Atheists object to Christmas toy drive on Air Force base – and win

originally posted by: Xcathdra

It does not prevent the government from engaging in activities, like charities and what not. What it does prevent is the Government from establishing an official state religion, like England has.

... and the Supreme Court has disagreed with your opinion for almost 200 years.

That is SPECIFICALLY what the Establishment Clause does prevent. You can't hide Christian Evangelism (See link on "Operation Christmas Child") under the guise of a "charity."

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Right and wrong, defines "Ethics". I was right, he was wrong. ..I called him on it. We shook hands. Then I gave the "legal" salute. He returned it. ... Rank and titles don't make men.

Ethics within the government put some new light on right and wrong. I was in the military all of about three days when I had a 3 star walk up to me and ask for a light, in an area I shouldn't have been smoking. I once told the deputy commander of SAC to get the f out of my light as an e3, marched my happy ass into an O6's office, and asked him if he had a personal problem with me, or the prior owner of my property, hell the commanding general's daughter used to babysit for my wife & I, saw him often, picking up or dropping off his daughter. Rank and titles do not make men, but rank and titles can be used to coerce others, and thus why there are ethic rules.

a reply to: BubbaJoeokay

Okay, I'm "full of it". Which on your say so, means nothing. But no. I actually was afraid of my Drill, at that time. Not so much now... But they both made a Soldier.

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: BubbaJoeokay

Okay, I'm "full of it". Which on your say so, means nothing. But no. I actually was afraid of my Drill, at that time. Not so much now... But they both made a Soldier.

Murphy, wasn't my comment, so not sure who you are responding to.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Followup ... how is non-belief "forced" on anyone?

Why don't you reread the First Amendment?

Two parts: no establishment of religion and a guarantee of the free exercise thereof.

Free exercise also includes no exercise.

The government will not establish a religion, any religion, in any way at any time.

So, yes, actually, the separation of Church and State is abundantly clear in the Constitution.

ATS, let's see shall we take a poll... who do we think is more competent to understand and speak regarding the US Constitution?

XCathedra or Thomas Jefferson?

My money's on TJ. How about yours?

a reply to: Annee
a reply to: Gryphon66

And what part of what the air force is doing violates the 3 part test established by SCOTUS for determining if government action violates the establishment clause?

In case you aren't familiar its Lemon vs. Kurtzman (1971)

1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Burger articulated a three-part test for laws dealing with religious establishment. To be constitutional, a statute must have "a secular legislative purpose," it must have principal effects which neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." The Court found that the subsidization of parochial schools furthered a process of religious inculcation, and that the "continuing state surveillance" necessary to enforce the specific provisions of the laws would inevitably entangle the state in religious affairs. The Court also noted the presence of an unhealthy "divisive political potential" concerning legislation which appropriates support to religious schools.

Collecting gifts and passing them out violates it how?

How long has the US military been involved in charitable giving?

a reply to: BubbaJoe

I do not doubt your story, in no way. I could tell a couple "fact" bassed onses myself. .. Good men just know good men.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Review the information provided above on the "charity"

EDIT: Here, I'll even help:

In the hands of local churches, every gift-filled shoebox is a powerful tool for evangelism and discipleship—transforming the lives of children and their families around the world through the Good News of Jesus Christ!

Then reread item #2 in your example.

QED

a reply to: BubbaJoe

I stand corrected! I'm sure they'll figure it out.

a reply to: Xcathdra
a better question would be emails being sent from the commander's secretary speaking about christ's give of salvation and inviting people to an event where they will be praying to a chistian god doesn't violate that separation?

a reply to: Gryphon66

So using your example then the US Post Office is violating the law / establishment clause by allowing people to send Christmas gifts to others. The US post office is apparently forcing religious beliefs on others and is acting as a conduit by delivering the items.

Someone alert the atheists that they should target the US Post Office as well.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

So using your example then the US Post Office is violating the law by allowing people to send Christmas gifts to others. The US post office is apparently forcing religious beliefs on others and is acting as a conduit by delivering the items.

Someone alert the atheists that they should target the US Post Office as well.

Nope. Sending a present to someone is not intended per se as "a powerful tool for evangelism and discipleship—transforming the lives of children and their families around the world through the Good News of Jesus Christ!"

The intentions behind "Operation Christmas Child" are beyond clear from the organization's own website.

The whole scenario is intended to promote Christian evangelism.

Do you deny this?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

So using your example then the US Post Office is violating the law / establishment clause by allowing people to send Christmas gifts to others. The US post office is apparently forcing religious beliefs on others and is acting as a conduit by delivering the items.

Someone alert the atheists that they should target the US Post Office as well.

Amazing thing, they could be Hannukuh, or Kwanzaa gifts. Outside of the USPS holding up anything in Muslim wrapping paper, they are probably not violating the constitution.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You're confusing "establishment" with "seperation". The "government" can not establish a "National" religion. Such as "The Church of England".. Which was answerable to the Crown/government. ..read history. I'm willing to wadger, you have some "public education" under your belt? The founders never dreamed America would become so perverse, that they need to remove or add moral decipline to "law". What do you think "TJ" would have done to a "gay pride " parade? ..yeah. Don't answer that.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Because we all know that Christmas is strictly owned by the christian church!! Do they also own black friday, the maxed out credit cards, and the mushroom peddling shaman also?? Do these christmas packages have bible verses written across them, do they have religious tracts inside?

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: BubbaJoe

I stand corrected! I'm sure they'll figure it out.

LOL, I am sure they will, I would never tell you that you are full of it, would find a much more eloquent way to tell you the same thing, or refer to you as a douche weasel, just my MO.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I dont deny the groups intent is to promote Christian Evangelism.. I don't agree with the mindset that the Us air force is acting as an extension of that group by collecting donations and handing them out. As I stated already the US Post Office is doing the same thing, taking their packages via US mail and passing them onto people they are intended for.

a reply to: DeathSlayer
You do understand "commander endorsement of a particular faith"?
It's like your founding fathers put the Establishment clause for a reason.
Gee I'm Australian and I didn't find that difficult to grasp

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: BubbaJoe

I stand corrected! I'm sure they'll figure it out.

LOL, I am sure they will, I would never tell you that you are full of it, would find a much more eloquent way to tell you the same thing, or refer to you as a douche weasel, just my MO.

Whatever the method, the result is the same.

Oh well. I won't even get started on the time I asked a deputy chief of staff if he wanted to do push-ups to see who was right.

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're confusing "establishment" with "seperation". The "government" can not establish a "National" religion. Such as "The Church of England".. Which was answerable to the Crown/government. ..read history. I'm willing to wadger, you have some "public education" under your belt? The founders never dreamed America would become so perverse, that they need to remove or add moral decipline to "law". What do you think "TJ" would have done to a "gay pride " parade? ..yeah. Don't answer that.

Those of us who are not believers, believe that we have the right to live our lives freely, something the religious right has a heart attack about. When conservatives talk about the founders, I have to chuckle, women weren't equal, blacks weren't equal, natives weren't equal, so please explain to me "That all men are created equal" part. Our Constitution is an awesome document, but we have had to tweak it a time or two, maybe we need to tweak it a bit farther. The world has changed a lot in 200+ years, maybe our documents need to be adjusted.