US Supreme Court v. the First Amendment


Religious Freedom

From Wikipedia:

“The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights.”

Give it second reading, it’s not at all confusing!

From CNN: Two local women brought suit against Greece, New York, officials, objecting that the monthly public sessions on government open with invocations they say have been overwhelmingly Christian in nature over the years.

With this amendment in mind, the rationale for the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case brought by extremist Atheists against the small town of Greece, New York is far from clear. In fact it’s obviously frivolous nonsense; the court should have seen that and turned down the case for just that reason.

Read the damn amendment again if you must! If anyone is interfering with the free choice of religion it is the Atheists interfering with the religious choices of the town officials and those in the town who have no problems with prayer. Incidentally they are also attempting to interfere with the rights of the citizens of Greece to “peaceably assemble.”

So why did the Supreme Court, or any court in the country, choose to hear this First Amendment case and render an opinion on the obvious non-Constitutional issue of a government body allowing prayer to begin their meeting? The only rationale I can think of for accepting this case is that the Justices have their own closely held prejudices and opinions and haveĀ  covert urges to MAKE law rather than interpreting existing law.

Seriously, is there anyone in Washington suited to do their job??

For sure there are many areas of the Constitution that are “grey areas” and need to be interpreted but the First Amendment is not one of them.

I’m a life long atheist but I’m not one of THOSE atheists who assumes they have all the rights and those who hold different views have none.


The Annual Christmas Brawl


An article published Wednesday titled: Bill O’Reilly tells David Silverman: Christianity is not a religion is kind of a centerpiece for the annual Christian/Atheist media cage match.

As usual, there are atheists screaming that by making Christmas a National Holiday the government is “establishing” Christianity as our National Religion. The First Amendment to our Constitution expressly prohibits “the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion” but there is a great and continuing debate over the exact meaning of that particular phrase.

If it means, as the atheists claim, that the United States is prohibited from adopting an existing religion as a de facto national religion, the atheists are right. Hasn’t Christianity become our, at least unofficial, National Religion?

If, however, that phrase in the First Amendment is taken literally, i.e., the United States Congress cannot draft and pass a law that makes Christianity (or any other religion) the official religion of the United States, the atheists are wrong. There has been is no such law passed by Congress.

According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 78.4% of all adults in the United States claim Christianity as their basic faith. I’d say that’s a majority and in a Democracy, the majority rules. No, that’s not just a trite phrase, in the United States that phrase means something — it is the basis of our entire election system. So if the Pew Forum results are accurate, one would have to assume that a national election on the question “If we adopt a National Religion which religion should be our National Religion”; it’s pretty certain that Christianity would win. Something like that is, of course, what the atheists may ultimately fear but it’s safe to say it will never happen.

That said, the atheists should not worry about national holidays and start concerning themselves with the influence of religion on the United States Congress. There are continuing pressures by Congress to ban abortion and gay marriage. These pressures are not brought about by Constitutional issues, they are clearly initiated by Senators and Representatives who are misusing their powers by allowing their own religious beliefs to interfere with their sworn oaths to “support the Constitution of the United States.” The Constitution does not suggest discrimination against same-gender marriages nor does allow the government to interfere with a doctor/patient decision to abort. Those are both religious prohibitions, so while the majority may not be protesting against the Christmas Holiday it certainly should be protesting Congressional Misfeasance; and the American Atheists, or a similar group, should be leading that charge.

Back to Bill O’Reilly

During his latest debate with David Silverman, the president of American Atheists, Bill O’Reilly made the incredible statement (incredible for a person who flaunts his Christian faith and believes in the power of words) that “Christianity is not a religion but merely a philosophy.” The ‘word-meister’ O’Reilly apparently made a misstatement and he will either admit that and correct it on his TV show or he will discredit himself further by arguing that he was right.

Every dictionary definition of Christianity, including the the Catholic Encyclopedia, defines Christianity as a religion, i.e., “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies.”