Shame on you for not thinking like an Atheist who does not put any value in such words and so has no objection to saying them.

That’s what I was alluding to when I added “in the same way that you do.” =P

Shame on you for not thinking like an Atheist who does not put any value in such words and so has no objection to saying them. I wonder what Atheism is coming to.

I wish it were not so. I’m just reporting the facts, and that is the messy state of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

I’ve attended court hearings on such matters. One needs only inform a judge that a cross will be visible at a high school graduation, for instance, and that’s all that’s required to establish the unconstitutionality of the graduation exercise. The burden then goes to those on my side of the issue to prove some kind of mitigating historical or secular value to the symbol. That’s just the way it is, and attorneys representing my side of the issue play along with that, because they don’t have much choice.

NEWS: – Audit says FEMA squandering Katrina aid – Liberal Groups Holding Democrats to Their Promises – House GOP to vote on ‘fetal pain’ bill – Liberal Coalition Eyes First Hundred Hours – Porn Profits Surge on Main Street -…

“I say with all respect to conservative organizations like the American Center for Law and Justice and Liberty Counsel, that the ship has already sailed on whether or not religious displays are acceptable in the public square for what they are.” ArrMatey

I see this as a defeatist attitude. If the public is won over to hold to the truth then the judiciary will follow or be replaced.

Remember the days when America proudly claimed to be one nation under God?

It’s probably safe to assume that no atheist ever proclaimed such a thing in the same way that you do.

Remember when they had freedom to display their heritage and rich rooted religious history?

I’m not sure who “they” are, but I’ll assume based on the context that you’re referring to local governments.

To that, I’ll just remind that you need look no further than slavery and racial discrimination to see the fact that a certain practice is not constitutional simply because it previously allowed.

The location is not the constitutional key, and I suggest could not be.

No doubt. The location is not the key. It’s the location plus the context.

You could probably get away with assembling a MOFIS on a town square. Go ahead and gather X number of items and create a museum at the spot of one of the controversies. Or you could try sell each individual piece of land to a private organization, which would be free to do as it pleases with the land. However, the Mt. Soledad ordeal suggests that this would be no easy task.

Your proposal to declare each individual item, in it original location, a “Museum of Forbidden Icons and Symbols” will fail because any definition (
Webster,
Cambridge, Dictionary.com) of “museum” specifically refers to multiple items.

The subject matter is the key. Are we allowed to view things forbidden by judges, or not?