chekmate

Just wondering, what public issues have we, as non-religious people, won? It'll make me feel better to know that we are making progress. Just start listing them off, and if you want, leave a breif explanation of how it came about...

Philosoft

I don't know if this counts, but most people still are unaware of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy™.

atheist_in_foxhole

• Government may not participate in religious affairs nor impose taxes for their support (Everson v. Board of Education, 1947)
• Public school program that included religious indoctrination ruled unconstitutional (McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948)
• Mandatory prayers banned from public schools (Engel v. Vitale, 1962)
• Law requiring Bible readings and prayer in public schools ruled unconstitutional (Abington School District v. Schempp, 1963)
• Law that prohibited teaching the theory of evolution in public schools ruled unconstitutional (Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968)
• Government may not reimburse religious schools for teacher salaries or textbooks (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971)
• Women guaranteed right to an abortion in most circumstances (Roe v. Wade, 1973)
• Law requiring Ten Commandments display in public schools ruled unconstitutional (Stone v. Graham, 1980)
• Government may deny tax-exempt status to religious schools that practice racial discrimination (Bob Jones University v. U.S., 1983)
• Law that required moment of silence for "voluntary prayer" in public schools ruled unconstitutional (Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985)
• Law that required the teaching of "creation science" in public school science classes ruled unconstitutional (Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987)
• Christian nativity scene inside courthouse ruled unconstitutional (Allegheny v. ACLU, 1989)
• Official prayers at public school graduation ceremonies ruled unconstitutional (Lee v. Weisman, 1992)
• Law that created a special school district for Jews ruled unconstitutional (Kiryas Joel School District v. Grumet, 1994)
• Anti-gay law ruled unconstitutional (Romer v. Evans, 1996)
• Law that banned certain abortion procedures ruled unconstitutional (Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000)
• Student-led prayer at public school football games ruled unconstitutional (Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 2000)
• Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional if it includes "Under God" (Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 2002)
• Ten Commandments display in courthouse ruled unconstitutional (Glassroth v. Moore, 2002)

As you can see, all of these victories were won in the courts. This is why it is so important to vote for progressive presidential candidates who pledge to appoint progressive judges. Unfortunately, the president we currently have intends to reverse most of these decisions by appointing literally dozens of right-wing judges to the bench. And now that he has a right-wing Republican Senate to do his bidding, he might succeed.

Grad Student Humanist

[QUOTE As you can see, all of these victories were won in the courts. This is why it is so important to vote for progressive presidential candidates who pledge to appoint progressive judges. Unfortunately, the president we currently have intends to reverse most of these decisions by appointing literally dozens of right-wing judges to the bench. And now that he has a right-wing Republican Senate to do his bidding, he might succeed. [/QUOTE]

You are absolutely right, which is why I voted for Gore. Determining who sits on the Supreme Court and the rest of the judiciary was the issue which should have concerned non-theists, secularists and all others who refuse to live by Xtian fundamentalist moral standards. The progressives which see to it that a wall is maintained between Xtianity and the government have lost two elections in a row. And if Bush wins a second term there's a great chance that by the time he's out he'll have packed the S.C. with enough conservatives to wreack havoc on this country for decades to come.

Oh well, at least there are other countries in the world which don't let themselves be led by the religionists.

Grumpy

Oops! A couple of non-religion related items snuck into the list. By mistake, I'm sure.

atheist_in_foxhole

Those too were victories for non-religious people; the main "opponents" in those battles were religious fundamentalists.

dk

atheist_in_foxhole: As you can see, all of these victories were won in the courts. This is why it is so important to vote for progressive presidential candidates who pledge to appoint progressive judges. Unfortunately, the president we currently have intends to reverse most of these decisions by appointing literally dozens of right-wing judges to the bench. And now that he has a right-wing Republican Senate to do his bidding, he might succeed.
dk: You’re one of the few secularists I’ve read that admits the US Supreme Court first interpreted the Constitution as a secular document in the mid 20th Century. As you have astutely pointed out the power of a judicial fiat proceeds from a simple majority of 5.
Three questions:
Can a judiciary serve secularists at the expense of justice?
Do you think federal judges should submit to a ideological litmus test before being appointed?
What happens when the law becomes a political weapon?

Radorth

In other words, "if Christians were not be permitted to run for office we would have a country more like, well, China."

"We're right so minority atheist or secular humanist rule is justified."

I don't know what other meaning one could assume from that comment. Perhaps GSH will enlighten us.

Rad

Toto

This is a bit misleading. The Supreme Court has never interpreted the Constitution as a religious document. (There is one case somewhere where they refer to the US as a Christian nation, but that was an observation and an aid in statutory construction, not a holding.) The legal victories described above primarily grew out of Supreme Court interpretations of the 14th amendment, which was passed in the 19th century after the civil war but effectively nullified by the courts until the mid 20th century. The issues there were not religious interpretation vs. secularism, but federalism and the scope of liberty and equal protection.

Rad: the countried in the world that "don't let themselves be led by the religionists" are countries where the electorate does not vote for them. You misunderstand if you think that anyone suggested that Christians not be allowed to run for office. Please be more careful in the future. Thank you.

admice

dk wrote
Can it? Yes. Should it? no
They are. Both by examining their record and being subject to approval.
It is.