Ten commandments in public? Fine and dandy. In government buildings? Hell no.

Prayer time in public schools? Call it a ‘silent period or meditation period’ and I’m fine with it. Promote it as prayer to ‘God’ though, and I’ll have to ask, WHICH god?

Christmas carols and/or festive displays in public? Why not?

Creationism in public schools? Over my dead body.

The pattern that I hope can be discerned here is the principle of separation church and state. If I’m religious about anything, it’s about this.

Second vagi- hell, I don’t even mind if a science teacher were to say “there are alternate views out there as well about the origin of man- primarily religious groups. If you want to know were your particular group (if any) falls, I suggest you ask your parents or a member of that organization”
It’s a valid method of showing “other views” while not giving them any credance- which in my opinion is an important distinction.

First, the ACLU doesn’t sue those tiny little towns on its own. It requires someone from the town (who has the necessary standing) to get pissed off enough to tell the ACLU that it will be the plaintiff in the case.

Second, it only makes liberals look bad to people that already think liberals look bad or to people that are so easily swayed that they will always be more easily convinced by the dark…er conservative side. Most people may have an opinion about this issue, but as Digby points out, they don’t really care about it.

Third, how do you stop the ACLU from taking these cases? They are standing up for principles and they don’t take cases that they don’t think are important. The only way would be to withdraw all support for the organization. I think that there are enough issues that they argue in Court that matter than I’m not willing to do that.

I’m with you two. Holiday displays are fine, as long as any religion is allowed to erect them, the word “God” on money and in the pledge isn’t worth fighting over, but creationism is somthing else. I don’t care how many americans believe creationism is as vaild as evolution (and I know it’s a pretty large number), there is to be no mixing of science and religion in public schools.

They are standing up for principles and they don’t take cases that they don’t think are important.

But that’s just it- they’re taking a lot of cases that just aren’t important.

They sued my hometown for letting a local church hang a banner advertizing a Christmas service on a town fire truck.

Sorry, but that’s anal retentive. If the town allowed one religion to display their banner on a firetruck, but banned another from doing so, that’d be one thing.

I think the ACLU does a lot of valuable work, don’t get me wrong, but stuff like this tends to really piss people off.

Some of us can’t run and hide from who we are and what we believe. Some of us feel like it would be morally wrong to allow public funds to be spent on maintaining crosses on public land. Some of us would rather stand firm against any affront rather than let each wave pass as unimportant until the whole issue is “not important”

The real issue here is that we feel like the wrong wingers wouldn’t be doing what they are, or wouldn’t have the support they do if the ACLU and others didn’t take a stand. Doesn’t that sound familiar to anyone besides me?

Do you really believe the wingnuts would be muted if some folks didn’t stand up for everyone’s rights? That they wouldn’t find something to bitch about without those issues? I don’t!

I am quite sure issues like Gay Marriage and the Pledge of Allegiance helped the wingers this time around. But I’ll be dead and damned if I’ll surrender simply because I may piss them off. And I damn sure will not hide like a coward. Give me liberty or give me death.

**Rant Warning**

Seperation of Church and State is differant than Absence of Religion in Public- if there is no implicit or explicit sign of government endorsement in a religious display on public land- and said display is not for the purpose of moralizing or sermonizing to the masses- and assuming the govenment is willing to offer a simliar service to any reasonable pentioners, then there is no reasonable argument to say that, say, a Santa Claus and Menorah in a town square during December constitutes a violation of the Constitution. That’s being anal, and people of faith have a fairly reasonable complaint when their symbols are removed because “one atheist or the like decided to take a shot at religion or decided to make a point” as O’Reilly would say. Certainly it is more complicated that falafel-boy would have us believe, but I would submit that most regular people (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, agnostic, whatever) would see absolutely nothing threatening about a fat parody of a Catholic saint entreating adults to ruin their credit threatening to the Republic.
A sign saying “Happy Christmas/Chanukah/New Year” is nothing but the government wishing it’s citizens (in this case, a large percentage of the populace) good will during their time of celebration- not saying “Celebrate Our Lord Jesus’ Birth!” which would imply the government believes Jesus of Nazareth is divine in any way.
A billboard saying “Jesus Saves” or “Praise the Lord/Allah/YWH/Vishnu/Budda/Our Ancestors/Mother Nature/Whatever” would certainly cross the line, and most reasonable people would agree.
Of course both extreme sides of the political continuum will find something to bitch about- for the extreme religious-right and for the extreme anti-religious-right left, this is it.
I don’t give a damn if there is a Crucifix, a Star of David, a Crescent Moon, a Pentagram and a blown up cover-photo of Atlas Shrugged sitting on public land with a US flag- everyone deserves the right to express themselves in a non-exclusive way in a neutral public forum. Leave a sign saying “Display of Religious Symbols on Government Property is Wrong!”- it’s a very appropriate protest, in my opinion.

I should add to that slightly incoherant rant that by “anti-religious-right Left” I don’t mean those of us who are against the agenda of the religious right (because, that would include all of us)- no, I refer to those who are against any display or religion in public.
Sorry for the wobbly wording, now, go about your business.

All very reasonable, but we’re forgetting that it doesn’t matter what we do, the Republicans will still portray us as being hostile to American culture, and still get away with it. Even if they have to just make shit up. Besides, is the ACLU going to look any better suing for the right to be included in pugblic religious displays for Wiccans, or Moslems, or Satanists, or NAMBLA?

Its all very fine if you believe the only issue at hand is an individuals right to self expression. Ignorance is after all bliss.

If you fail to defend your rights, you loose them to these guys. Anyone seriously doubt that is true?

Those who have championed the cause of religious freedom, freedom from religion, the separation of church and state, etc. are not telling you how to live, what to eat, or who to pray to. Go ahead and minimalize that fight. Believe its all unimportant bitching and moaning by some extremeists if you want to. But do so knowing full well what the battle is about. Don’t be like the Germans who were marched through the concentration camps at the end of the war; gaping in horror at what was allowed to happen. Don’t fail to understand what its all about. Don’t cede the battle before you’ve understood it.

in the late ’50s President Eisenhower signed into law the change of the Pledge of Allegiance that allowed the words “So help me God” to be added. It seems somewhat innocent as it no doubt did at the time. Perhaps it would have been deemed too unimportant to fight. But today it is used time and again along with “In God We Trust” as “proof” of our forefathers intent; proof that we are a “Christian” nation.

Failure to understand that even the little things can matter has lost many wars. And those who championed the cause of the little things were often made out to be on the fringe, not aware of whats important, and even extreme.

How many Northerners must have felt that operating the underground railroad was unimportant? How many thought a women’s right to vote was extreme? Perhaps if you haven’t done it yet, you should read Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason before you define what is extremist.

Freedom is in the details!

Do not preach religion in school: That’s what churches are for.Do not preach religion in government: That’s what churches are for.Do not preach government in churches: That’s what the public square is for.Personal expression of religious faith is okay in schools or public buildings, but should be allowed for all faiths. Note that personal expression != preaching, which is defined as “To advocate, especially to urge acceptance of or compliance with“.

A centered bulleted list? That’s f’ed up.

Besides, is the ACLU going to look any better suing for the right to be included in pugblic religious displays for Wiccans, or Moslems, or Satanists, or NAMBLA?

Probably- the RR won’t be complaining- in fact, even O’Reilly would probably attack persons who do object (Satanist and NAMBLA would immidietly be put down as “culturally damaging” to our children). Of course the RR will be complaining about something, even if they do have to make shit up (case in point, the Filibuster being unconstitutional- BS). However, lest we forget, these are utterances of extremists- not representitive of your average churchgoer and certainly not representitive of your average American. That’s not to say that those extremists who have entered our federal and state governments aren’t a threat to the constitution- they are- but this particular “battlefield” of yours is not worth the fighting. At best, a Pyrric victory- get your way of religion-free public space, but giving reasonable ammunition to your enemies saying “These evil Liberals are persecuting Christians!”. They’ll say it anyway, but in this case, they’ll have evidence to point to saying that you’re targeting Christians (since they represent the majority of the cases). At worst, there will be a backlash against the otherwise good work the ACLU does.
You’re being overzealous- commendable in your fervor for the constitution, but misguided in your application of that fervor.
You speak of “protecting everyone’s rights”, but you use the NRA logic of “protecting everyone’s rights” when (in this cast) a large if not overwhelming majority doesn’t want their “rights” protected. In effect, you’re saying you “know better” than everyone else, which comes off as very condecending to the general public, which only helps O’Reilly and the other slugs.
I’ve read my Paine- granted, it’s been a few years- and while he is important to understand, he is also not the end all of understanding of American government.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t fight the seperation of church and state fight- you’re just drawing the line too far forward in my opinion.

I don’t mind the Ten Commandments being posted in courthouses, as long as there is a prominent disclaimer on them stating they are NOT law, just a historical nod to an earlier belief system, kinda like the wooden Indian outside a cigar store.

I agree completely with your basic point that any public place they’re willing to allow a Festivus display should be allowed a Christian display. Likewise for prayers before sporting events etc.
Hey, haven’t I heard that “do unto others” idea before?

Did you guys even read Digby? He reports on a Federal court that ruled against a woman who wanted to offer an invocation at County Board meetings; she’s a Wiccan, and only monotheistic, “Judeo-Christian” religions were welcome. The judge noted approvingly that the County Supervisors were willing to include Islam.
So they’re not going to include Buddha, or Vishnu, or Festivus in their little displays. (And BTW, displays such as you’ve been describing — with Santa Claus, menorahs, etc. — are legal. If Bill O’Reilly tells you the ACLU is suing over them, he’s lying again.)
Make no mistake. These people want a theocracy. All you have to do is listen to them. If we give in on a couple of “unimportant” issues, they’ll find more. If we abandon the principle of church/state separation for short-term political advantage, we’re soon going to find it difficult to argue against future encroachments.

Did you guys even read Digby? He reports on a Federal court that ruled against a woman who wanted to offer an invocation at County Board meetings; she’s a Wiccan, and only monotheistic, “Judeo-Christian” religions were welcome. The judge noted approvingly that the County Supervisors were willing to include Islam.

So they’re not going to include Buddha, or Vishnu, or Festivus in their little displays. (And BTW, displays such as you’ve been describing — with Santa Claus, menorahs, etc. — are legal. If Bill O’Reilly tells you the ACLU is suing over them, he’s lying again.)

And that is wrong, and should be addressed properly, since the denial of such services whilst allowing others does constitute a violation of those persons constitutional rights.
Further, however, it’s all “legal” to display if a town so chooses- it’s not as if it’s written in law that “only monotheistic religions may display stuff on public land”- that would be shot down in a nanosecond, even by Scalia or Thomas.
Listen- Digby was right- those of you fighting over the principle aren’t going to stop. That’s good, because you’re keeping the rest of us honest and aware- just don’t convince yourselves that you’re part of an oppressed majority… that’s how we got the ultra-Right Religi-nuts.

No, we are certainly in the minority. Can’t you tell?

Defenders of the wall of separation are like the NRA? Lets see, one side says automatic weapons are for sport while the other demands the Lemon test be applied to the pledge. One side says “you can have my gun when you can pry it from my cold dead hands” while the other says… well I can’t think of a comparison with that.

I know I have expressed the full measure of my devotion to the seperation issue in a very forcefull manner. But what I am really saying here is that once again the left is running away instead of standing tall. What is this, the third time since November that a similar issue has come up to shine lights on the shrinking violets?

Yes I am saying that some of us are defending everyone’s rights. If you take that to mean that you aren’t smart enough, then you probably ought to take care of that inferiority complex. I fully understand that the religious do not see each of these issues as important; more specifically they see them as various levels of dangerous. I understand your perspective may blind you to my point of view, but to suggest that the public in general sees us as preaching to them is pointless. What does the religious right do every day.

Yes religious displays at the courthouse don’t immediately threaten you, even if you consider yourself an atheist. The wingnuts are depending on that.

I’m not “blind” to your point of view- I see it rather clearly since it is perhaps the most immidiete thought one has when trying to determine how to keep church and state seperate- ban any and all forms of religious expression from mention in government and on government domain. And like the NRA, that view is a very literal interpretation of a unfortunately brief portion of our Constitution (Arms = Anything; Seperation = Total Absence).
We have to take a more nuanced position on this topic (yes, I realize how well nuance worked for Kerry…).
The radical religious right is not the primary threat to the American people- that would be it’s ally, the radical corperate right. It has the advantage in funding, numbers and overall reach into government (which isn’t to say Radical Religious Republicans aren’t overrepresented statistically in government, they are- but see Digbly’s post for some numbers on their actual reach).
If the Democrats are going to effectively do to the Republicans what Blair did to the Tories in Britian (before he stupidly hopped on the Iraq bandwagon), it has to be on the economic from in combination with portraying the more extreme facets of the religious agenda (abortion and gays) as absurdly extreme, which they are- as well show the American people that Democrats are not going to sell their safety (don’t know how we’re going to manage that one- the Repubs have the public convinced of their superiority in the issue).
The GOP has gotten really good at staying “on-message” and exploiting some of our shortcomings and our fumbles, whereas we waste our time talking about the word “God” in the Pledge and a Nativity scene.
You shouldn’t fight your battles on ground of your enemies’ choosing (which this clearly is)-
Bypass a heavily entrenched enemy strongpoint, and go for the kill on their weak issues. Clinton effectivly did that with Bush I in 1992, and Bushes’ cronies did it against Kerry last year.

Yes religious displays at the courthouse don’t immediately threaten you, even if you consider yourself an atheist. The wingnuts are depending on that.
I don’t- I’m Catholic (albeit a non-practicing-out-of-protest one)- and the wingnuts are more likely counting on us making asses of ourselves arguing a point that they cannot lose on in the public eye.

Gee, this is fun and all but what does it have to do with the fact that Rush Limbaugh has man-boobs? Anyone? Anyone?

This descent into serious discussion has led us off the general topic, i.e. relentless, remorseless ridicule of wingnuts and Wingnutia.

Thank You.

Tell these assholes repeatedly that if they don’t pray in our schools, we won’t think in their churches. They love that.

When they want to put up the 10 Commandments in courthouses, ask them “which 10?” There’s like 3 or 4 different versions kicking around. Judge Moore favours the Protestant KJV version, but to be fair, you have to include the Catholic version, the Jewish version, and the only actual commandments, the ones listed at Exodus 34: all us Gentiles better stop mixing meat and cheese!