Atheism isn’t an Absence in belief

On 9/1/2010 12:16 AM, Jimbo wrote:
> On Aug 31, 6:54 pm, “Scout”
> wrote:
>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:30:45 -0400, “Scout”
>>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>>> Jimbo wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 30, 11:35 pm, “Scout”
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:10:21 -0400, “Scout”
>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> “Scout” wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:i5ha8r$6kf$1 @&*$?%news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Colanth wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:56:45 -0400, “Scout”
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> “Mitchell Holman” wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:Xns9DE3F1E1E595Bnomailcomcastnet @&*$?%216.196.121.131…
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who own courthouses – the judges that work
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there for a short period of time, or the public
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that built them and use them?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn’t matter.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does matter – Alabama judges are employees – they’re not
>>>>>>>>>>> allowed to decorate courtrooms. (Nothing about religion
>>>>>>>>>>> there, unless your religion is decorating your workspace.)
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ok, back that up and I will agree he acted wrongly.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Why did Moore have this thing installed in the
>>>>>>>>> dead of night?
>>
>>>>>>>> Probably because it was big, it was in a common area, and that is
>>>>>>>> normally when such things are done.
>>
>>>>>>>> That you read more into it is….telling.
>>
>>>>>>> Everyone knew that he was violating the Constitution. That’s why
>>>>>>> he got canned.
>>
>>>>>> Na, at worst he was violating policy,
>>
>>>>> The courts ruled that the edifice was a violation of the
>>>>> Constitution.
>>
>>>> So “free expression” is no longer part of the 1st Amendment?
>>
>>> As you know, this wasn’t about free expression,
>>
>> Really? I do.
>>
>> So what was it?
>>
>>> it was about a
>>> government official dragging a religious symbol into a government
>>> building.
>>
>> Hmmm….sounds like “free expression” to me.
>
> Since when has the government been free to express a religion?
> Sounds like an attempt at establishment to me. Once he moved that

State or Federal Government building?

> edifice into a government building, he ended his private expression of
> his faith, and made it a public expression of religion. Something the
> government is forbid to do by Constitutional Law.

Federal government is not supposed to create an official Religion. It
says nothing about promoting of religion….

Religion can be promoted for public welfare just as giving out cash
promoted general welfare.