# Another Example of Atheists Destroying Christian's Rights **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 30, 2012, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-example-of-atheists-destroying-christians-rights/623555 "2012-05-30T16:52:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-example-of-atheists-destroying-christians-rights/623555/61 "2012-05-30T19:31:23Z")
> [@XT](#): > > You seriously think that the intention was for the Amendments to only apply at the Federal level, and that states could just ignore them? I realize that in practice this was done to the Second, bit you think that was the intent for all of them?? > > -XT Quite a few states actually had established religions well into the 19th century-- at least the early part. And check out this from the original MA state constitution. Emphasis added: > [@MA Constitution](#): > > Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship. [See Amendments, Arts. XLVI and XLVIII.] > > Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily. > > And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend. > > Provided, notwithstanding, that the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, shall, at all times, have the exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance. > > And all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship, and of the public teachers aforesaid, shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; otherwise it may be paid towards the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said moneys are raised. > > Any every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.] [Art. XI of the Amendments substituted for this]. ---
**Author:** ![GEEPERS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c89c15/32.png) [@GEEPERS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GEEPERS)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-example-of-atheists-destroying-christians-rights/623555/62 "2012-05-30T19:32:42Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > 1. That’s a public school, supported by taxes. I have **every right** to tear down that banner. > > 2. At one time, slavery was a basic belief of American culture. We grew out of it, just like we’ll eventually grow out of theism. Oh but it’s quite ok for my taxes to go and support a school that offers no moral creed and teaches atheistic ideology that God does not exist? So is the president being unconstitutional or not? ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-example-of-atheists-destroying-christians-rights/623555/63 "2012-05-30T19:33:09Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Oh great pantheon of Gods and Goddesses who watch over us. > Grant us each day the desire to do our best. > To grow mentally and morally as well as physically. > To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers. > To be honest with ourselves as well as with others. > Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win. > Teach us the value of true friendship. > Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West. > > Nothing wrong with that, right, Geepers? Now for a resounding chorus of [Old Time Religion](http://www.peteseeger.net/Oldtimereligon.htm) … 😃 i get glared at for singing Pete Seeger’s version instead of the normal one. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-example-of-atheists-destroying-christians-rights/623555/64 "2012-05-30T19:33:20Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > A banner is not the same thing as forcing a student to practice Christianity. So do you agree that the banner is overtly Christian? > [@GEEPERS](#): > > Oh but it’s quite ok for my taxes to go and support a school that offers no moral creed and teaches atheistic ideology that God does not exist? This is completely silly. If the banner is taken down, the school does not suddenly start teaching an atheist ideology (whatever that means) or saying that God does not exist. It just doesn’t have the “heavenly father” banner hanging anymore. I am not sure any school “offers a moral creed,” but are you suggesting that every school that doesn’t have this kind of banner is atheistic and amoral?They could put up a banner with the exact same wording except for the beginning and the end and nobody would object. And unless you live in Rhode Island, your taxes do not support the school. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-example-of-atheists-destroying-christians-rights/623555/65 "2012-05-30T19:34:30Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Who’s Steve Engel? He was the main lawyer in the case Engel vs. Vitali, the case which made school prayer in school illegal. Heh… this topic has me feeling rather sad right now actually. Great guy, loved Django Reinhardt’s music. Blargh. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-example-of-atheists-destroying-christians-rights/623555/66 "2012-05-30T19:34:58Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Oh but it’s quite ok for my taxes to go and support a school that offers no moral creed and teaches atheistic ideology that God does not exist? No, schools cannot teach that God doesn’t exist. Public schools must be silent on the subject. Do you have a cite that public schools anywhere in the US teach that God does not exist? > [@](#): > > So is the president being unconstitutional or not? Of course not. He’s expressing a personal belief. But even he can’t hang a banner in a public school such as the one described in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-example-of-atheists-destroying-christians-rights/623555/67 "2012-05-30T19:37:58Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Oh but it’s quite ok for my taxes to go and support a school that offers no moral creed and teaches atheistic ideology that God does not exist? Cite for a school that teaches this, please? ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-example-of-atheists-destroying-christians-rights/623555/68 "2012-05-30T19:39:43Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > /hijack: > > Does Islam refer to Allah in this way too? Allah has 100 names. The 100th is unknown to man. The list is here [Names of God in Islam - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Islam) None of them are “heavenly father”. That might be the 100th name though. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-example-of-atheists-destroying-christians-rights/623555/69 "2012-05-30T19:43:07Z")
I ran into something that may be considered simular to the OP’s issue, and a lot goes to intent given and intent as taken. I was asked to say a blessing for a event, something I have been asked several times. I have ended the blessing every time by saying ‘in Jesus name - Amen’. One time I was approached by someone who asked me if I could not use the name of Jesus. He didn’t ask directly but through a 3rd person. He took my intent as promoting a religion that he was not part of. However that was not my intent. I have not had the opportunity to talk with him directly on this, but because of the opportunity afforded to me in the blessing, was able to explain what I was doing and my intent to the group. My belief is that yes, by request, a supernatural blessing can be imparted to the meal and have real positive effects on people’s lives. My intent was to better people’s lives through the blessing through the best way I knew how. And the way I knew how personally that can most effectively have that blessing come true is to pray in the way I feel lead to pray, which in this case is in the Name of Jesus. So not praying in the name of Jesus would be doing less then my best and would probably result in less blessings because I did what I knew was less effective. So it brings us to the reason and intent behind the school saying. If the intent was to impart a blessing to the best of their ability, by invoking their highest power they knew, that is not promoting religion as the intent - it is offering the best blessing they know how - they are wishing you the best - and that should be allowed but understood in context. But without context it can be easily taken as promoting a religion or it’s meaning can also be perverted to do that, so can be offensively taken by some. ---
**Author:** ![GEEPERS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c89c15/32.png) [@GEEPERS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GEEPERS)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-example-of-atheists-destroying-christians-rights/623555/70 "2012-05-30T19:45:31Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Sorry, there is no such thing as “Christian rights”. Although, as is your pattern, you’re now acting as if religious rights in America are somehow exclusively referencing Christianity. And, of course, you do not have the right to have a public school preach your religious views as it’s a violation of the 1st amendment. > > The claim that it doesn’t promote a specific religion is bullshit. There’s only one faith on the planet that refers to “our heavenly father.” Your inability to accurately describe the issue does not speak well for your argument. Nor has anybody been forbidden from expressing anything, despite your bombast. You can express anything you want on private property or on public property under the correct circumstances. That you don’t understand the difference between a government representative (like a school) posting an official banner and two people talking in public shows that you have no place in an informed discussion of the 1st amendment. > > Likewise, of course atheists are for freedom of religion. Freedom of religion, of course, entails freedom from religion. However, as many fundamentalist Christians pretend that being unable to force their beliefs on others is somehow _them_ being persecuted, it’s hard to drive that point home to some of the populace. Funny how the atheist view of the 1st admendment always slates in favor of the vocal minority of atheists instead of looking at the facts objectively. A banner in school does not equate to establishing an official religion. “Heavenly father” is ambigious and can apply to any faith that believes in a deity. And yes, Christians are really tired of traditions being destroyed because a single atheist makes a big stink about it. What’s next? Are you going to fuss because Arlington National Cementary has crosses on the tombstones? Are you going to demand that the US Marines get rid of article VI from their code of conduct? After all, it doesn’t support the atheist belief that there are no God/gods. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-example-of-atheists-destroying-christians-rights/623555/71 "2012-05-30T19:51:02Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Allah has 100 names. The 100th is unknown to man. The list is here [Names of God in Islam - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Islam) > > None of them are “heavenly father”. That might be the 100th name though. I thought the 100th name was Al-Lan-Smithee. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-example-of-atheists-destroying-christians-rights/623555/72 "2012-05-30T19:53:25Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > “Heavenly father” is ambigious and can apply to any faith that believes in a deity. I’m trying to imagine a Hindu student calling the goddess Lakshmi “heavenly father,” but my imagination is failing me. The phrase is used only by Christians and is not ambiguous at all. > [@](#): > > And yes, Christians are really tired of traditions being destroyed because a single atheist makes a big stink about it. Atheists are probably tired of having to keep silent about their views lest they be accused of things like destroying tradition or “destroying Christian rights” (a concept I am sure you will explain eventually). ---
**Author:** ![dngnb8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@dngnb8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dngnb8)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-example-of-atheists-destroying-christians-rights/623555/73 "2012-05-30T19:56:45Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > First, the banner doesn’t even promote a specific religion. If the student is Atheist, then it doesnt have to be specific. It is a prayer. Atheism doesnt target “a” religion. > [@](#): > > It is a simple creed for all students to follow regardless of their spiritual beliefs. In prayer form. Religion is taught in Sunday School, not Public School > [@](#): > > Yet, the rights of believers to express themselves has been overrun by a single atheist. This was Government Dollars supporting a prayer in school. Obtuse much? > [@](#): > > Exactly how is that right, and what is so wrong with this message? It is a solid simple message, giving a young mind the right kind of attitude to approach life. The message is good, the delivery was in prayer and violated the law. > [@](#): > > Atheists are not for freedom of religion which is clearly established in the 1st amendment. Youre grossly incorrect > [@](#): > > They want freedom from religion. This is true. They want their children to be allowed to go to schools that dont promote prayers. It is their right. > [@](#): > > Scrub away all messages or displays of religiosity. Today it is a banner. Tomorrow, it will be a law prohiting a Christian to speak on spiritual matters if they happen to be standing on government property. Incorrect. 1st Amendment prevents the Government from interfering in Freedom of Speech. Strawman much? > [@](#): > > The slippery slope has begun ,and eventually Christians will have to go back to the ancient days of hiding in secret in order to worship, a complete opposition to the original intent of the Establishment Clause. More strawman. Nobody is preventing worship. They are preventing it being taught in “Public School” > [@](#): > > The fact that this student is being rewarded for destroying a moral message to students is disgusting. The fact is youre avoiding the true content of her actions to distribute Hate Speak towards Atheists. Had the same banner read Help us each day to desire to do our best. To grow mentally and morally as well as physically. To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers. To be honest with ourselves as well as with others. Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win. Teach us the value of true friendship. Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West. There would have been no problem. Forgive my judgment Father… ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-example-of-atheists-destroying-christians-rights/623555/74 "2012-05-30T19:58:00Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Funny how the atheist view of the 1st admendment always slates in favor of the vocal minority of atheists instead of looking at the facts objectively. A banner in school does not equate to establishing an official religion. “Heavenly father” is ambigious and can apply to any faith that believes in a deity. > > And yes, Christians are really tired of traditions being destroyed because a single atheist makes a big stink about it. What’s next? Are you going to fuss because Arlington National Cementary has crosses on the tombstones? Are you going to demand that the US Marines get rid of article VI from their code of conduct? After all, it doesn’t support the atheist belief that there are no God/gods. Um, not all of the graves at Arlington have crosses. You know we’ve had Jewish, Muslim and _GASP_ even atheist soldiers as well as others. Why, just look at all the available flavors to choose from for your tombstone: > **[United States Department of Veterans Affairs emblems for headstones and markers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs_emblems_for_headstones_and_markers)** > > The United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) maintains many cemeteries specifically devoted to veterans. Most have various rules regarding what must take place in order to be interred there. > The VA only permits graphics on government-furnished headstones or markers that are approved emblems of belief, the Civil War Union Shield (including those who served in the U.S. military through the Spanish–American War), the Civil War Confederate Southern Cross of Honor, and the Medal of Honor ins... ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-example-of-atheists-destroying-christians-rights/623555/75 "2012-05-30T19:58:05Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > First, the banner doesn’t even promote a specific religion. Make up your mind. If the banner doesn’t promote a specific religion, taking it down can’t be aimed at Christians, can it ? > [@](#): > > Atheists are not for freedom of religion which is clearly established in the 1st amendment. They want freedom from religion. The two are not antithetical. ---
**Author:** ![dngnb8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@dngnb8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dngnb8)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-example-of-atheists-destroying-christians-rights/623555/76 "2012-05-30T19:59:56Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Um, not all of the graves at Arlington have crosses. You know we’ve had Jewish, Muslim and _GASP_ even atheist soldiers as well as others. > > Why, just look at all the available flavors to choose from for your tombstone: > > [United States Department of Veterans Affairs emblems for headstones and markers - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs_emblems_for_headstones_and_markers) There are also Wiccan represented ---
**Author:** ![LawMonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d6d6ee/32.png) [@LawMonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LawMonkey)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-example-of-atheists-destroying-christians-rights/623555/77 "2012-05-30T20:01:40Z")
> [@XT](#): > > You seriously think that the intention was for the Amendments to only apply at the Federal level, and that states could just ignore them? I realize that in practice this was done to the Second, bit you think that was the intent for all of them?? > > -XT Well, actually… there’s kind of a fair bit of evidence that that’s exactly what the intention was, and it was definitely the majority interpretation for a long time. The concern, at the time the Amendments were passed, was that the federal government was being given too much power by the new Constitution; the states were seen as being closer to sovereigns, and the expectation, roughly, is that their own citizens would keep them in line to the extent they so desired. “Incoporation” of the Bill of Rights against the states was a gradual process that happened in the courts, by means of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. (Whether it makes any sense to incorporate the Bill of Rights through the due process clause is a Great Debate for another thread; I’m explaining how it actually has went down so far.) Bugger. I see that I’m not the first to get to this, but I’ve written it and feel that I’ve added a bit, so I’m leaving it. Note that I’m quite happy with the fact that the Bill of Rights has been incorporated against the states, even if I would argue that privileges and immunities makes a lot more sense than due process as the way to get there. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-example-of-atheists-destroying-christians-rights/623555/78 "2012-05-30T20:09:34Z")
> [@XT](#): > > You seriously think that the intention was for the Amendments to only apply at the Federal level, and that states could just ignore them? I realize that in practice this was done to the Second, bit you think that was the intent for all of them?? Broadly I agree with what **mlees** and **John Mace** posted. Or in other words, yes, I do. I’ve never seen any indication that the framers of the Constitution expected the First Amendment to interfere with the practice of state government working together with religion. I’ve certainly never seen any indication that they would want government buildings stripped of religious symbols or people censored when they try to pray at public events at _any_ level of government. Throughout most of American history, government employees practiced religion freely, public schools taught the Bible and held prayers, and government property contianed religious symbols, and the federal government did not intervene. As far as I know, the notion that the federal government had to censor all of these things was made up my judges fairly recently. ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-example-of-atheists-destroying-christians-rights/623555/79 "2012-05-30T20:12:19Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Wouldn’t bother me one bit. As a free thinking human, I would simply exercise my right not to agree with the first statement. I certainly don’t get in a tinsy if I hear a Muslim praying in public. The 1st amendment gives us the right to express our beliefs in public. You have the right to disagree. You don’t have the right to tear down my banner. A banner is not the same thing as forcing a student to practice Christianity. > > Face it, basic belief in a deity is part of American culture and heritage. Our president will say “God bless America”. Are you going to claim he is being unconstitutional and wrong? How would you feel about a big banner in a school that said: “There is no god, we are all on our own, so figure out how to get along with each other without pretending there is an invisible man in the sky!” Would that banner bother you? Would you think it was an appropriate message for a public school to display? If it was taken down would that be “destroying atheists’ rights?” Why, or why not? ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-example-of-atheists-destroying-christians-rights/623555/80 "2012-05-30T20:14:02Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Allah has 100 names. The 100th is unknown to man. The list is here [Names of God in Islam - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Islam) Thanks! > [@](#): > > None of them are “heavenly father”. That might be the 100th name though. Although, if “heavenly” means purity and holy, name number four covers “heavenly”. Name number 60 (The Giver of Life) could be a stand in for “father”. But there is no name that combines the two. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-example-of-atheists-destroying-christians-rights/623555.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-example-of-atheists-destroying-christians-rights/623555.md?page=5)