Atheist view of the First Amendment

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Atheist view of the First Amendment”.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. We believe that citizens have a voice - one that should be heard above the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

7 thoughts on “Atheist view of the First Amendment

  1. Brian Evans

    Liz,
    Excellent article. Recently, the FFRF visited one of my hometown. It was great to see the good ole boys get out to voice their opinion on the subject.

    I recently did an article on this subject and found that the FFRF is practicing an FDR freedom known as “Freedom to Worship”.

    http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2013/02/us-constitution-transitioning-from-freedom-of-religion-to-freedom-to-worship

    In the 1970s, the Supreme Court the three-part Lemon Test:
    1) Does the law have a secular purpose?
    2) Is the primary effect either to advance religion or to inhibit religion?
    3) Does the law foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion?

    http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/FreedomOfExpression/FreedomOfReligion&EstCl.asp

    I recalled this from my research. I dislike the FFRF also.

  2. Brian Westley

    From Everson v. Board of Education:

    The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.”

    Laugh away, I have the courts on my side. Like I said, I deal with reality.

    1. Brian Evans

      Brian,
      The federal government is setting up state religions, one being Pantheism and others that worship Earth Gods. They are practicing some type of Pagan religions but we have a tendency to demonize Christianity.

  3. Jan Brown

    Atheist or Christian, We don’t always share the same opinion. However, one thing I can always be sure of you it that always deliver information from knowledge, sprinkled with a good amount of common sense. Thanks

  4. Brian Westley

    “But, the [first] amendment simply guarantees that the Federal government may not establish a state religion.”

    I can safely stop reading here, as it shows you do not know what you are talking about. You might want to read some actual court decisions concerning the first amendment, but only if you’re interested in dealing with reality.

    1. Liz Harrison (twitter: @GoldwaterGal) Post author

      Brian, I am aware of what you are referring to, and have a rather firm grasp on reality. In this case, the reality is that the courts have made regular practice of legislating from the bench. The problem is that in the attempt to completely secularize government, the result is creating a hyper-secular society that is getting dangerously close to infringing on the rights of deists to observe their own beliefs. Or are you suggesting that it would be better that the U.S. become like the Roman Empire, when Christians had to meet in hiding, and were often fed to lions for sport? Would it be better if people of faith had to observe their beliefs in private only?

      1. Jeremy Griffith

        Brian, please recommend for us some court cases that you’ve read so we can laugh at you, you twit. Great article Liz. Thank you.

Comments are closed.