Rights for religious are for nonreligious, too

0

Government in America must be neutral among religions and neutral between religion and non-religion – at least that’s how the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.


But escalating conflicts involving government treatment of the nonreligious – atheists and humanists – reveal that far too many government officials are confused and conflicted about the meaning of “neutrality.”

In this month alone, an atheist monument stirred controversy in Florida, an atheist applicant for citizenship was instructed to join a church, and a congressional committee nixed atheist chaplains.

Let’s start with the first-ever atheist monument, a 1,500-pound bench erected alongside a Ten Commandments monument in front of the Bradford County Courthouse in Starke, Fla.

After a local Christian group installed the Ten Commandments monument last year, American Atheists sued to have it removed.

When county officials refused, the atheist group decided to put up a counter-monument featuring quotations from various American founders about church-state separation and passages from the Bible describing punishments for violating the Ten Commandments.

Written By: Charles C. Haynes
continue to source article at columbiadailyherald.com

NO COMMENTS

  1. Believers are unjust.Not surprising at all.Catalogue the atrocities of the old testament god who is outdone by the new testament god(eternal burning) .That’s what you get,when you look to the good book (not A.C. Grayling’s) for advice onhow to live the good life.

  2. Freedom of religion, means freedom from having someone else’s religion forced down your neck!

    It’ just that when looked at through theist blinkers, the reinterpretation-dissonance comes up with an ego-centric version with a one way filter!
    (Yes WE are entitled to be free of other people’s religions, but surely it can’t also mean OUR “SUPERIOR” ONE, which exalts proselytising as a moral objective!)

Leave a Reply