Posted on Sep 8, 2018
Atheist group accuses Taylor County of several constitutional violations
2.16K
94
22
3
3
0
Taylor County, Texas (Abilene) orders its employees to move religious symbols out of the view of the public, to comply with the separation of church and state.
Atheist group accuses Taylor County of several constitutional violations
Posted from ktxs.com
Atheism
Christianity
Law
1st Amendment
Religion
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
Maj John Bell - I blocked the anonymous master sergeant for being dishonest, so I can't reply to your case law that you posted there. You may want to look at Derek H. Davis, Is Atheism a Religion - Recent Judicial Perspective on the Constitutional Meaning of Religion, 47 J. Church & St. 707 (2005), see also United States v. Kauten, 133 F.2d 703 (2d Cir. 1943) (explaining that atheism was not a religion, affirming a conviction from non-religious conscientious objection based on the defendant's atheism).
What the Kaufman court states is that for Establishment Clause cases, atheism will be considered a religion even though it is not, for the purpose of evaluation of the claim. This happens in the law all the time. Corporations are considered "persons" for the purpose of lawsuits--a legal fiction that allows the process to work.
What the Kaufman court states is that for Establishment Clause cases, atheism will be considered a religion even though it is not, for the purpose of evaluation of the claim. This happens in the law all the time. Corporations are considered "persons" for the purpose of lawsuits--a legal fiction that allows the process to work.
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Granted I am not a Justice, but it seems to me that the Lemon test implies that the state may not establish a state religion of Human Secularism, or offer Human Secularism an advantage by banning individual expressions of religious belief, even by state employees. Unfortunately, those inclined to be offended and inclined to object can legitimately argue that the banner supporting the Boys camp undoubtedly crosses a line. But the state should not ban individual expressions of faith (the Bible on the Desk, the Cross on the file cabinet or painting of flowers with a Bible verse in an individual's office space, or the Star of David on a Necklace, the Muslim Niqab (face veil), or the Wiccan Pentagram tattoo.
It is similar the difference between:
I am a pilot serving in the Marines and I am a Marine serving as a pilot. I have known both and it makes a world of difference.
Do we really want to have a default policy that mandates the appearance of human secularism that in effect bans unobtrusive (admittedly a subjective standard) individual expressions of faith. Should we ban Muslim prayer by state employees because it is during business hours, or is observed in the privacy of their office?
It is similar the difference between:
I am a pilot serving in the Marines and I am a Marine serving as a pilot. I have known both and it makes a world of difference.
Do we really want to have a default policy that mandates the appearance of human secularism that in effect bans unobtrusive (admittedly a subjective standard) individual expressions of faith. Should we ban Muslim prayer by state employees because it is during business hours, or is observed in the privacy of their office?
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Maj John Bell - the Lemon test is but one of several different tests that can be used dependent on the fact pattern. There is not a religion of human secularism, btw, and the State can absolutely prohibit visible expressions of faith. A police officer was terminated after he refused to take a cross off of his uniform, and it was upheld.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
0
0
0
Capt Gregory Prickett
The courts have heard these cases, and have uniformly stated that the government could not display religious symbols.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google