Atheism and freedom of speech

I think this has not become a problem for quite sometime because the US used to be strictly a more christian nation. So no one was to concerned with the occasional christian pieces of symbology in government offices. It became an issue when it became very evident that non-christians became more and more numerous. Because when you have public buildings only having christian symbology present you have a very large problem.The problem then becomes, that the government may not out and out be endorising religion but, be defacto monopoly christian symbols hold it is seen to be endorsing christianity over any other religion.Its okay to have religious stuff up, so long as your willing to put a bunch of other religious stuff up of different religions.Of course then you might get into the sticky position of an athesist walking in and saying that the government is endorsing everything but a lack of religion, and such symbols put an undue pressure on the athesist to become a theist.

As applied the first ammendment in practice is now, that recent series of religious symbols put up in public offices are under scrutiny.Although your arguement about burial sites is interesting, i think ultimately the plot is given over for whatever religious decoration the person prefers, as it becomes their plot, only on federal grounds.What eradication of history? Most recent questions of religious expression has only been symbols put up in the last 2 decades or so. Anything put up beyond then has been hands off by the supreme court. Most past symbols aren't touched, its usually the newer ones that are under question. The hands off policy in regards to religion via politicians has been traditionally part of American politics. Faith tends to be regarded as a very private and personal set of feelings. But when the religious conservatives start to regain majority as in the 1820's, 60's 1920's and now, some politicians have used it as a measure to gain more support during those time frames. Usuaully its been used to demonize their opponent for his lack of 'faith' Nativity scenes are all right so long as there are other religious kinds holidiays expressed at similiar times. And while christmas used to be a 'pagan holiday'. In america its not even a pagan holiday anymore its a commercialized interest, anything really religious about christmas has been relegated to the family. Christmas has more become an excuse to through a party and to celebrate good cheer vs any form of religious observance. I'd be a little more careful about those points, a number of secular universities follow the traditional western european view of what a univeristy is. And the western european universities tend to be built around some form of church or something (traditional model). For example in california San Jose State University has a Mission on its grounds, and i don't think CSU system is in anyway religious.

Actually we've surrendered it several times in the past as it is. Specifically thinking about the 1820's with the first Great Awakening, fire and brimstone style. The one just prior to the 1860's was instrumental in triggering the Civil War (that and the fact there was a helluva alot of young people and man they started the first modern war with an estimated 700,000 deaths). 1920's saw the culmination of the fundamentalists again this time it was on prohibition, (see that one was pretty bad they got huge political power to pass an amendment). Uh then there was the 60's and Reagan era stuff.Living for the temporal has always managed to win out. If the first 3 great awakenings meant anything. The fourth one, though i'm not so sure, they are just a little bit more organized this time it seems.

Currency never was supposed to contain any judeo christian refrences in the first place. It was pushed onto the currency as a political move to place America on a morale high ground over Russia. So that people like you could say, "look at those aetheistic godless wretches in Russia. At least we can be said to serve a higher purpose." How much do you even know about the history of currency? I mean it was a propagandistic tactic that was pretty damn useful considering that at least 1/3 of the world followed Christianity and or Islamic faiths. Showing that you serve GOD vs a godless state gets you hella points with the people in power, when you agree that there is a GOD.(whose GOD it is, always a different point). Who and could you refrence who is attempting to do these things, like actual court motions and or newspaper articles from a variety of resources? Not just a solitary resource but like 3 covering the same thing. That is where your wrong. One thing that you forget, while the founding father's were theistic they were not your kind of 'theistic'. They believed in the ability of man to govern themselves on their conscience and upbringing.If they were at all interested in your phoney balooney pants refrence that the Constituition was based on GOD's law or shaped by GOD's policies they would of instituted a theocracy with a damn priest council or something. Not a democratic repulic that would allow theologically unsound people 'aethists' to be present.And nearly all the laws used day by day in America, not those political handbag guestures made by politicians to please the right, are derived from English Common Law! (You British people I really like the way you handled law)http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/legalotln/

I would point out that I don't think crash is saying that religious belief can not be injected into opinion. Its that the opinion of the politician should be shaped by the people whom the politician is representing. The politician must watch out for all of his constituency to the best of his ability not only the constituency that he feels he should watch out for. How do you come to the conclusion that secularism is even a religion?

*grumble* I'd forgotten that particular portion about the coins. Thank you for the refrences~