Freedom from Religion Foundation makes awkward misstep

[SCFinfan]

http://dispatchpolitics.dispatch.com/content/blogs/the-daily-briefing/2013/07/07-17-13-freedom-from-religion.html

They say you can't put a Star of David on a holocaust memorial. Nice.

My question:

Did they take the time to actually read Salazar v. Buono?

"The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm."

...and...

"A cross by the side of a public highway marking, for instance, the place where a state trooper perished, need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs."

...and...

"A Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs. [...] It is a symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this Nation and its people.

"Here, one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields making the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten."

If a Latin Cross isn't an endorsement of religion, then a Star of David, which is used as the symbolism for a secular nation, and whose history is entangled w/ both religious and secular meaning, (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3709939,00.html) just cannot be an endorsement of religion. Duh. But hey... it's a good way to waste tax-payer resources on a completely non-offensive and rather minor use of a symbol...

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

The two cases are easily distinguishable. 

A symbol that has existed for 70 years and one that has yet to be built. 

The case law is quite conflicted... see McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union.

[SCFinfan]

The two cases are easily distinguishable. 

A symbol that has existed for 70 years and one that has yet to be built. 

The case law is quite conflicted... see McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union.

So the timing of an object's construction affects it's constitutionality? Uh...
I note that an objects history, without more, is rejected by Justice Breyer as a good basis for a a monument's constitutionality in Van orden v. Perry, which was released on the same day as McCreary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Orden_v._Perry

Likewise, in Perry, that monument was adorned w/ not one but two Stars of David.

[masterfins]

mean people suck.

This country was founded under Judeo Christian beliefs and morals.  If the founding fathers didn't want any link whatsoever with religion then they would not have used "God" on money and throughout documents.  IMO "separation of church and state" meant the framers didn't want government interfering with peoples right to practice religion.  However, it's been twisted by the ACLU, Supreme Court, and atheists to stop people from having the freedom to practicing their religion.  I'd agree that government shouldn't pay for religious celebrations, monuments, etc., but if private citizens want to fund, and a majority of the people agree, then a city should be able to hang a Merry Christmas sign, or Happy Kwanza sign, or have a non-denominational prayer at a high school graduation.

[Spider-Dan]

This country was founded under Judeo Christian beliefs and morals.  If the founding fathers didn't want any link whatsoever with religion then they would not have used "God" on money and throughout documents.

"In God We Trust" was added to the money in 1954.

Eisenhower was not a founding father.

[Dave Gray]

This country was founded under Judeo Christian beliefs and morals.  If the founding fathers didn't want any link whatsoever with religion then they would not have used "God" on money and throughout documents.

This is blatantly false.  The "In God We Trust Thing" on money started way past the founding fathers.

Why are we writing anything about God on our money anyway?  It's just not the place for it.  I don't want it to say "There is no God" on the dollar bill, but I do feel like it's a Constitutional violation and a state sponsored establishment of religion.

I'm not out making a stink about it, but I'm glad that stuff like the FFRF is out there.  Sure, they go overboard on some things, but someone has to.

And as for "if most people agree"...it doesn't matter if everyone agrees, it's in the Constitution.  If everyone agrees and votes that it should say things about God on our money or that we should pray in school or whatever, it still should be dis-allowed.

[Dave Gray]

One more thing, and I'm asking this completely earnestly, because I just can't understand the other side on this:

How is it fair that your religious belief is accurately portrayed on money and mine is not?

It makes me feel like a 2nd class citizen in my own country.  I do not trust in God.  Trusting in God is a religious statement.  Why is this on money at all?  Would you be OK if my religious beliefs were on money and it said "We don't trust in God?"  I wouldn't want that.  I want it to be inclusive of everyone.

I imagine that lots of people think this is over-reacting, but it really upsets me.  "In God We Trust" wasn't even added to the dollar until the late 50s in a push against Communism.  I cannot believe it has held up this long, as it seems to be a blatant establishment of religion.

[Sunstroke]

In Dave, I Trust...

[Fau Teixeira]

This country was founded under Judeo Christian beliefs and morals.

This is false, it was not. However this country was founded with slavery being endorsed and regulated, just like how god endorses and promotes slavery in the bible.

I can see your confusion.

[SCFinfan]

Back to the issue of contention people:

So, what does this action by the FFRF make them? Assholes? Or exceptionally culturally insensitive assholes?

[Fau Teixeira]

And stoning your own children, lets not forget that .. yay biblical morality ! hooray !

[Fau Teixeira]

Back to the issue of contention people:

So, what does this action by the FFRF make them? Assholes? Or exceptionally culturally insensitive assholes?

oh . .they're assholes .. for sure

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Back to the issue of contention people:

So, what does this action by the FFRF make them? Assholes? Or exceptionally culturally insensitive assholes?

Neither.

It makes them people dedicated to the principle that religious symbols should not be on public land. 

[Fau Teixeira]

Religious symbols don't always promote religion, I'd say in this case it serves a valid historical purpose.

As much as i agree with the FFRF on a variety of things, they aren't always right, and you can take positions on the extreme that don't reflect reality or what a rational person would consider right.

[SCFinfan]

Neither.

It makes them people dedicated to the principle that religious symbols should not be on public land. 

A principle which is not, currently, part of our first amendment jurisprudence.