I agree.

Congress is prohibited from making law that establishes religion......and it seems from looking at the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case followed in 1962 by Engel v. Vitale which took prayer out of public school---- that would include atheism or secular humanism. Excluding theism, I would guess, is something the Founders didn't intend as a result.

While Protestantism was the prevailing religion at the time of the Founders, the Court makes plain that students today have to conform to the prevailing religion......as we have seen, in some classrooms, it's Islam, in others, it's the Green religion and in others, it's Secular or atheistic Humanism.

a. congress is prohibited from making law establishing religion.  as determined by the us supreme court in everson v board of education 1947:

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.

b. this was the basis for torcaso v watkins (a very strange case for you to be citing since it has nothing whatsoever to do with prayer in school, but rather requiring a affirmation of belief in god as a requirement of public office--something expressly forbidden by the us consitution). 

c. citing engel v vitale in this argument makes even less sense--especially by characterizing it as "took prayer out of public school"--since the prayer at issue there was an actual official prayer established for the purpose of recitation in a public school.

d. you're right as far as scope in that the court ruled as unconstitutional law forcing one to profess "a belief or disbelief" in religion.

shoulda stopped there but...

you reveal your own bias or naivete by your continual insistence upon forcing professions of disbelief on non-believers.  there is no green religion per se (other than in your imagination) nor is there any organization similar to any religion in existence today one could reasonably define as secular or atheistic humanism. 

your determination to force others to believe as you seemingly blinds you to comprehending the difference between science and religion as well as that between philosophy and religion.

if you have yet to discover dawkin's london bus campaign, you're in for a pleasant surprise.  the slogan used begins "there's probably no god" which is, i'm fairly sure, ambigous enough to satisfy most non-believers and more than it should take for any reasonable thinking objective person to agree, when it comes to a religion of non-belief, there's no there there.

isn't guessing what the founders intended or didn't intend exactly what you accuse the court of doing?

Not really. In a nutshell, I accuse the Supreme Court of going from protecting religion (Christianity) to persecuting it to the point that it's destructive impact can be seen in the culture of American life. 

Lula posts:

kingbee posts:

Ideas become worldviews become ideologies become philosophical tenets of religions.

As for an organization, google the Humanist Manifestos and read about religious Humanism and religious Humanists who state Humanism as being a vital religion, a necessity. 

The Humanists themselves agree that the Torcaso v. Watkins decision made a religion out of Secular Humanism. There are many attorneys who agree with the late, great Senator Jesse Helms who said when the US Supreme Court prohibited children from participating in voluntatary prayer in public schools, the conclusion was inescapable, that the US Supreme Court had not only violated the right of free expression of religion for all AMericans, it also established a national religion, the religion of Secular Humanism. Secular and Atheistic Humanism dethrones God and enshrines man as the centerpiece of life...and through it, although most don't realize it, taxpayers are paying for their own destruction.

Radical environmentalism, believing plants and animals are of equal value to humans with equal rights, praying to and worshipping the earth, are part and parcel of the global Green religion propaganda that's been being put out by the UN and its various agencies for years.  

Then you will be glad to know that I am also opposed to schools teaching "religious humanism" to my kids.

manifesto, shamwowifesto.  if i were to issue the kingbee roman catholic manifesto, would that in any way reflect upon you as a roman catholic?   non-belief requires no rituals, no authority, no organization, no meetingplaces or meetings nor any explanatory legend or mythology.  

was the 'he-men woman hater's club' a real organization because it existed onscreen and spanky called meetings to order?

really?  those justices on the court who heard and ruled on that case neither intended nor, in fact, did anything of the sort.

innaresting choice of heroes for someone claiming to be pro-life considering helm's unrelenting efforts to force american tobacco into the hands of kids throughout asia much less his decades-long insistence on devaluing the lives of those he considered racial inferiors.

From what I have read the man is a disgusting pig by any standards.

His politics managed to draw racist voters from the Democrats to the Republicans and he opposed civil rights legislation and other traditional Republican positions. He started his career as a Democrat, of course.

His sole redeeming feature is that he helped save Ronald Reagan's career so he could become President.

And the tobacco issue is, as Kingbee points out, quite interesting. Being pro-life officially and promoting death so openly must be the height of hypcrisy.

From kingbee -

I agree with your interpretation except for the highlighted part - I don't believe Article I prohibits 'aiding' all religions.  The courts may disagree with me, as they are wont to do, but the plain language simply doesn't say that.

Jesse Helms was indeed one of the greatest Senators the US will ever have. True to conservatism and pro-life and pro-family principles, he left the Democrat Party when they became an arm of the "Culture of Death".

He helped Reagan by simply being a true conservative and promoting conservatism as reflected in the Republican platform. He proved himself a good guy by his leadership at home and abroad. A pro-famiily movement began.

Helms stood up for the Boy Scouts who have always had a policy against homosexuality and for good reason....namely, homosexuals are known to bugger young boys.  Back in 2000 or 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts may exclude homosexual members and leaders. This angered some homosexual sympathzing educrats and they took it upon themselves to deny Boy Scouts equal access to meeting facilities...Helms had the good sense and principles to pass measures that stopped that.

During the Reagan years, Helms was the Senate leader in supporting our anti-Communist allies in other countries. And it paid off, the wall did come a tumbling down, didn't it? That's when the phrase, of having military superiority "second to none," became popular. Instead of a foreign policy of appeasement, retreat and detente, he promised "a realistic assessment of the Communist challenge" and criticised unilateral concessions to the Soviet Union.

I understand it as Kingbee does. In other words, the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religions...Favoritism of non-religion over religion constitutes a violation of the First Amendment establishment clause.  Cases have shown that courts require the state to be neutral in its relations with religions and believers and non-believers.

Unfortunately, (and unConstitutionally) that's exactly what is happening.....The prevailing forces are favoring Secular and Atheistic Humanism over Christianity in public schools. Take for example, the fact that some states are mandating, teaching  and encouraging  a sexually permissive sex instruction ideology in grades K through 12 over Christian views of human sexuality.

I argued before school boards and districts that seminars, subjecting children to watching videos and engaging in activities (of giving out condoms and artifical birth control contraceptives and devices demonstrate hostility to Christian principles of chastity.

It's very clear in this case there was no neutrality nor even a pretense of it.....non-religion was being endorsed and encouraged over Christianity.   

I disagree, lula - Article I says nothing about 'non-religion.'  'Everything not Christian' does not constitute a 'religion' in any conceivable sense of the word.  As long as Christians perceive 'everything not Christian' about secular life as being 'forced' on them, a totally artificial construct, there can be no resolution on this issue.

let's be honest.  helms left the democratic party when it became clear it was the party advocating racial equality.

there are times i wish i could believe there was a hell because helms would surely be there right now.

apparently you're choosing to overlook helms' efforts on behalf of the culture of death by lung cancer.

Helms came from North Carolina, a tobacco producing state....so he lobbied for the tobacco industry...and during this time in Congress, smoking was legal wasn't it?   Sorry I don't fault him for that. Smoking is a free choice and he didn't force anyone to smoke that I know of.

Yes, let's compare encouraging smoking to encouraging homosexuality or promiscuous sex.

 According to medical warnings, a single sex act can expose a person to a deadly virus that will dismantle the body's immune system and cause death. Smoking a single cigarette won't kill a person....so in this regard, I think Helms was on to something when he railed against the sexual deviance of homosexuality.

Funny when it comes to protecting children from harmful things, how some Congressmen and society has changed...smoking is fiercely opposed, while oh my goodness, sexual activity of any kind is encouraged in sex ed classrooms across America. So while some Congressmen pass law against smoking and adults teach our youth that smoking is bad, they teach them that sexual deviance is good. "Don't knock it till you've tried it" is the mantra.

At taxpayer's expense, SIECUS sex educators encourage sexual experimentation at an age that would cause tobacco execs to faint. And remember the filter tipped cigarettes that we know now gave a false sense of security....well, the same thing with condoms...they have a failure rate of 15% and pregnancy occur and a rate of 30% failure rate where viruses like AIDS, herpes, etc. can pass right through.  

Meanwhile check it out, boatloads of condoms are being shipped out to third world countries.

I liked Jesse Helms. I didn't say he was perfect, just a great Congressman.

helms forced japan to permit american cigarette manufacturers to distibute their deadly merchandise in that country.  he attempted to do the same thing in thailand and where he partially succeeded by paving the way for american tobacco companies to distribute masses of promotional products intended for use by children in order to create another generation of addicts.

you can provide evidence of any american senator having said that to anyone--even unofficially? 

how about when he railed against integration or about the supposed inferiority of 30% of the population of the state he was supposed to be representing rather than repressing?  he shoulda been impeached.

No. He left the Democratic party when the party of slavery reformed and abandoned (at least some of) the positions it had helt for too long.

He is scum.

Really? One Congressman had that much power? Shame on Japan.

Interesting....you are so concerned about children's bodily health concerning tobacco, are you just as outraged over encouragement of sexual expression? I note that those trying to stamp out smoking cigarettes usually disapporve of sexual abstinence. How about all the sex trafficing of children?

Helms may have promoted tobacco compamies abroad, but how morally depraved is it for us to ship boatloads of condoms and birth control overseas to places like Thailand probably the #1 place of the sex trafficing of children?

Helms may have promoted tobacco companies at home, but he sure never promoted sexologists pushing the sexual revolution in schools  to our youth....the point to grasp is that children are viewed as prey. In schools across our land children are recruited into homosexuality.  

Good point. He could be a supporter of sex crimes! That should shut him up.

Three unrelated subjects: sex education, homosexuality, sex crimes. What the heck is your point? Are you trying to connect the three so that your opposition to the first two looks rational?

In Ireland Catholic priests were the top sex criminals, not closely followed by homosexuals and sex educators.

One of Kingbee's beefs with Jesse Helms is that he supposedly pushed tobacco on kids.....I related smoking to the evil of sex ed and homosexuality in #590.

Helms has gone to his final rest, hopefully in peace,  and the politically correct crowd has seen to it that smoking is now viewed with moral disapproval....so that is really all a moot point, but where is the moral indignation over the sexual abuse that the union of sex ed and Planned Parenthood are doing to our youth in schools?  

I knew before this was over someone would bring up the clerical sex abuse scandals that were publically exposed in 2000. The reports, the studies, the facts are in and they all reveal that a very, very high percentage of priests who sexually abused boys are indeed homosexuals. Across the board, homosexuality is the root problem.

'Magine that.  Who knew? 

if such a hateful bigot is accorded a single moment of relief from an eternity of being forced to contemplate the  consequences of using his power to oppress and ruin the lives of those he considered subhuman, the sermon on the mount is nothing but empty words.

KINGBEE POSTS:

DAIWA POSTS #588

True, Article 1 doesn't specifically say non-religion, but nonetheless it does guarantee that the state may not favor or establish one religion over another or non-religion over religion.

The religious rights section of my state constitution says a number of important things about not preferring or subordinating a sect or denomination which I was told also includes the policies and practices of local governments and school boards. As an aggrieved parent, this is exactly what I was up against when my school board voted to exclude (subordinate)abstinence until marriage education and preferred only teaching the sex ed curriculum.

No, your latter claim is simply false.  There is no such 'thing' as 'non-religion' and Article I says absolutely nothing about 'it.'

the inevitable result of aiding all religions would be establishment of religion to the disadvantage and at the expense of those who claim no religion.  exactly the same as requiring belief--of any type--as a condition of holding office.