one web-ranters word on teh subject.
This has the smell of Fear Mongering from the left.
Posted by kyrie (Member # 6415) on :
another reference to the quote:
"Chris from Maryland: "I know people who are forced to participate in prayer at work just to keep their jobs. I'm often reminded of a comment made by Bush Sr. during his run for the presidency when a reporter from the American Atheist news journal asked him if he recognized the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists. Bush responded, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.' Imagine if he had made that comment about blacks or any other minority.""
Thanks Glenn Arnold (there is more in his link)
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
(Glen, I ran it through www.tinyurl.com which corrected for the underscores. I think that was the problem.)
Posted by kyrie (Member # 6415) on :
Dan_raven, just because we are conserend that Bush Sr. said this, and yes there are other sorces that back it up, dosen not mean that 1) we are from "the left" 2) or for that matter an athiest.
Make an attemt to back up from the isue a bit and see it from another angle. It might do you some good.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
"There are no athiests in fox holes" is more of a cynical bit of humor - because imminent death is one helluva way to test your belief in the lack of a Creator and/or Afterlife.
As for Starship Troopers, I actually liked that movie. I have no idea why considering how often I laughed at "90210 meets The Big Red One."
But taking it as a movie interpretation of a comic book, I was willing to accept Rico's hair gel was the same stuff used to armor tanks.
And Dougie wasn't the head of the military - just the head of R&D.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Mr. Head's point is well made - this is old news and permit me to point out this is hardly the most shocking thing any political figure has ever said.
-Trevor
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
psst...Trevor...MSN. Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Sheesh Kyrie, ease up a bit.
Dan just asked if there were any other sources for this, particularly something more recent.
That's pretty standard around here, to ask for info to back up a claim before everyone goes off half-cocked about a subject.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Sorry Megan - I'm at work and the one thing they don't allow, well, besides porn, is instant messaging.
You can, however, send me an email at my new official email address.
Which I can only check while I'm at work, but oh well...
-Trevor
Edit: for silly typo
[ October 11, 2004, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
oh, sorry! Thought you were home or something.
Work safely!
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Actually, my shift ended 2 minutes ago, but I have the entire office to myself and a chance to putz on paperwork since the last idiot gutted the operations system.
And I get to avoid rush hour traffic by waiting, so it's a win-win for me.
-Trevor
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
continuing the derailing...
Hooray for missing traffic!
Well, you won't be seeing me online in the evenings for a while...Jim's got a new game, and the computer is officially no longer mine once he gets home.
[/off topic]
[ October 11, 2004, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Megan ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Heh, sorry. Which one is it?
I gather he's done with Fable.
-Trevor
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
It's called Wizardry 8. I have no idea what the deal is with it, since I'm trying very, very hard to ignore it. Especially since it's taking our ONE working computer away from me in the evening.
Topic? Starship Troopers was a goofy movie, and you know it, Trevor.
Wait, what's that you say? We were talking about atheism? ...oh. Well, never mind, then.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I can appreciate the humor in "no atheists in foxholes" if it were were merely a comment off the cuff, but it is used to demean atheists who have served or are serving in the military.
One of the more powerful moments of the "Godless Americans March on Washington" (November 2002) was when atheist veterans were called to come on stage, and they didn't have enough room on the stage to hold them. There were several hundred. One of those onstage had his "atheist" dogtags, which had been made privately, because the military refused to make them.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
kyrie, Dan's one of the most liberal hatrackers around here. The first thing I thought when I read the quote was, "I bet it's not true."
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
The first time I ever came across that quotation was in an Associated Press article two years ago. The article was about the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision declaring the "under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. The quotation was not in response to the decision; it was quoted for reference. As far as I have been able to determine, Bush did indeed say that. I have no idea in what context he said it, although I have a hard time coming up with any context that makes it better.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Mr. Head's point is well made - this is old news and permit me to point out this is hardly the most shocking thing any political figure has ever said.
So is Bush and Kerry's service record. And does it have to be THE most shocking, or just shocking enough?
I agree that if a sitting vice president can get away with saying this, and it doesn't get any media attention, there is something very frightening about that. Would you like your citizenship revoked?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
As much as I hate to give Rush Limbaugh credit for anything, he made a good point the other day:
He was commenting on scare tactics used by...I think it was MTV in an effort to get young people to vote. The ad suggested the draft could be re-instated in two days and wouldn't you like to vote?
In between swallows of oxycontin, Rush pointed out that this is the Federal Government - they can't do anything in two days.
The notion an elected official has strong opinions is nothing new - and he knows to sit on them if he wants to get re-elected. The Bush in question made the mistake of saying the wrong thing in front of witnesses as to his personal opinion. That's a long, long way from managing to revoke citizenship for people who don't profess to follow a God (or The God, depending on your point of view).
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
This was at a supposedly public press conference. So far, I can't find a single source that doesn't originate with Robert I. Sherman's report in the American Atheist news journal.
The fact that it's been picked up and quoted across the web, and eventually in an article, doesn't add any credibility.
A single contemporaneous, published report based on firsthand observation would do wonders for this story. Absent that, we have the word of a single person who writes for an issue journal.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Give Dag credit for pointing out the detail we've all overlooked.
How do we know Bush was actually stupid enough to say this at a press conference without an unbiased, third party reporting the information?
I wouldn't doubt he believes it in some dark corner of his soul, but there isn't any verification one way or the other that can be reliably described as "impartial."
-Trevor
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
No, we also have the American Atheists letter writing campaign to get him to retract the statement. The Bush Administration didn't refute the allegation, only said the president was entitled to his religious opinion.
But given the current attempts to prevent the SC from ruling on the pledge, and GWB's "faith based initiatives," this is just one in a long line of discrimination against the atheist community, and church state separation in general.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
The millions of letters to the North Pole each year doesn't make Santa Claus real.
As to the White House response, if that can be verified, I would be willing to consider that proof he voiced sentiments along those lines, but a transcript would be nice.
As to discrimination against atheists...well...yeah.
My Goddess, America is still trying to figure out how not to discriminate against non-Caucasian males. The religious tolerance being extended to not having any religion at all is still a little radical to reach the mainstream quite yet.
-Trevor
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote:Make an attemt to back up from the isue a bit and see it from another angle. It might do you some good.
Because clearly it was Dan_raven who was speaking from emotionalism and ignoring perspective.
Shame on you, Dan. Posted by kyrie (Member # 6415) on :
Well, sense the question was asked by American Athiest News Journal, they are the ones that were most conserened with the awnser. Other sorces: "The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary: look about 3/4s the way down the page... http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/aa011.htm http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/20638.html
This even was also reported by the secular humanist magazine "Free Inquiry" Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.
hehe, enought fun for me, now for my Soc. paper!
[ October 11, 2004, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: kyrie ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
That doesn't really address Dag's point, kyrie. All of your examples seem to come from the same root source: Sherman and the Atheist American News.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But given the current attempts to prevent the SC from ruling on the pledge, and GWB's "faith based initiatives," this is just one in a long line of discrimination against the atheist community, and church state separation in general.
Funny, I had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to keep from being discriminated against based on the Christian content of my speech. And that was against Virginia, home of Falwell and Robertson.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Man, I feel like I had this conversation over 15 years ago.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
If I'm not a citizen, do I still have to pay taxes? Are my kids automatically citizens, though, if they're born in this country? Or do they have to be Christians?
Can Jews be citizens (we all know that the Lord doesn't listen to the prayers of Jews)?
If my kids aren't citizens, can they avoid the draft?
Or should we all just get out?
Well, at least we know that Moslems aren't citizens; thank God for that!
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Dagonee:
You brought a case to the supreme court? Where can I find a reference for that?
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
ok, back to the "There are no atheists in foxholes" quote. I don't know about you, but I don't think I would be against a prayer or two in a foxhole if there was a slim to none chance of getting out alive.
On another note. My Grandmother's brother served in world war 2 as an aviation mechanic. There were a few jews onboard. He had per chance overheard a few hail mary's in the wee hours of battle.
Goes to show that a people no matter what will pray for help/redemption whatever it may, no matter religious preference.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I suspect it'll be part of the court record, but I'm sure Dag can provide you the official location of the reference.
-Trevor
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:That doesn't really address Dag's point, kyrie. All of your examples seem to come from the same root source: Sherman and the Atheist American News.
Ditto. I looked through ten pages of google search results and found no credible news sources reporting this alleged quote attributed to Bush Sr.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If you had lexis access you could look up the District court decision, which includes my name in the title.
My name is only in there once (Prince). Here's a hint: If you're participating in a potentially landmark case, get your name in first or you'll be forever remembered as "et al."
I was on the cover of USA Today on the steps of the Supreme Court the day after the decision came down, but that's not available online.
Dagonee
[ October 11, 2004, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I'm curious, when you went to the university for funding, did you get (I realize this is a subjective question) the impression that the school didn't want to give you funding, or that they were afraid that they would be violating a law?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The student council committee was probably slightly in favor of funding us, but they were told by the general counsel they would likely be sued. Within Student Council as a whole, there was a significant but small faction that hated the idea of us getting money at all, specifically because we were Christian, and not for separation concerns. There was a larger block of students opposed on separation concerns; some of those opinions were informed, and some of them were no more sophisticated than, "They talk about God, and this is a public University."
Within the administration, there were three major factions opposing us: Those afraid of being sued, those who genuinely thought it was a violation of the First Amendment to fund us, and those who were downright hostile to the message. From what I could see, they were about evenly split.
I'm glad we were denied, because we got to control the legal proceedings as plaintiffs rather than as amicus.
Dagonee
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Well, first, I just wrote an email to the Bush Library, asking for a verification or repudiation of the quote. Who knows if or when they'll answer, but I figured I'd go straight to the source.
As for your case, it's the people who are "afraid they'll be sued" that bother me. One of my pet peeves is that the cases that have won in court were not situations where a religious student (or school official) wanted to express their personal religious views, but rather, cases where the school was creating a situation where students felt they were expected to pray. The point being that when someone says "prayer isn't allowed in schools," they are misunderstanding the intent of the ruling, and the Supreme Court has been careful to draw that distinction.
What I find, however, is that a lot of this fear is intentionally created by religious fundamentalists, who create stories about people who have been told they aren't allowed to pray, etc. and accuse atheists of "kicking God out of our schools."
Your case is a little less cut and dried, I think. I would support you, but I know a lot of atheists who wouldn't, since you were asking for school (public) funds with which to publish your paper. It seems to me that this is an issue of equal funding for student organizations, not school support of religion. (I am assuming that the school has an existing policy of funding student run papers)
Posted by kyrie (Member # 6415) on :
quote: This even was also reported by the secular humanist magazine "Free Inquiry" Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.
I would have provided a link the first time, but their online publications dont go back that far...
Posted by kyrie (Member # 6415) on :
yeah after all freedom has to go both ways. (agree about the impact of religoius fundimentalist). School clubs are a great way for religous groups to create a presence on campass, and they leave the choice of joining and participatin up to the individual.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Your case is a little less cut and dried, I think. I would support you, but I know a lot of atheists who wouldn't, since you were asking for school (public) funds with which to publish your paper. It seems to me that this is an issue of equal funding for student organizations, not school support of religion. (I am assuming that the school has an existing policy of funding student run papers)
This is how I viewed the case. The school funded 15 publications, including political journals/tabloids, newspapers, arts magazines, and general interest magazines. The only case where the content of the paper was examined to determine if it was fundable was mine.
My take on the subject is that if government is funding or subsidizing speech in which the content is provided by private groups, it cannot examine the content of the speech in deciding what is eligible for funding.
In other words, it was a free speech, not free exercise of religion, case.
You're also right that some fundamentalists ratchet up the fear of the decisions. BUT, I know for a fact there are many, many bureaucrats who do not appreciate the difference between equal access and establishment.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dag, do you think that the funds go directly to a third party publisher (instead of to the religious student group, which spends them as desired) makes a difference (well, or that it would make a difference to the SC)?
I'm a member of my the primary student group funding board at my U, so this isn't a purely academic question, though it hasn't come up yet.
Also, I'm not up on the exact nature of your content. Can funds obtained be used to advocate Christianity, or just positions informed by Christianity?
[ October 12, 2004, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I just have to say that atheist activism troubles me, how they have taken over the Freemasons and Alcoholics Anonymous. Not that I think it would have been right for any elected official to question their fitness to be citizens. Since I believe in a God that judges one's whole life and not just the title one embraces.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:I just have to say that atheist activism troubles me, how they have taken over the Freemasons and Alcoholics Anonymous.
What are you talking about, pooka? I know a bunch of people who are either currently in or were formerly in AA, and the last I heard the 12 steps still involve accepting God.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, do you think that the funds go directly to a third party publisher (instead of to the religious student group, which spends them as desired) makes a difference (well, or that it would make a difference to the SC)?
I'm a member of my the primary student group funding board at my U, so this isn't a purely academic question, though it hasn't come up yet.
In our case, that was cited as a reason, but it was not definitive. I believe subsequent cases have said that this is a good indicator that the funds are being used for a secular purpose, but that it is not necessary. I'd have to do more research to confirm, though.
quote:Also, I'm not up on the exact nature of your content. Can funds obtained be used to advocate Christianity, or just positions informed by Christianity?
There was both advocacy and reporting of positions informed by Christianity. The key finding was that as long as the funds go for an educational activity (putting together a magazine and publishing it), the religious nature of the content cannot be used to deny funding to the organization.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*nods*
Would such reasoning likely apply similarly for political speech? That is, so long as the "activity being funded" wasn't the advocacy, in a reasonable way of thinking (that is, they weren't just printing up flyers created by some partisan off-campus group), but was instead "creating a newspaper" or "creating a magazine" or "running a radio show" or somesuch, but the advocacy was merely the content of the activity being funded, it would likely be allowable? (heck, not just allowable, but required)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Our case was preceded by Student Council's attempt to defund a conservative political magazine 2 years earlier. That one never got to Court, because the WSJ and other newspapers took up the cause and the University backed down. The lawyers around at the time said they would almost definitely win, because they had all the strength of the free speech argument and none of the baggage of the establishment clause.
The irony was that the magazine was mostly about activities of groups that received funding. So a NOW rally to require the release of names of accused rapists by the otherwise confidential University Judiciary Committee wasn't political, but an editorial complaining about the rally was.
Dagonee Edit: Oh, and it's only required to be funded if the University generally funds expressive activities, and the university is a public institution.
[ October 12, 2004, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Both those are true in this case. *sigh* time to get in a ruckus with the Dean of Students office, because they're currently telling people nearly the opposite.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Just remember that the original political magazine case never went to court, and I'm relying on newspaper accounts of lawyers' reasoning behind the decision - always risky with legal issues.
Dagonee
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Well, the Bush library's server rejected my email, I got a message saying my server will continue to try to deliver it for 5 days.
I wonder if I need some special access. I thought the presidential libraries were supposed to be open to everyone.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, they've been saying similarly with religious things as well, that's definitely going to be nipped in the bud (particularly as our rules amount to third party payer setups -- the monies are kept in accounts we control, and we approve by line item, so money for printing goes to printing, et cetera).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Please keep trying, Glenn. If they confirm he said that I'll roundly condemn him, right here on this board.
Fugu, if you get someone to Shepardize the Wide Awake decision for you you'll likely find most of the current caselaw on the subject.
Be prepared for it to take a long time. Find someone with Lexis access to do it for you.
I would, but it's uncomfortably close to giving legal advice on an actual situation for me.
Dagonee
[ October 12, 2004, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, I'll just pester the administration until they get someone to do it .
Though I'm almost tempted to form a political group of such a sort, apply for funding, have it rejected, then sue. Almost (actually, not even that, but its amusing to think about).
I think I can get the policy changed just by having them read the decision in your case.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Cool. Good luck with that.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
P.S. Shepardize?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oops, sorry. Rivka's post is right on. It used to be very tedious, and was basically done to make sure you weren't citing an overruled case.
Now, with electronic databases, it's a little less tedious, and an amazingly quick way to grab a set of related cases simply by knowing one seminal case.
Dagonee
Posted by Stark (Member # 6831) on :
quote:Funny, I had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to keep from being discriminated against based on the Christian content of my speech. And that was against Virginia, home of Falwell and Robertson.
Dagonee
"I'm a bigger victim than you" isn't a viable argument in this situation. Neither of you should have to deal with discrimination. It's as simple as that.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Wait. "Shepardize" isn't about to enter mainstream vocabulary, is it? That was one of our best codewords. Drat, now we're going to have to find a whole new set of terms to separate ourselves from the rabble.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Don't worry, we still have our useless latin phrases, disingenuous double talk, and indecipherable legalease to fall back on.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"I'm a bigger victim than you" isn't a viable argument in this situation.
And since that's clearly not what I meant, I'm not sure why you put it this way. Overzealous enforcement of church-state separation is at least anecdotal evidence that we're not about to be overwhelmed in a wave of state-sponsored televangelists.
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Pooka:
quote: I just have to say that atheist activism troubles me, how they have taken over the Freemasons and Alcoholics Anonymous
BTW..does anyone actually know what the Masons believe?
I am a Mason, and I will answer what I can...the only things I can't discuss are the forms and rituals....but I can discuss the background those rituals are based on.
And the only thing I am aware of that would stop a person from being a candidate for Freemasonry is atheism. You have to believe in a higher power, although not a specific God.
There are some chapters arranged around the Bible, for Christians....some around that Torah, for Jewish people......you get the picture.
But if you don't believe in God, in some form or faith, then you are not eligible.
So how have Atheists taken over Freemasonry again?
Kwea
[ October 13, 2004, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Yeah, same goes for alcoholics anonymous. When it comes up on alt.atheism, after a little diatribe about how much prostyletizing goes on in Alcoholics Anonymous, someone usually points to Rational Recovery as a secular alternative.
[ October 13, 2004, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
This article sums up my experience, that everytime I hear someone argue that religion has no place in school, they are reacting to the law as depicted by the religious right, rather than actual legal finding.
I actually had to argue with my college proffesors that I could ask my students the question: "The author asks the question, whom did God punish? Whom do you think God punished?" (as a writing prompt for the book "Holes") because they were convinced that the question violated separation of church and state. They said it would upset atheists. I told them I'm an atheist, and that the question was central to the book, so either the book should be banned, or we'd better be prepared to deal with the question.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I was glad to hear both candidates mention the right not to worship at the debate tonight. In some ways, at least, this nation has come a long way since the '80s.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Glenn, I don't have time to provide a comprehensive list, but there are many court cases on the subject of unconstitutional exclusion of religious activity from public schools and other public areas.
Some quickies (with no links unfortunately):
Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98:
quote:Respondent school opened its facilities to activities that served a variety of purposes, including discussions of subjects such as child rearing and of the development of character and morals. However, the community use policy prohibited use by any individual or organization for religious purposes. Petitioner club applied to use the facilities for after school meetings, but respondent denied the request, finding that the proposed use was the equivalent of religious worship. Petitioners sued respondent, alleging free speech violations. The parties agreed that respondent created a limited public forum. On certiorari review, the Court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent. The Court determined that respondent engaged in impermissible viewpoint discrimination when it excluded petitioner club from the after school forum. Such violation was not justified by respondent's concern that permitting petitioner club's activities would violate the Establishment Clause; the meetings were held after school hours, not sponsored by respondent, and open to any student who obtained parental consent.
Bronx Household of Faith v. Bd. of Educ., 331 F.3d 342:
quote:The church sought to meet at a school each Sunday morning, to engage in singing, the teaching of the Bible to adults and children, and social interaction among the members of the church, in order to promote their welfare and the welfare of the community. The meetings were open to all members of the public. The school district's denial of the church's request to rent school space was based on its standard operating procedures that allowed school premises to be used for a variety of community activities as long as they were non-exclusive and open to the general public, however, religious services or instruction was not permitted in school facilities. Since it was a policy that led to the denial that directly limited plaintiffs' speech, irreparable harm was presumed. The circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that plaintiffs were substantially likely to establish defendants violated their First Amendment free speech rights. It could not be said that the church meetings constituted only religious worship, separate and apart from any teaching of moral values.
Hsu by & Through Hsu v. Roslyn Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 3, 85 F.3d 839:
quote: Plaintiff students brought an action against defendant school district under the Equal Access Act (act), 20 U.S.C.S. ยงยง 4071-4074, U.S. Const. amend. I, XIV and other laws. The district court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court reversed in part and required an injunction. The court held that the Bible club's Christian officer requirement, as applied to its president, vice-president, and music coordinator, was essential to the expressive content of the meetings and the club's purpose and identity and was protected by the act. The court held that the club's leadership policy provision was a form of speech and affected the religious content of the meetings within the meaning of the act. The court held that an exemption from the school's policy against religious discrimination was required to provide equal access. The court found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their equal access claim, and that they had suffered irreparable harm. The court held that defendant's recognition of the club would not violate the establishment clause of U.S. Const. amend. I or the equal protection clause of U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
Daily v. N.Y. City Hous. Auth., 221 F. Supp. 2d 390:
quote:The tenant was a resident of one of the approximately 1,500 apartments in a public housing development owned and operated by NYCHA. Following the events of September 11, 2001, she requested permission to use the development's community center to conduct Bible studies to help, comfort, and encourage local residents and to let them know that all is not lost. Citing NYCHA regulations that prohibit the use of any NYCHA property for religious or political activities, the request was denied. The court held that the tenant had shown both that she would suffer an irreparable harm without a preliminary injunction and a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim that denial of her request to use the community center violated the First Amendment. The NYCHA had created a nonpublic forum at times and a limited public forum at other times, and the restrictions that were used to deny the tenant access to the community center were not viewpoint neutral, but rather discriminated against religious viewpoints since the NYCHA admitted that it would permit residents to hold informal discussions about the events of September 11. The restrictions were not reasonable.
Walz v. Egg Harbor Twp. Bd. of Educ., 342 F.3d 271
quote:Over a period of a few years, the student had not been allowed to distribute gifts that contained religious messages to his classmates at holiday classroom parties. On two occasions, he had been allowed to distribute them outside of the classroom. On another occasion, the gifts had been confiscated by the teacher. The court held that it was well within the school's ambit of authority to prevent the distribution of these items during the holiday parties. The seasonal holiday parties were instructional activities, as much a part of the curriculum as "show and tell" or art class. The subsequent exchange of gifts was intended as a teaching tool to promote sharing. The gift-giving from one student to another was not intended to promote a particular religious message. Therefore there was no deprivation of the student's First Amendment rights. The court held that it was appropriate for the school to confiscate the gifts given its educational goal which was at cross-purposes with proselytizing speech.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
umm, Dag? These cases are examples of the courts finding in favor of the religious groups, Yes?
Look back at my post....
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, one of them is not.
Second, you said, "This article sums up my experience, that everytime I hear someone argue that religion has no place in school, they are reacting to the law as depicted by the religious right, rather than actual legal finding."
These things generally take years to finish adjudicating. There are cases just like this going on now. In other words, there's lots of opportunity to hear people in power arguing that religion has no place in school, taking steps to make that argument reality, and basing their actions on someone other than the religious right's interpretation of the law.
Dagonee
[ October 14, 2004, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Yes, I see that last one.
But actually the point is that the law has a pretty clear dividing point between what is freedom to excercise one's religion and what is the school putting students into the uncomfortable position of feeling that they are expected to participate in a religious exercise.
We shouldn't need to have all these lawsuits. The basic issue has been settled. But what we hear loudest is the voice of the religious right claiming that "god has been kicked out of our schools," and so forth.
The example I gave above; that my proffesors wouldn't let me use the question posed by the author of Holes as a writing prompt, came from fear that this question would result in a lawsuit or something. Where did they get this fear? And why was it associated with atheists? Bear in mind that, aside from Murray-Ohaire, most of the winning cases have brought by minority RELIGIOUS people, who felt that the majority religion was using the school to prostyletize.
The lawsuits happen (as I see it) for two reasons.
1. Lawsuits are filed against religious prostyletizers who intentionally try to subvert the law (providing a microphone specifically for the purpose of leading the school in prayer, or who claim their club "meets" in the hallway so they can form a gauntlet which the school body must pass through, etc.). The prostyletizers lose in court.
2. Lawsuits that come from administrators who fear reprisal if they allow "illegal" religious activities in their schools. I'm guessing that this is what happened to you. The administrators lose in court.
Bear in mind that most school officials believe in God, so it's certainly not because they don't want God in schools.
Now, of course, there are the atheistic gadflies that will hang around and make derogatory comments about the whole process. They buy the claim that prayer in school is illegal, not because they know where the courts actually stand, but because they heard it from the religious right.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't know that the law on this is clear at all. Our case was decided 5-4, and we lost in 3 lower court decisions.
I also don't quite buy your conclusion that people are excluding religious speech from public forums because the religious right dominates the perception of the law. It's often the religious right leading the charge to overcome these ridiculous rulings by local authorities.
Oh, and it's not just fear of reprisals that lead to exclusion. There were plenty of comments about religious viewpoints having no place in the university community. There was a lot of philopsphical opposition, especially among student leaders.
Dagonee
[ October 14, 2004, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Thank heaven for Michael McConnell.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yep. He's on the 10th Circuit now, right?
I sent him a congratulation when he got nominated. Now that I'm going to be looking for a clerkship next year, I'm kicking myself for not staying in touch with him through the years.
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I would write him, and mention that you are in the profession....I bet he remembers the case, at least a little.
It's not too late to strike up a conversation, right?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There's also the fact that I'm tired of being away from Eve during the week, and I've got 20 months before I graduate, so I'm not going to tack on 2 extra years no matter how good the clerkship is.
But I do intend to get back in touch with him somehow. Can't hurt to know a judge, right?
Dagonee
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Thank you for the request for information about a statement supposedly made by Vice President Bush concerning atheists. He supposedly made comments questioning the patriotism and citizenship of atheists during a campaign visit to Chicago, Illinois on August 27, 1987 during the 1988 presidential campaign. These supposed comments were distributed in the newsletters of various atheist organizations, which caused some people to write the White House expressing their concern. Vice President Bush did visit Chicago on August 27 for one day, flying in and out of O'Hare Airport in between meetings with several Republican groups. One of the atheist newsletters claimed that Bush made the comments in response to a question from a reporter at the airport. The exact comments made by the Vice President can not be confirmed because there is neither a video or audio tape of this visit in the collection of the Bush Library and these were supposedly off-the-cuff comments not part of a speech or formal press conference.
There are presidential records concerning this issue at the Bush Library buth they are not available for research at this time.
Sincerely, Debbie Carter Archivist George Bush Presidential Library National Archives and Records Administration
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"There are presidential records concerning this issue at the Bush Library but they are not available for research at this time."
How odd. Why wouldn't they be?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
What really bother me about this whole thing is that it would be a simple matter for Bush to say: "I don't remember saying anything like that, but I know perfectly well that there are atheists that are citizens of the U.S."
Why doesn't he?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Let sleeping dogs lie?
Until the story takes off in the mass media, odds are it won't raise enough red flags for the candidates to worry.
If one of them happens to mention it without prompting, that breathes new life into the subject.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)