Rick Perry, mind like a steel trap I tells ya...

[RandFan]

I'm willing to bet you can't find a single case. Care to wager an avatar on it?

I will concede FFRF does file cases to remove religious observance from inappropriate govt buildings and schools.

 

[RandFan]

That is a very surprising quote to me, since I am very familiar with the FFRF. I will send this off to Dan and Annie Laurie to find out how this found its way into their Wiki entry. Interfering with religious practice is very far from their goal. Assisting those who want to escape their ties to religion certainly is part of the scope of their activities, but not destroying anyone's belief or institution in any malicious way.

They actually win most of their cases.

For those not familiar with wikipedia, they expect all quotes or claims to have citations. Failure to provide a citation is a real problem with wiki. If I don't find an original source on wiki I don't use it.

The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia

Wikipedia provides Internet users with millions of articles on a broad range of topics, and commonly ranks first in search engines. But its reliability and credibility fall well short of the standards for a school paper. According to Wikipedia itself, “[W]hile some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish. … use [Wikipedia] with an informed understanding of what it is and what it isn't.”

To help you develop such an understanding, we present 10 reasons you can't rely on information in Wikipedia.

 

[Brainster]

I listen to them weekly. Please to state a single case they have brought to ban religious observance?

[citation missing] No. Wikipedia is NOT a source. wiki ******* pedia? Are you serious?

I'll ask you one more time, please to cite a single case they have brought to remove religious observance? That is a lie. And for the record, Brainster, if you are going to use wikipedia as a reference, which I do all of the time, make certain the quote is sourced on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a source, it's a starting point.

The truth is that FFRF seeks equal treatment. If you are going to have a creche or nativity scene on a public square then allow ALL religions and atheists to use the public square.

I'm willing to bet you can't find a single case. Care to wager an avatar on it?

LOL, I'm still using the Obama Avatar I lost in November. Here's a case where they threatened a private restaurant for offering a discount to anybody bringing in a church bulletin:

After encountering Prudhomme's policy, Wolff said he contacted the Freedom from Religion Foundation, based in Madison, Wis. The foundation sent Prudhomme two letters last year, telling her the church bulletin discount was discriminatory.

According to a posting on the foundation website, church bulletin promotions are illegal under federal law because any place of "public accommodation," such as a restaurant, grocery store or other business, may not discriminate or show favoritism based on religion.

 

[elbe]

That is a very surprising quote to me, since I am very familiar with the FFRF. I will send this off to Dan and Annie Laurie to find out how this found its way into their Wiki entry. Interfering with religious practice is very far from their goal. Assisting those who want to escape their ties to religion certainly is part of the scope of their activities, but not destroying anyone's belief or institution in any malicious way.

They actually win most of their cases.

April 11th. Looks like a reasonably clear case of bias by the editor.

 

[RandFan]

LOL, I'm still using the Obama Avatar I lost in November. Here's a case where they threatened a private restaurant for offering a discount to anybody bringing in a church bulletin:

Sorry, this doesn't come close. All the restaurant needed to do was offer the same discount to those who didn't have church bulletins. Equal treatment. That's all.

FWIW: I don't agree with every case but you can be damn sure that they have never sued anyone to ban a religious observance.

 

[Olowkow]

I fired off an email to FFRF. I'm sure they will be on this very quickly. I wonder if anyone who perpetrates such a lie can be prosecuted for libel.

 

[elbe]

Sorry, this doesn't come close. All the restaurant needed to do was offer the same discount to those who didn't have church bulletins. Equal treatment. That's all.

FWIW: I don't agree with every case but you can be damn sure that they have never sued anyone to ban a religious observance.

Well, according to the FFRF

"The Civil Rights Act states in relevant part, 'All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation. . . without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin,'" wrote Markert. She added, "As a place of 'public accommodation,' it is illegal for Lost Cajun Kitchen to discriminate, or show favoritism, on the basis of religion."

 

[Olowkow]

You appear to be ignorant of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

....

I literally did a spit take when I read this. RandFan ignorant of FFRF? Maybe he never heard of Dawkins either.

 

[Olowkow]

By the way, I just saw the video on MSNBC of Rick Perry signing the "It's legal to say 'Merry Christmas' in Texas" bill with an assortment of really stylish Santa Clauses and jingling sleigh bells. What next?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here's a case where they threatened a private restaurant for offering a discount to anybody bringing in a church bulletin:

I remember that case, and while I didn't strongly support it at the time*, I don't think you can construe this as attempting to remove "religious observance and influence from all aspects of society".

It was a suit that alleged a violation of a federal law.

If that's what Perry meant by "freedom from religion" he is arguing against a straw man. In fact, most non-believers and people for whom church/state separation is an important issue are strong supporters of civil rights.

In fact, many church/state separationists are theists who recognize the dangers to the free practice of religion posed by church/state entanglement. (Guess who coined the phrase "wall of separation"?)

*ETA: It's easy enough to argue that even a non-member of any particular religion could go to one of those churches and take a bulletin and get the discount. So it really wasn't discriminating against anyone based on creed. Further, not receiving a discount isn't the same as not being served. A diner down the street from me gives a big discount to anyone who shows a ticket or stub from that day's Cardinal's baseball game. Can we claim they are barring people who didn't go to the baseball game?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

By the way, I just saw the video on MSNBC of Rick Perry signing the "It's legal to say 'Merry Christmas' in Texas" bill with an assortment of really stylish Santa Clauses and jingling sleigh bells. What next?

An in-law of mine once alleged the "War on Christmas". He was recounting a story where he went to a store, and the clerk wished him "Merry Christmas." "Be careful," my in-law replied. "You're lucky you don't get arrested for saying that!"

I don't often discuss such things with family, but I really let him have it. "Why do you think he's lucky not to get arrested for saying that? Do you know how many people have ever been arrested for wishing someone a Merry Christmas in the U.S.? Exactly zero. It has never happened!!!!"

 

[elbe]

Do you know how many people have ever been arrested for wishing someone a Merry Christmas in the U.S.? Exactly zero. It has never happened!!!!"

Careful, you can get arrested for saying stuff like that.

 

[RandFan]

I remember that case, and while I didn't strongly support it at the time*, I don't think you can construe this as attempting to remove "religious observance and influence from all aspects of society".

It was a suit that alleged a violation of a federal law.

If that's what Perry meant by "freedom from religion" he is arguing against a straw man. In fact, most non-believers and people for whom church/state separation is an important issue are strong supporters of civil rights.

In fact, many church/state separationists are theists who recognize the dangers to the free practice of religion posed by church/state entanglement. (Guess who coined the phrase "wall of separation"?)

*ETA: It's easy enough to argue that even a non-member of any particular religion could go to one of those churches and take a bulletin and get the discount. So it really wasn't discriminating against anyone based on creed. Further, not receiving a discount isn't the same as not being served. A diner down the street from me gives a big discount to anyone who shows a ticket or stub from that day's Cardinal's baseball game. Can we claim they are barring people who didn't go to the baseball game?

Good points. I don't always agree with FFRF. But they don't bring cases that don't have a good faith basis. And they win a lot of cases.

 

[RandFan]

I look forward when the GOP will go back to the values of Reagan

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I live in New Mexico, from my view, your schools are awesome.

Texas is 12th in the USA (at least according to USNews, of which I have no idea how accurate this really is but it popped up first in my investigoogling)

OT: Did you look at the methodology they used?

I find it seriously flawed.

To begin with, they rate each school on how they perform using their state's proficiency tests without taking into account that each state has separate standards and tests.

Then they rank the schools based on voluntary participation in the AP / IB tests.

 

[TragicMonkey]

[qimg]http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/5384/u637.jpg[/qimg]

You're talking about people who willfully cherry-pick the commands of their god, the one they think can send them to suffer torment for eternity if displeased. You think they'd quibble to reinterpret Reagan's statements?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Good points. I don't always agree with FFRF. But they don't bring cases that don't have a good faith basis. And they win a lot of cases.

And as you said (more or less), you can be damn sure they don't sue to stop people from enjoying their First Amendment right to the free practice of their religion.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think the law is likely to be struck down on the Menorah/Creche issue. But again, I don't see anything odd or foolish in what Perry said.

You're free to have an opinion, but we don't have to treat the opinion as valid--especially if you don't defend it.

Either Perry meant that it's OK for the government to violate the Establishment Clause contrary to well established jurisprudence, or he meant people don't have a right to be insulated from others' exercising their First Amendment rights. Either way it's a pretty odd or foolish thing to say.

The first parsing runs contrary to fundamental First Amendment law, and the second one is a straw man since no one--including the FFRF-- has argued the position he's arguing against.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry, this doesn't come close. All the restaurant needed to do was offer the same discount to those who didn't have church bulletins. Equal treatment. That's all.

FWIW: I don't agree with every case but you can be damn sure that they have never sued anyone to ban a religious observance.

Well, according to the FFRF

"The Civil Rights Act states in relevant part, 'All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation. . . without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin,'" wrote Markert. She added, "As a place of 'public accommodation,' it is illegal for Lost Cajun Kitchen to discriminate, or show favoritism, on the basis of religion."

Thanks.

The idea that the FFRF simply wants to eliminate religious observance everywhere is demonstrative of gross ignorance of the FFRF. They have helped Muslims, Christians and other theists. It's true that rhetorically they admit they would prefer a world without religion but when it comes to individuals right to worship a god, they not only respect the 1st Amendmant, they work to make it stronger for all people including theists.

The notion that anyone could eradicate religious worship in America using the courts and the constitution is an absurd and ignorant idea. It's very simple, keep religion out of government. Politicians and govt employees can offer their personal opinion but they may not discriminate or set policy based on religious belief.

It's simple, follow the constitution.

• Build all of the churches you like.
• Print all of the pro-religious articles you like.
• Feel free to go door to door handing out religious tracts.
• Pray as much and often as you can but don't break the law and force others to listen to it in school or any govt institution.
• The right to worship does not include the right to force others to worship or even believe.
• Treat people equally (isn't that what Christ would have wanted?).

The FFRF follows the Constitution. End of story.

 

[Corsair 115]

So? Live a little. Innovate. Don't be bound by primitive customs and obsolete tradition. Make social progress.

So what you're saying is, "Words mean whatever I want them to mean, dictionaries be damned!" Okay then.