8 States Explicitly Discriminate Against Atheists

Unlike race, religious preference is a choice and drastically changes the way people view the world.

I don't think race concepts map onto biological reality, but setting that aside, "religious preference is a choice" doesn't seem right. Children are indoctrinated into different belief systems, I think that the majority of children happen to believe what they're told to believe by their parents, church, or community. Religions are very coercive and love ignorance, that's the only way they keep going, What beliefs you have has a lot to do with your upbringing, what your parents believe, and what part of the world you were born in. Many people wouldn't vote for an atheist because they've been told falsehoods, like atheists are satanists or immoral.

Children are indoctrinated into different belief systems, I think that the majority of children happen to believe what they're told to believe by their parents, church, or community

All Children everywhere are indoctrinated. You make it sound like its some religious conspiracy. Even atheist parents could be said to indoctrinate their children, if they tell them that there is no god, their children are just as likely to believe that as well. Same applies with political views, eating habits, everything.

The fact is that we all indoctrinate our children with our beliefs on all areas of life, and there is nothing wrong with that. Sure there are things that people hold to that is not beneficial and is regrettably passed on. But the freedoms granted to us include our right to raise our children how we see fit (so long as it doesn't violate the law.)

I fear the day when we no longer can instill our values on our children.

We elect leaders who share our ideals... I hardly see how that is bigotry.

Because leaders shouldn't be chosen based on their ideals. They should be chosen based on their leadership skills, their record of prior actions, and promises made during campaigns.

Unfortunately voting is somewhat of a popularity contest. Many people won't vote for someone they don't feel they like personally, even if they'll make decisions that they agree with when in office.

About half of the US wouldn't vote for an atheist even if he/she is otherwise their perfect candidate. In other words, half the country believes a leader's religion is more important than their actions. Judging based purely on religion and not the person's individual actions is bigotry.

All Children everywhere are indoctrinated. You make it sound like its some religious conspiracy. Even atheist parents could be said to indoctrinate their children, if they tell them that there is no god, their children are just as likely to believe that as well. Same applies with political views, eating habits, everything.

No, you're using a different definition of indoctrinate. I am talking about doctrines that people aren't meant to question, propaganda, manipulation, brainwashing etc... It's possible atheist parents could indoctrinate their children into beliefs, even into god worship. Religious parents might choose not to indoctrinate their children.

The fact is that we all indoctrinate our children with our beliefs on all areas of life, and there is nothing wrong with that. Sure there are things that people hold to that is not beneficial and is regrettably passed on. But the freedoms granted to us include our right to raise our children how we see fit (so long as it doesn't violate the law.)

Whose granting these rights? Why should parents own their children? Is it right to indoctrinate children instead of educating them?

I fear the day when we no longer can instill our values on our children.

Because then people might start seeing sense.

While not exactly my position, it is democracy in action. We elect leaders who share our ideals, and if 53% feel religion is important enough of an ideal, I hardly see how that is bigotry.

It's the "would not under any circumstances vote for an atheist" part that makes it bigotry. The decision that the mere lack of belief in any god automatically makes one unfit to be president. I mean, what they're saying here is that the person could be in action and mindset far more moral and pure in thought and deed than any religious leader, his Sh**t could literally not stink and still they wouldn't vote for him cause he doesn't go to church (and given our current president, church attendance doesn't even matter really)

I don't disagree about the "democracy in action" bit; I guess we just have to realize that 53% of the american people are willing to be bigots , and those 53% have to learn to wear that moniker.

Religious parents might choose not to indoctrinate their children.

I personally am glad that, while now religious, my parents never forced me into religion. I have no problem being agnostic and yet have the rest of the family go to church. If you are "open-minded" you would hopefully see fit to let your children choose their own way. But when it comes down to it, if you believe that non-believers go to hell then you will indoctrinate your children to save them from something that no parent would like to see their children go through, be it rational or not.

LOL
it is amazing when bigots cant see their bigotry.
Most people in my state woudl not vote for a black man, they would vote for boys of their own color.
But that is fine and dandy, in this country you are allowed to make your own choices and be a hateful bigot.. point is there is no law against a black man running.. if their was, i think even you might cry "that is unacceptable"
but since you dont like atheists
having a law baring them from runing
or since it is a choice.. and they can choose to belive and when they do they can run.. it is ok huh??
what if i made a law that you must worship teh flying speghetti monster.. after all
CHRISTIANITY IS A CHOICE>>> HUH
so it isnt bigotry.
Heck lets ban christains from running, since it is a choice, it isnt bigotry..
You sure cant have one way without the other.
LETS BAN CHRISTAINS FROM RUNNIGN FOR OFFICE.. cause this guy says I AM NOT BEIGN DISCRIMATED FOR THE EXACT SAME THING>

No, you're using a different definition of indoctrinate. I am talking about doctrines that people aren't meant to question, propaganda, manipulation, brainwashing etc...

The definition of indoctrinate still stands in Miller's usage. Children are blank slates which parents and the schools can fill as they please. You ask where the parents are given the right to own their children. The answer is simple. You raise a baby, you pass on your genetic code, you pay its bills for eighteen or more years. You do not own them. But they are raised in your home, in your environment. And it is your right to have your environment be just the way you like it. Its why Jesus camps are constitutional even though they are no different than schools in the Gaza strip in the way that they indoctrinate their wards with the same fundamentalism. We bomb terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Iraq, but we do not touch them when they are exercising their religious freedom in the great United States of America. Welcome to a world of blurred lines. Please leave your "definitions" at the door.

As an Atheist, I know more than the average citizen about Atheism. The vast majority of Atheist parents simply educate their children, they don't say things like, "There is no god." Most Atheist parents, when asked, will tell their children that they do not believe in a god or gods.. but it usually when the child has a mind rational enough to ask the question. At that point most Atheist parents begin to educate their children on religious ideas.

The difference between most religious parents and most Atheist parents is that most religious parents force their children to go to church, kicking and screaming most of the time. Atheist parents generally speaking will educate their children on the real history of the different religions, both the good and the bad. It is true that most Atheists view the pollution, indoctrination or brainwashing of a child's mind in its formative years the worst offense of the organized religions.

But the point to be made here is that these people who state that they, "would not cast a vote for president under any circumstances for an atheist," are bigots, by definition.

Atheist parents generally speaking will educate their children on the real history of the different religions, both the good and the bad.

If I ever had children, I'd just send them to a Catholic school. There is nothing better at creating atheists than a good ol' Catholic education ;-)

funny - my daughter goes to a Catholic school. She is 6 and asks some funny questions sometimes. Other times she scares me with her blind acceptance of what her teachers tell her.

It is neat to watch her brain at work though. One day she was telling me the entire Bible was fact and true. So then I asked about the flood, did she think the entire world was flooded? Her response, "well not those parts of the Bible that don't make sense, but the rest is the truth"

She cracks me up.

The arguing most definitely goes both ways. And while I am a proponent of debate, and the issues of religion and atheism should be debated, many people have a tendency to take it too far and make personal attacks, and that helps no one.

Although, it is worth noting (at risk of turning this into a Ron Paul conversation), that a bill, the We the People Act, introduced by Rep. Paul, would forbid SCOTUS from hearing cases based on these restrictions, thus making them legally enforceable again.

Which is only one reason why there should be ONE set of basic laws in this country, not a different set of rules everywhere you go.

I can understand local ordinances, special circumstances require local control, but when it comes to basic human rights, one law should rule the land.

ombra,

so you want to do away with a states' right to self-governance? I think the Federal Government is huge now, I can't imagine how bloated it would be then.

Self governance does interfere with a uniform code of law.

ombra, by that logic, shouldn't we have one worldwide, uniform code of law?

And by your logic, it would be ok to have a law in Alabama that says blacks can't vote, or one in Utah that says the same about Christians.

That's what I mean by one basic law.... One country... one set of rights, not 50...

So long as the state laws do not violate federal laws set forth in the constitution or agreed upon by all states, I think we should allow the states to continue to govern themselves.

ombra, that's what the Constitution and Federal law do. The States cannot take away any rights that the Federal government has explicitly granted. However, the states can pass other laws that apply only to that state.

For example, there are different car emissions standards for vehicles registered in California than in Alaska. Is that a problem? If so, why?

Back to the first statement...

We the People Act, introduced by Rep. Paul, would forbid SCOTUS from hearing cases based on these restrictions

Therefore not even violations of Federal Law would be heard..

And we do agree that Federal laws have priority as to race, color and creed, and that's all I said..

not uniformed laws.. uniformed frame work
i get so sick of people that think states rights trump the constitution.
we dont need uniform laws,that was never the plan
but in the same breath we wont let alabama becoem a dictatorship.
The constitution says NO RELIGIOUS TEST. and that means NO RELIGIOUS TESTS,
and even if they arent legally enforcible (which you'd be surprised how often that is forgotten and often become enforcible again after peopel forget) you cant leave bigoted laws on the books.
how would black people feel having a law on the books saying they are still 2/3 a person but dont worry we cant enforce it.
if laws arent enfocible they need to be taken off the books, or do we actually expect our law enfocement officers to know every single supreme court ruling.

Sure in SC.. I know that their would be zero way for an atheist to win.. even if his opposition was proven child molesters. But that is fine, people are free to be ignorant bigoted bastards. It is not fine to have a law on the books against it. IF nothing else, even as beign unenfocible it is very obious, that it atleast discourages, as even the author of this article didnt know they wernt enfocible.
You can make a law sayig it is ok to kill gays in texas and the supreme court would shut it down.. but do you think that gays would feel safe going to texas anymore?? no this is designed to not only not give the peopel a choice, but to discourage people from trying.
it has that chilling effect.

COMMON FRAMEWORK != COMMON LAWS.

Therefore not even violations of Federal Law would be heard..

My synopsis may have been unclear. SCOTUS (and lower courts) could not hear challenges to state law or actions in regard to their Constitutionality or consistency with Federal Law in respect to religion and separation of church and state, among other things.

if laws arent enfocible they need to be taken off the books,

I've always wondered why we don't have a group set up to going through old laws proposing ones that can be removed.

Some states do this, Texas being one. I wouldn't mind seeing something like this implemented on the federal level. More about the Texas Sunset Advisory Committee:

Under the Texas Sunset Act, Chapter 325, Texas Government Code, each agency has a date on which it will be abolished unless legislation is passed to continue its functions, based on the recommendations of the Sunset Advisory Commission. The purpose of the Sunset Act is to ask a basic question about state agencies: do the agency's functions continue to be needed, or should they be "sunsetted" (abolished) and/or transferred to other agencies? The objective is to abolish functions/agencies that no longer serve a valid purpose, while consolidating needed functions within other agencies having similar responsibilities, thus freeing tax dollars to spend on other needed services.

Agencies are typically reviewed every 12 years; about 20 to 30 agencies go through the Sunset process each legislative session.

(That right! A Texas law that actually makes sense!)

Why?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from interfering with how one chooses to exercise or not exercise a religion.

So how could these states ratify a constitution that violates the US Constitution? Seems like someone would have caught that.

Adam @ 7.1

You could be a USSC justice, the way you are able to read a penumbra into a clear, simple statement about religion

Atheism is the absence of a belief in God. No services are required. No ministers. No credo. No buildings to house services. No rules to live by. What could be freer than that? Why would there need to be any Constitutional protections for that which doesn't exist?

So how could these states ratify a constitution that violates the US Constitution? Seems like someone would have caught that.

Simple, prior to the 14 Amendment, the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government. In fact, at the time that they signed the Constitution, Massachusetts still had a state religion. But then came the 14th Amendment, particularly it's first section:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The purpose of this was to ensure that southern states did not infringe on the rights of the recently freed slaves, but eventually more open interpretation of the Amendment has applied the Bill of Rights to all state and local governments as well.

On the other hand, some of the states may have even introduced these restrictions later, but they have either been ignored or yet to be properly challenged.

---------------

epiphany sorbet, I think we may have miscommunicated at some point. As you said atheism is the lack of religion and thus the lack of religious practice, thus it doesn't exactly require any protections since the government is already prohibited from establishing religion or interfering in religious practice or the lack of religious practice.

Basically, atheism doesn't need any protections from government because government has no power to attack it.

It's kind of ironic that atheism will have to declare itself a religion in order to get Constitutional protections.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Here's the Supreme Court decision handed down in the case of Torcaso v. Watkins mentioned above....

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

The Court unanimously found that Maryland's requirement for a person holding public office to state a belief in God violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Link.

The right "not to believe" is already a Constitutional protection and it isn't qualified in any way with talk of "becoming a religion" first, or any other such silliness. I can be an atheist to my hearts content without declaring myself part of a "religious movement." Thats a right guaranteed me by our Constitution... and upheld by the Supreme Court. That these states have laws on the books that state otherwise means absolutely nothing. They have already been ruled unconstitutional and therefor.... unenforceable.

LOL
amazing yous guys argue it is a religion until you feel it is better to argue it isnt.,
The establishment clause automatically protects atheists, as it defaults to an atheistic government.
AKA seperation of church and state.
Cute idea about atheists having to be declared a religion.. you would have done awesoem in the OLC.. along with the rest of the third rate ideological lawyers there.
No establishment means no establishment.
no religious test means no religious test.
thats even means a test to see if you have a religion.
By default by not reguiring you to attest you relgious beliefs, you could actually have non.

amazing that even someoen like you can so twist the meaning of the 1st amendment as some sort of government enforced religous protectionism..

mind you this is also difernt from the discrimination laws,
which state there cant be religious discrimination.. but that would include non religon as well.,

doh wish i didnt take so long to type.. nicely said jim dent.

Next up.. attack them activist judges forcing the states to allow atheists to run for office.

So how could these states ratify a constitution that violates the US Constitution? Seems like someone would have caught that.

First, there were the states. They had their own constitutions, laws, judiciaries, etc. Second they passed the Articles of Confederation and we had a loosely knit nation. Third they got rid of the Articles, and passed the Constitution and we had a more closely knit nation. When ratified, the Constitution had none of the Amendments. The states were the ones who ratified the Constitution and gave it authority, not the other way around. The power structure started changing when decades after passing the 14th amendment the supreme court suddenly started ruling that it bound the states to provide guarantees of the rights protected in the first ten amendments - for the first 70 years after it was passed it was ruled on as limited to exclusively its actual purpose - making sure states respected the end of slavery. It is a modern perversion of the founding fathers vision that state constitutions are deemed unconstitutional. In the original understanding of how our country worked states were free to give money to churches, have religious tests, or whatever they wanted to do - only the federal government was barred (to prevent fighting between Catholics and Puritans and whoever else).

For the record, Atheism is NOT a religion... it is the absence of religion. It is true that SOME Atheists are very outspoken, but it is erroneous to say that they evangelize:

e·van·ge·lize /ɪˈvændʒəˌlaɪz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-van-juh-lahyz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -lized, -liz·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1.to preach the gospel to.
2.to convert to Christianity.
–verb (used without object)
3.to preach the gospel; act as an evangelist.

By definition, to evangelize is to preach the gospel or to convert to Christianity.

gos·pel /ˈgɒspəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[gos-puhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.the teachings of Jesus and the apostles; the Christian revelation.
2.the story of Christ's life and teachings, esp. as contained in the first four books of the New Testament, namely Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
3.(usually initial capital letter) any of these four books.
4.something regarded as true and implicitly believed: to take his report for gospel.
5.a doctrine regarded as of prime importance: political gospel.
6.glad tidings, esp. concerning salvation and the kingdom of God as announced to the world by Christ.
7.(often initial capital letter) Ecclesiastical. an extract from one of the four Gospels, forming part of the Eucharistic service in certain churches.
8.gospel music.
–adjective
9.of, pertaining to, or proclaiming the gospel or its teachings: a gospel preacher.
10.in accordance with the gospel; evangelical.
11.of or pertaining to gospel music: a gospel singer.

The very word gospel is rooted in dogmatic religious belief and doctrine, one could make an argument from ignorance that preaching the gospel could be applied to the arguments of an Atheist, but that in an of itself would be a logical fallacy.

If one wishes to argue against Atheism with regard to affect and its similarities to the affect of dogmatic evangelism... there may be a few points that are valid with some Atheists, much the same as there are validities in this regard with some religious people.

But to put the nail in the coffin on this issue we must look to federal law and the fair, non-biased interpretation of it. Case and point, the "no religious test" clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3, and states that:

...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Therefore, it IS in violation of federal law to bar Atheists from running for public office... a test to detect presence or non-presence of religion is still a religious test.

Therefore, it IS in violation of federal law to bar Atheists from running for public office.

Who was proposing that? The people are still free to vote or not vote for you based on your religion, lack of religion, hair style, accent, or any other thing they feel like.

It's unenforceable, but still on the books in Texas.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm

Brian, I'm curious... are you saying you think the state constitutions should take precedent over the Federal Constitution?

What do you mean by precedent?

The ratification of the US Constitution by the states is where the US Constitution gets its authority. Until the 14th Amendment, nothing in the Constitution was held to override state law - every state was free to suppress free speech and respect establishments of religion and all the rest. Only with the 14th Amendment did that change, and it only changed because the armies of the Union were occupying the southern states and forced them to ratify the 13th - 15th amendments at gun point. So clearly any state that disagrees has learned not to fight it any more, but that doesn't make the military victor morally right.

As a point of fact, I've read the Maryland constitution several times (I live there) and was never, as an atheist, bothered by the language there. Maryland was strongly Catholic, and the text in the Constitution was designed to appease everyone, as at the time there were no outspoken atheists, just the deists who did acknowledge a god. Since the text explicitly recognizes the US Constitution as supreme, and since the 14th amendment forbade Maryland to use any religious test, those parts of the constitution have been nullified, but nothing in the US Constitution or any federal power can claim the right to re-write the Maryland state Constitution. It is ours, and not any business of the rest of the union.

Why should Maryland amend its own Constitution?

The author of the article wrote with outrage about states that discriminate against atheists, and yet they do not actually discriminate against atheists. What outraged him is that the states didn't rewrite their constitutions to his pleasure. Tough. Nobody outside of Maryland has any control over what is in the Maryland state constitution, and that is how it is meant to be.

Thank goodness for the English. As a foreigner who spent the past ten years in America, I feel your difficulties in understanding what happened to the one nation which was founded by the greatest ideals not only of the times, but of all human history. If you're really interested, pick up Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States or Thom Hartmann's Screwed, both will give you a detailed account of how an entire nation has been bamboozled by the ultra-wealthy into believing ideas which make the Founding Fathers do cirque-de-soleil acts in their graves.

Thank you very much for your reference to these two books which I haven't read, but will do. It is really mind boggling for any European to witness what is going on in the US at present, let alone understand it.

Easy for you to say as a non-Atheist. Ever since I "came out" as an Atheist I have been treated like an enemy combatant by more people than I can count. Some people that I talk to even whisper the word
"Atheist" when I am in dialog with them, like they cannot even hardly stand to admit that they exist. It is ridiculous, inane and reprehensible to be treated like this simply because I do not believe in a concept that is impossible prove.

And no, NO ONE is making you Say GOD in the pledge, so stop complaining.

There are many civil cases in which students were reprimanded and handed out disciplinary action for refusing to recite the pledge with the word God in it. Please research the issues before making opinion-based assertions on them.

Also, it is not "society's" conspiracy... it is a group of outspoken Evengelicals that have gone on record to state the Atheism must be squelched and that they shouldn't even be considered citizens. That fact that legislation has passed supporting this campaign is proof enough that it is not imaginary.

Also please refrain from calling our legitimate cause "WHINING" it does nothing to help your case.

Easy for you to say as a non-Atheist. Ever since I "came out" as an Atheist I have been treated like an enemy combatant by more people than I can count.

Funny everyone gets made fun of or discriminated for one reason or another --- the only difference is the rest of us don't demand the world to change, for us. If I walk into a Black Neighborhood and go to a barber shop, it is likely I'll have some form of discrimination be it weird looks from fellow patrons or refusal to serve me. Either way, I wouldn't hire the A.C.L.U. to it changed, simply because it's the barbershop's owners right to refuse service and it would be weird to the other patrons to see me and their looks in one way justified. I expect, to be discriminated, I expect to be made fun of, and I expect be it today is a great day that one of the days very soon will be a bad one. See, certain things in life we can't change --- taking God off the money will not make people believe less in God, only believe MORE in the fact that Atheists are indeed what stereotypes portray them as.

Also please refrain from calling our legitimate cause "WHINING" it does nothing to help your case.

It's an adjective I feel accurately describes your so called cause. Mainly because I believe you draw more attention, and discrimination against yourselves, by making it a "cause". If Atheists, took a more submissive role in their "quest for civil liberties". They'd find they would have few and far between that would harass them. But it tends to tick off people, even those agnostic and some atheists when you hire high powered attorneys from the A.C.L.U. to demand that Nativity scenes be taken from Public Property ten commandments be taken out of court houses, god be taken off the money, and out of the pledge, daily prayers in the house and senate be stopped, etc, etc, etc. If this is your cause than perhaps you deserve the "discrimination" for which you claim to be victim of. As it is you who are attempting to conform the majority to your minority's belief. Which is as injustice as a majority making the minority believe a certain way.
Seeing as we still teach, evolution, don't require anyone to believe anything, to be a citizen, politician, or to get a job. I see your "cause" as WHINING. Simply because it yields no greater benefit than your silence would yield. And that's not to say your silence in all aspects, by all means if someone requires you to pray to get a drivers license, to vote, or to hold office I will picket beside you because that would be injustice, and the establishment of a religion.
Until than, please refrain, from, WHINING.
And yes --- it may not make my points anymore valid but in my humble opinion it is an accurate adjective.

I have no reason to dignify your ignorant comments, and I ask Lascivius to do the same. I am a progressive Jew who lives with a hardcore atheist and have to deal with this stupid @!$%# all the time. So I'm going to make this clear: "political whiz", you are forcing your ideals on others, if you do not see it, then you need to go to your local library and open up some books, I would be glad to recommend some. Alternatively, you could also read the news and notice this is the only country where we still talk about religion as if it @!$%#ing matters. Note that Tony Blair had wanted to convert to Catholicism for most of the duration of his premiership, but deferred it because it was irrelevant to his governance and would simply create a media juggernaut pile of @!$%# instead of focusing on real issues. As for State Legislatures being kinda busy, I again urge you to do your research. This is America, nothing gets done but wars and tax cuts. Why else would the Chinese reject vehicles which Detroit sells to everyday Americans? I don't think its because they have brand loyalty,

Well, as much as I'd like to recognize a counter point in your comment for the most part it didn't address a single issue I raised.
You can't deny the definition of Establishment and the fact the clause isn't violated by any of the U.S.'s actions. Between that and the premise of Democracy (majority rule). The Atheist "Cause" has little if any validity of "inequality".
I have atheist friends, I don't "Hate" atheists, what I hold animosity towards is the oppressive fascist attempts of extreme progressives to silence the majority. It's something I find very wrong on a moral and ethical premise and on some level hilariously ironic.
The solution to atheist's "feeling" forced to have faith, is to force others not to recognize theirs in public or not to allow public opinion in Democracy to rule. Sounds much more oppressive and unconstitutional than any mentioning of God currently present in society.

In a pure democracy, majority rules. We live in a republic which has been set up specifically with protections for the minority against the oppression of the majority.

My friend, you must learn to read more diligently. I didn't address any of your points because they are irrelevant. You have a rudimentary understanding of the American political system and its history, as evident by your regurgitation of the same points made in the average American history textbook. These "arguments" you made are irrelevant, not because I disagree with you, but because they are simply misunderstandings of real politics which have been pushed upon the American people by the same right wing zealots which cause you to feel like you're under attack by atheists.

The United States is, and has been, a Christian nation. You just won't admit it. As an Israeli citizen, a country which officially claims its religious identity, and an American resident, I can confidently tell you that your Christian values are pushed onto everyone, and that your religion plays too central of a role in the national agenda and its politics. Why the @!$%# else would abortion and gay rights actually be an issue, if you weren't shoving your beliefs in everyone's faces?

You just won't admit it. As an Israeli citizen, a country which officially claims its religious identity, and an American resident,

You're an Israeli citizen first, I was born in America grown up in America and currently am taking Political Science as a college major.
My understanding of the U.S. Political system is pretty thorough. Beyond that I have a love for history. Our country, is a Christian country, despite most of the framers being deists.
My point is, it should be, if that's what people want.
I support civil unions for everyone and don't believe marriage licenses should be issued by the state, Mainly because in the case of Marriages, the old system of issuing marriage licenses has now become a controversy and a detriment to a sect of people which now have had to pay more in taxes, some have been killed because their despondent family wasn't aware of medical conditions and their lovers not allowed into hospital rooms. and abortion in a limited sense, actually I believe it should be left to the states as the Constitution mandates.

And your dismissal of my points constitutes silence, which in debate is viewed as agreeance, if you can't counter. Than don't bother making up lame excuses and calling them irrelevant.

In a pure democracy, majority rules. We live in a republic which has been set up specifically with protections for the minority against the oppression of the majority.

protections, yes but by no means an iron fist to rule the majority. Which is what is happening.
As I've pointed out in previous comments there is NO violation or Imposition placed on the minority in this case, and it'd be much more unjust to allow the minority to impose it's will on the majority.
The 1st amendment and establishment clause only protects from the establishment of a religion which as ehad aham had pointed out Israel has done. But, the U.S. has not, and will not establish a nation religion.

Therefore, the arguments made by atheists to remove God from public viewing is null and void. Until there is a clear establishment of a religion they are simply WHINING.

Our country, is a Christian country....the U.S. has not, and will not establish a nation religion

Right ;)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8375948/

The high court said displays of the Ten Commandments — like their own courtroom frieze — are not inherently unconstitutional. But each exhibit demands scrutiny to determine whether it goes too far in amounting to a governmental promotion of religion, the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits.

The 10 Commandments display in a courthouse can be seen as a government promotion of religion according to SCOTUS. They set the bar considerably lower than where you set it. I think their rulings on this topic were fair. Religion is not banned in government buildings/parks, but it cannot be promoted there.

and abortion in a limited sense, actually I believe it should be left to the states as the Constitution mandates.

Which part of the Constitution mandates that? And bonus question, is there a later amendment that modifies that?

Which part of the Constitution mandates that? And bonus question, is there a later amendment that modifies that?

The 10th Amendment states

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As such the right to abortion is reserved to the States to decide as it in not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Which is why it was originally delegated to the states, however Roe V Wade has been allowed to stand based off of a wacky interpretation of "privacy".

I think the supreme court decision was wrong. But likewise there does become a point of validity, I just don't think the display being inside is properly considered promotion. Though I understand that at a point it could become that way. My justification for my thoughts is simple most of the commandments are laws. And I know an argument could be made for many other religious texts however
A) I wouldn't care if the Koran, or any other religious text that largely were law in the U.S. were posted (nor do I think anyone else would make a bigger stink than those claiming promotion because of the 10 commandments)
B) You could say that Public places are paid by the public and the public at large, is Christian at least in the U.S. so therefore it is only representative of the belief system popular with in society.
I would say promotion of religion has a better argument in court houses when it comes to swearing in on top the Bible. Although that has largely become a moot point because I think you can opt to do it on a book of laws and our first representative/senator (can't remember) swore in this past election on a Koran.

Which is why it was originally delegated to the states, however Roe V Wade has been allowed to stand based off of a wacky interpretation of "privacy".

It was based on SCOTUS's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which overrode a large part of the 10th according to cases in the past 70 years or so. In the 70 years or so after its ratification it wasn't read that way, but now it is.

I just don't think the display being inside is properly considered promotion.

SCOTUS agrees with you. If it were presented along with other religious texts, or other historical texts related to law, then it would not be considered promotion. Only when it's presented all alone by itself does it rise to the level of promotion, and that's what happened in that courthouse.

My justification for my thoughts is simple most of the commandments are laws.

Are you sure about that?

I am the Lord your God
You shall have no other gods before me
You shall not make for yourself an idol
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
Honor your Father and Mother
You shall not murder
You shall not commit adultery
You shall not steal
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
You shall not covet your neighbor's house
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife

I only see three: murder, theft, and perjury. The majority are strictly religious.

You're an Israeli citizen first, I was born in America grown up in America and currently am taking Political Science as a college major.

The beauty of having spent the first ten years of my life in a country that has no time for doublespeak or any other bull@!$%#, is that I can be both an Israeli citizen and an American resident. In fact, seeing as how I've also spent ten of my more formative years in America, and been denied citizenship because your skilled immigration employees don't know the difference between terrorists and the people who fight them, I know a lot more about the American dream and the lies its based on, than you could ever learn by taking Political Science as a college major (seeing as how I'm also one at a 'prestigious' American university).

So again, read diligently, and we might have some discourse. Because notice that I said that America won't come out and express its religious affiliation since it claims that it will not ESTABLISH a religion. You are contradicting yourself by calling this a Christian country:

Our country, is a Christian country, despite most of the framers being deists.

The 1st amendment and establishment clause only protects from the establishment of a religion which as ehad aham had pointed out Israel has done. But, the U.S. has not, and will not establish a nation religion.

Pick one and stick to it. And please don't use Israel as an example. If it weren't for intolerant people such as yourself, there would be no need for a national home for the Jews.

Pick one and stick to it. And please don't use Israel as an example. If it weren't for intolerant people such as yourself, there would be no need for a national home for the Jews.

The Government is not Christian, people are hardly a contradiction more of an observation.
I would hardly think that one could describe me as intolerant. I mean I've repeatedly said that if, in my opinion a real violation of the constitution or civil liberties was occurring I'd be with you to picket. (and listed examples of such situations as I feel suitable to protest, now)

I only see three: murder, theft, and perjury. The majority are strictly religious.

I guess I hadn't thought of it thoroughly enough and must concende most are not laws, but I think most people would agree even those that aren't are rather good moral principles regardless of religious affiliation.
I likewise feel that we ought to follow our founding documents...
See this to me is less of a religious battle, than a political one. The question isn't which is more right to think Atheism or Christianity. It's how much of each should be "promoted" in the public arena. I personally feel that...
Atheists cause more of a raucous than what is justified. And because of that they get a lot more strife and "discrimination". Christianity, should stay an element of our government so long as we do not establish it as a national religion. Which it hasn't been established, the constitution does warrant government recognizing religion, and it's place in the public arena is fluctuating as Judges and society interpret the constitution and laws.
I feel there has been in more recent years a severe push to promote an extremely progressive and in my opinion, wrong, interpretation of what Establishing really is.
Beyond that ---
I think at this point we're beating a dead horse, you aren't going to convince me, I'm not going to convince you. We've had some great dialect, particularly with you Brian, and I appreciate the conversation. I apologize if some of my comments came off as brash or offensive, but it is the nature of argument, and debate. So I apologize if you(anyone reading) took it too personal.
It's just a topic that politicians and judges will have to battle out, and us in Newsvine at least in the court of public opinion.
Sincerely,
The Whiz