Atheists that claim they are tolerant explain this

Post Reply New Topic

Hi 91,

Thomas's dissent in the case denied certiorari at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1276.pdf , establishes that the precedent still stands past October 31, 2011. The precedent is against the position that you are trying to present here as established.

Your "....It is also worth you keeping in mind that it was the FFRF who described the banner as anti-Christian, not me, I base my argument on their position...." is irrelevant as a valid decisive issue. By most Christians, all non-Christian religions are anti-Christian. The 1st commandment in the old testament asserted by a vast majority of Christians gives a strong hint of what is taken as being against the Christian diety. Also, many "recognizing" Christians and "non-recognizing" Christians regard each other as being Anti-Christian for conflicts over accepting or rejecting practices related to "Santa Claus". The "protestants" are another famous and historical example of what "is" and "is not" Christians of the "Church" practices that are regarded as "Anti-Christian".

Thomas's dissent also gave many clues involving the "creche". A word-search of the dissent gives 7 results on pages 10-11. The Subject Title to my present response is from page 5.

Your stance of [you are] "arguing, that under the establishment clause, the government is not free to make an anti-religious statement with it's displays on government property. You simply do not seem to get it", is directionless nonsense re non-government groups involved in displays. You are trying to exploit double-negatives as being all inclusive, with everything being an "establishment" or a "dis-establishment" by the government, instead of the government allowing, or granting permits, for displays on government property by various groups. Federal Law prohibits discrimination (including preferential treatment) involving protected groups under the Civil Rights Act and the Bill of Rights.

By Federal Court precedents, "atheists" have the same status under the law as a "religious group", and they cannot be denied the same protection of their rights as enjoyed by any different religious group.

If displays are allowed, or allowed by permit, every group must receive the same opportunities, without any preferences, for being allowed or permited to make a display. The opportunities must be equal in all aspects, whether by dates, locations, etc. The only other action a government can take without violating federal law, is to prohibit all displays.

The oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court cases are also available, in involves address of many issues involved here, but my computer is malfunctioning, so I can't spoon-feed them to you tonight.

Tadzio

Wrong, the case you are citing is precedent only with regards to a symbol standing on its own and only for courts below the supreme court, therefor in cases where a display has religious images within a secular display, the higher precedent is binding. Even if the higher precedent was not binding, which it is, the case you cited is less applicable than the ones that I cited. Justice Thomas does talk about Nativity scenes, but only as a point of acknowledging both the grey areas involved in these discussions and the fact that the sorts of displays we are talking about have been ruled not to be a violation of the establishment clause. You just keep citing moot points, you do it with gravitas and gusto of prose, but it is still moot.



If the displays were the same I would agree. But a nativity within a secular display is constitutional, a banner which dis-endorses religion or a particular religion is not. There is no grounds for the invocation of the equal protection clause because we are not discussing the same thing. If the banner were less specific and it's owners less forthcoming with regards to its message, you might have some wriggle room and I would most likely agree with you. But the atheists behind the banner openly admit that it is anti-Christian and therefor it is unconstitutional.



I can't believe you actually said this. You cited Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, a case, whose finding directly contradicts what you are saying here. The statement you just made is utterly without merit as the government is not obliged to say yes to everyone. This exact line of argument was universally rejected by the entire supreme court, accepting one and rejecting another application for a public display is legitimate government speech.

That is strange. They don't look Jewish.

ruveyn

I'm never sure if it's intended to be humorous with you, ruveyn, but that comment made me guffaw.

I have no pretense of being tolerant toward gobbledegook, so I guess I'm off the hook.

Hi pandabear,

What Happened??? Did someone tell the Nuns what happened, and by who, to the Cathars???

Tadzio

Hi 91,

Thank You for dividing your position into 3 stances, as your move makes it much more easier to illustrate your jumping fences whenever one Legal pasture is no longer to your Philosophical liking. It also illustrates the reverse of metaphor of laughable clowns more entertaining united than separated. Hence, Larry, Moe, and Curly labels serve to distinguish your catergorized legal leanings. You could take your own advice: "You don't seem to like Latin terms, now when you Google stare decisis you ought to also search for ad hominem."

When, at a any moment, you happen to be in your favorite pasture, you proclaim such as: "I love it when you ignore my argument and just take the part you want to respond to. Whenever I see .. at the end of your post a straw-man alarm goes off. Perhaps you should engage with my argument and not what you think my argument is." Then, much like a bird, you take flight from view, despite your self-proclaimed bravery to the "straw-man" with your own alarm to your very same alarm. It's as if a paternity test might have a valid and objectve result for a disavowing Nervous Barrister Nellie involved with any nativity.

You go so far as to proclaim that on public land, any display of what you call "atheism" is against the law (p. 394), and cannot be legally permitted, which to, you apply legal labels that don't apply to displays singular to atheism by any law.

You started with "This is not just about law," and "the case of a nativity is not open an shut, in fact I doubt the supreme court even wants to rule on it," then you twist court cases into agreeing that, by your view, the law permits the creche on public property, while prohibiting the statement of natural pantheism of "there is no god" in any form on public property.

When it comes to the law in the U.S.A., it is very clear that you do not know what you are talking about. In matters of legal Laws in the U.S.A., there is no higher Court precedent than the U.S. Supreme Court. The denial of certiorari for Nos. 10-1276 and 10-1297 maintains current precedent, and it does not change it, but Justice Thomas's dissent offers his view on the non-changed precedent, and you are arguing against his interpretation of the precendents. While I certainly don't agree much with Justice Thomas's legal leanings (for instance, Thomas: "the Court does not share my view that the Establishment Clause restrains only the Federal Government, and that, even if incorporated, the Clause only prohibits “‘actual legal coercion,’” p. 16), you continue spewing your "holier-than-thou" judgements on others' opinions here.

You wish to play the imaginary observer in the “oddity” that “the legitimacy of a government action with a wholly secular effect would turn on the misperception of an imaginary observer” when anything that doesn't fancy your whimsy is encountered as a possibility in your imagination, but otherwise, required as permitted by your standards (See McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U. S. 844, 901 (2005)) Thomas p. 13.

You jump amongst three time lengths of display, from an instant (or short period), to a week or more, or to forever. You assert that "Christian" displays (by your standards only) are protected for all time periods, and "atheist" displays (by your standards) are prohibited for all time periods on public property. (Here you jump lastly again from a "display" to a "monument").

Well, with religious imagination, all citizens of the U.S.A. have the same equal rights to do such, whether one's expressed imagination conflicts with another's expression imagination, despite form protected by Law. Do you go up in a hot puff of smoke every time by chance you hear John Lennon's "Imagine"???, and proclaim it's illegal to listen to with any chance of being overheard (and the same with any similar content of speech)? If so, use your shackles on yourself and not on me or anybody else.

Tadzio

P.S.: As you, in your dis-Logic, seem to have the concept of "dis-establishment" caught cross-wise, you also appear to have taken Maimonides's "The Guide of the Perplexed" rather backwards too, here and elsewhere.

Beelzebub Loves Crowds: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/holy-wa ... attacks-2/
and Beelzebub is unbiased: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/shockin ... ils-death/
Satan demands Faustian Contracts with Catch-22 "Proper Compliance Forms".