Religious people less intelligent than atheists?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have a theory about why militant atheists are so hostile towards believers.

They're afraid we're right.

That's not it at all. We just get a little tired of being treated like second class citizens when we have to accomodate the wishes of christians. This whole "war on christmas" argument is a perfect example..

You file suits against us for our decorations and holiday displays, claim to be offended when someone wishes you happiness on December 25th and are pissed off when we use words like "war on Christmas? How friggin hypocritical can you people get?

A Nativity scene in the park does you no harm yet you ask the government to pass judgments restricting the free exercise of religion.

Christians do not, in any way, seek to stop atheists from practicing their belief system, because we feel the Constitution protects you as much as us.

I would fight any attempt by my city to finance a religious holiday display. That would violate the "establishment clause. But simply allowing others to use public property for such a display, doesn't bother me in the least.
Public property belongs to Christians as much as it does to anyone else and passing an ordinance or a court order prohibiting religious displays violates the free expression clause.

Lawsuits can only be filed against government entities engaged in a potential Establishment Clause violation, not against private citizens engaged in Christian displays of faith in a private venue.

If a Nativity scene is placed on government/public property with no other symbols of other religions or secular symbols, and its primary purpose is to promote religious dogma, then an Establishment Clause violation claim is perfectly appropriate because it’s potentially in violation of the Constitution.

The government is not passing judgment restricting the free exercise of religion because it’s un-Constitutional to conjoin church and state in a manner prohibited by law.

Christians remain free to practice their faith in any manner they see fit, save that of an official endorsement of Christianity by the state.

Atheists have no ‘belief system,’ and the Constitution protects their right to remain free from faith just as it protects the right of Christians to have a belief system.

That the use of public property for religions displays doesn’t bother you isn’t at issue, as such displays, depending on their configuration and intent, may indeed be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

And that public property belongs to Christians as much as it does to anyone else is also not the issue, as when the government acts in a manner that complies with the Constitution and its case law concerning religious displays on public property, and prohibits those displays accordingly, it in no way manifest a violation of religious free expression.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When people are sick and when they bury their dead people want dearly held beliefs to be made apparent and should be allowed to do so. I am so sick of certain factions trying to rid this country of any religious symbol whatsoever.

I don't see anyone trying to do such a thing. Individual practice of religion is OK, Government practice of religion is not.

YOU are trying to do such a thing (or advocating the idea of it) and that is asinine. Government land does NOT equal government endorsement. When will you figure that out?

It does if a given religious display unmistakably endorses that faith’s dogma in violation of the Establishment Clause. See: County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989).

 

[Sunshine]

That's not it at all. We just get a little tired of being treated like second class citizens when we have to accomodate the wishes of christians. This whole "war on christmas" argument is a perfect example..

You file suits against us for our decorations and holiday displays, claim to be offended when someone wishes you happiness on December 25th and are pissed off when we use words like "war on Christmas? How friggin hypocritical can you people get?

A Nativity scene in the park does you no harm yet you ask the government to pass judgments restricting the free exercise of religion.

Christians do not, in any way, seek to stop atheists from practicing their belief system, because we feel the Constitution protects you as much as us.

I would fight any attempt by my city to finance a religious holiday display. That would violate the "establishment clause. But simply allowing others to use public property for such a display, doesn't bother me in the least.
Public property belongs to Christians as much as it does to anyone else and passing an ordinance or a court order prohibiting religious displays violates the free expression clause.

Lawsuits can only be filed against government entities engaged in a potential Establishment Clause violation, not against private citizens engaged in Christian displays of faith in a private venue.

If a Nativity scene is placed on government/public property with no other symbols of other religions or secular symbols, and its primary purpose is to promote religious dogma, then an Establishment Clause violation claim is perfectly appropriate because it’s potentially in violation of the Constitution.

The government is not passing judgment restricting the free exercise of religion because it’s un-Constitutional to conjoin church and state in a manner prohibited by law.

Christians remain free to practice their faith in any manner they see fit, save that of an official endorsement of Christianity by the state.

Atheists have no ‘belief system,’ and the Constitution protects their right to remain free from faith just as it protects the right of Christians to have a belief system.

That the use of public property for religions displays doesn’t bother you isn’t at issue, as such displays, depending on their configuration and intent, may indeed be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

And that public property belongs to Christians as much as it does to anyone else is also not the issue, as when the government acts in a manner that complies with the Constitution and its case law concerning religious displays on public property, and prohibits those displays accordingly, it in no way manifest a violation of religious free expression.

Newer case:

Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court case that focused on First Amendment rights and the Establishment Clause. Vincent Pinette, an active member of the Ku Klux Klan in Columbus Ohio, wanted to place an unattended cross on the lawn of the Capitol Square during the 1993 Christmas season. Pinette and his fellow members of the KKK submitted their request. The advisory board originally denied this request. However, Pinette and the other members of the Ohio Chapter of the Klan fought this decision in the United States District Court of Southern Ohio. The court found in favor of the Klan and the Advisory Board issued the permit. The Board appealed to the United States Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the district court. The board made one last petition to the Supreme Court where the decision was made, by a vote of seven to two, that the Klan was permitted to display the cross at the public forum.[1]

Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BreezeWood]

Just because an atheist does not have faith at the moment does not mean they are not open to the existence of God should some form of proof through personal experience comes along.

.

... does not mean they are not open to the existence of God should some form of proof through personal experience comes along.


that would also prove there is no need for Christianity ... and that simple beliefs are enough.

.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. What is your point?

.

the Atheist has a willingness to believe in God were proof established - a proof not established by Christianity etc.

without proof of the "Christian" God etc. there is no purpose for the display of its religion in the Public Forum as it has no foundation for truthfulness - a tenant of Law.


* the Christian religion is solely based on a single book and would cease to exist without it.

.

 

[Ernie S.]

The Supreme Court in their interpretation of the Constitution has said that the state cannot endorse one religion by erecting a religious display on government property. There have been exceptions allowed when many religions were allowed to put up a display but when the one display was allowed and not the others, it is forbidden. That has been made crystal clear a number of times. We have a right not to have religion forced in us by our government.

Really?

Texas won a case where the 10 Commandments are displayed on the grounds of the capital in 2005.

The court ruled that displaying the nativity scene on public property was legal in Pawtucket in 1984.

Every single piece of US currency has the words "In God we Trust" on it.

Care to explain all of that given your declaration that all of those are illegal under any circumstances?

Maybe you should stop using bold font, it has rotter your brain.

By the way, care to tell me again that I only resort to insulting bold font when I cannot address the issues? Because I can clearly do both, unlike people who use bold font.

You're really wetting your panties over this, aren't you? Why don't you join Ernie S-hole in his war against the evil bold font. He is threatening to come back to the board every 48 hours to give me negative rep until he can again sleep knowing that the evil font has been defeated. The silly thing is that you are both alleged adults who are having a major meltdown over something as trivial as a FONT? REALLY? I think you 2 have control issues.

It's not a threat.

 

[daveman]

I don't see anyone trying to do such a thing. Individual practice of religion is OK, Government practice of religion is not.

YOU are trying to do such a thing (or advocating the idea of it) and that is asinine. Government land does NOT equal government endorsement. When will you figure that out?

It does if a given religious display unmistakably endorses that faith’s dogma in violation of the Establishment Clause. See: County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989).

One town in Western KY uses, with the Corps of Engineers' permission, parkland owned by the Corps to allow local churches and other organizations to put up Christmas displays. Most displays are unmistakably Christian; others are secular. The Corps even pays for the electricity to run the displays.

Would you like the name of the town so you can file suit?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

.

... does not mean they are not open to the existence of God should some form of proof through personal experience comes along.


that would also prove there is no need for Christianity ... and that simple beliefs are enough.

.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. What is your point?

.

the Atheist has a willingness to believe in God were proof established - a proof not established by Christianity etc.

without proof of the "Christian" God etc. there is no purpose for the display of its religion in the Public Forum as it has no foundation for truthfulness - a tenant of Law.


* the Christian religion is solely based on a single book and would cease to exist without it.

.

Which atheist are you talking about? I have met a few that would smack you upside the head for saying something like that.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't see anyone trying to do such a thing. Individual practice of religion is OK, Government practice of religion is not.

YOU are trying to do such a thing (or advocating the idea of it) and that is asinine. Government land does NOT equal government endorsement. When will you figure that out?

It does if a given religious display unmistakably endorses that faith’s dogma in violation of the Establishment Clause. See: County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989).

Again, false. Government lad does not equal government endorsement, period. There has to be more than that involved. Not that you even bothered to engage.

 

[HUGGY]

Religious people less intelligent than atheists?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6_1Pw1xm9U]Surprise Surprise Surprise - YouTube[/ame]

 

[YWN666]

Except that was not the problem. I think their ‘war on Christmas’ was bullshit but you are confusing the actual complaint. It was not that some random employee stated ‘happy holidays.’ It was that the store policy specifically disallowed ‘marry Christmas’ because it might ‘offend’ someone that was not Christian. The complaint was valid that it is asinine to ask employees not to use the actual official name of the damn holiday. That is asinine in the extreme.

Except that is not true. They were not forbidden from saying Merry Christmas. They were asked to use a generic Happy Holidays if they did not know the religious beliefs of the customer to avoid alienating customers because as we know, the christmas season is all about money. If they DID know the customer or the customer said MC first, they could say it back.

So, you essentially just restated what I said. All you added was that knowing the customer made things a little different as though that mattered at all. The statement still stands; it was against store policy to use the actual holidays name in greeting customers.

If you don’t see how asinine such a policy is then I really can’t help you in that regard. It is blatantly easy to recognize that PC has gone way too far in that instance and it is shown even further by the fact that the policies were changed VERY quickly. They did not even make it through a single Christmas season.

It's merely a business trying not to alienate customers and make the maximum profit. I can see how that might annoy rabid christians and the policy does NOT forbid anyone from saying MC.

 

[YWN666]

Except that was not the problem. I think their ‘war on Christmas’ was bullshit but you are confusing the actual complaint. It was not that some random employee stated ‘happy holidays.’ It was that the store policy specifically disallowed ‘marry Christmas’ because it might ‘offend’ someone that was not Christian. The complaint was valid that it is asinine to ask employees not to use the actual official name of the damn holiday. That is asinine in the extreme.


Funny that you make this statement because I can guarantee that you cannot post what specific right is violated with a religious display that is located on public land. That is because you do not actually have a right to not be exposed to religion. That does not exist.

No rights are violated by allowing people to have free exercise of their own religion even when they are on public land.

The Supreme Court in their interpretation of the Constitution has said that the state cannot endorse one religion by erecting a religious display on government property. There have been exceptions allowed when many religions were allowed to put up a display but when the one display was allowed and not the others, it is forbidden. That has been made crystal clear a number of times. We have a right not to have religion forced in us by our government.

Government is not forcing anything on you when someone erects a religious display on government property.

It absolutely is.

QW has already shown you where this has occurred.

Nope. He pointed out that there are religious symbols on INDIVIDUAL headstones in a military cemetery. That reflects the religion of the INDIVIDUAL, not the entire cemetery. I'm not sure how to make that concept any clearer.

 

[YWN666]

When people are sick and when they bury their dead people want dearly held beliefs to be made apparent and should be allowed to do so. I am so sick of certain factions trying to rid this country of any religious symbol whatsoever.

I don't see anyone trying to do such a thing. Individual practice of religion is OK, Government practice of religion is not.

YOU are trying to do such a thing (or advocating the idea of it) and that is asinine. Government land does NOT equal government endorsement. When will you figure that out?

Is anyone prohibiting the display of religious symbols on personal property? No, so your assertion is bullshit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nope. He pointed out that there are religious symbols on INDIVIDUAL headstones in a military cemetery. That reflects the religion of the INDIVIDUAL, not the entire cemetery. I'm not sure how to make that concept any clearer.

I suggest you go back and reread my posts, I provided two examples that had nothing to do with headstones. I only used them to show you how stupid your argument that all religious displays are government endorsement of religion.

Unfortunately, your use of the bold font negated the lesson.

 

[YWN666]

Nope. He pointed out that there are religious symbols on INDIVIDUAL headstones in a military cemetery. That reflects the religion of the INDIVIDUAL, not the entire cemetery. I'm not sure how to make that concept any clearer.

I suggest you go back and reread my posts, I provided two examples that had nothing to do with headstones. I only used them to show you how stupid your argument that all religious displays are government endorsement of religion.

Unfortunately, your use of the bold font negated the lesson.

Get over the fucking font bullshit, will you? It doesnt make your argument where you have none.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't see anyone trying to do such a thing. Individual practice of religion is OK, Government practice of religion is not.

YOU are trying to do such a thing (or advocating the idea of it) and that is asinine. Government land does NOT equal government endorsement. When will you figure that out?

Is anyone prohibiting the display of religious symbols on personal property? No, so your assertion is bullshit.

I have two words for you, Mount Soledad.

 

[YWN666]

YOU are trying to do such a thing (or advocating the idea of it) and that is asinine. Government land does NOT equal government endorsement. When will you figure that out?

Is anyone prohibiting the display of religious symbols on personal property? No, so your assertion is bullshit.

I have two words for you, Mount Soledad.

That has nothing to do with my question. Is anyone prohibiting you from displaying a religious symbol on personal property or speaking about your religion in public?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Except that was not the problem. I think their ‘war on Christmas’ was bullshit but you are confusing the actual complaint. It was not that some random employee stated ‘happy holidays.’ It was that the store policy specifically disallowed ‘marry Christmas’ because it might ‘offend’ someone that was not Christian. The complaint was valid that it is asinine to ask employees not to use the actual official name of the damn holiday. That is asinine in the extreme.


Funny that you make this statement because I can guarantee that you cannot post what specific right is violated with a religious display that is located on public land. That is because you do not actually have a right to not be exposed to religion. That does not exist.

No rights are violated by allowing people to have free exercise of their own religion even when they are on public land.

The Supreme Court in their interpretation of the Constitution has said that the state cannot endorse one religion by erecting a religious display on government property. There have been exceptions allowed when many religions were allowed to put up a display but when the one display was allowed and not the others, it is forbidden. That has been made crystal clear a number of times. We have a right not to have religion forced in us by our government.

Government is not forcing anything on you when someone erects a religious display on government property. QW has already shown you where this has occurred. Again, you are focusing on other religions being forbidden even though we already established that they are not and none of the Christians here have an issue with that. You are the only one that falls back into that point. Just because you feel the need to limit the free exercise of religion does not mean that is what everyone else is trying to accomplish. That is in the sole court of people like you that want to repress religious exposure.

I find it interesting that you are trying to invalidate other arguments using the logic that you are supporting your argument with. IOW, you are invalidating your own arguments.

It does if improperly implemented by government, resulting in an endorsement of religion:

Endorsement [of religion by government] sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.

Lynch v. Donnelly

In Lynch v. Donnelly, the city of Pawtucket, R.I., establishes each Christmas a display acknowledging the Season, it is done so in a manner that comports to Constitutional case law.

When a given jurisdiction fails to meet these requirements, however, it violates the Constitution where such a religious manifestation is invalid.

When this occurs it is the fault of the jurisdictions, for failing to understand Establishment Clause jurisprudence; it is not the ‘fault’ of ‘atheists,’ or those ‘anti-religious,’ but the jurisdictions themselves who failed to comply with the law. And again, when a court orders such a jurisdiction to discontinue its un-Constitutional conjoining of church and state, the court is in no way ‘violating’ religious expression.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is anyone prohibiting the display of religious symbols on personal property? No, so your assertion is bullshit.

I have two words for you, Mount Soledad.

That has nothing to do with my question. Is anyone prohibiting you from displaying a religious symbol on personal property or speaking about your religion in public?

You ask if anyone is prohibiting the display of religious symbols on private property, I cite a case that is doing that, and you say it has nothing to do with your question.

Color me not surprised.

 

[Vox]

An interesting study. We'll probably have to wait for n in both sets to get closer to even - or @ least the same order of magnitude - before we can sample the populations & hope to get representative sample data sets.

If I understand the sampling correctly, on the atheist side they're oversampling people with university degrees, graduate degrees & so on, while the religious side probably over-presents people with less formal education than the first set. It's a sampling quibble, but it's important to anticipate & correct any sampling bias so that the results aren't false artifacts of the methodology. & so that we can have more confidence in the results of the studies.

which invalidates the study from the get-go.

Cut off the confounding biases before you even approach to compare.

 

[YWN666]

I have two words for you, Mount Soledad.

That has nothing to do with my question. Is anyone prohibiting you from displaying a religious symbol on personal property or speaking about your religion in public?

You ask if anyone is prohibiting the display of religious symbols on private property, I cite a case that is doing that, and you say it has nothing to do with your question.

Color me not surprised.

That is not private property.