There is no doubt that the very nature of faith means that some of our beliefs will never be the same. We read from different texts. We follow different edicts. We subscribe to different accounts of how we came to be here and where we’re going next — and some subscribe to no faith at all.

The goal of this office [Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships] will not be to favor one religious group over another — or even religious groups over secular groups. It will simply be to work on behalf of those organizations that want to work on behalf of our communities, and to do so without blurring the line that our founders wisely drew between church and state. This work is important, because whether it’s a secular group advising families facing foreclosure or faith-based groups providing job-training to those who need work, few are closer to what’s happening on our streets and in our neighborhoods than these organizations. People trust them. Communities rely on them. And we will help them. (President Obama, bold mine)

I'm with the President, and I think the argument that "someone will always be left out" is a presumptuous, intolerant, slippery slope argument.

By allowing religious symbols on government land, the government is providing space, time, real estate, whatever, for the promotion of a specific religion. When a nativity scene is placed on government property, the religion that corresponds with that symbol is given tacit approval by the government both to the benefit of that religion and the detriment of all other religions and non-religions. This un-necessarily entangles government and religion by creating a de facto government endorsement of a religious message.

Christmas is recognized and has heritage as a secular cultural phenomenon, not just a religious holiday. Again, when is a conifer a Christmas tree? When do nativity scenes constitute endorsement?

The government is unable to separate the religious from the secular (it's only considered secular because the majority of the country is Xian BTW). So, nativity scenes always constitute endorsement as do conifers when placed in such a way as to celebrate the season, since the conifers have been used by religious entities for much longer than this country has been around.

Sorry about that. I meant to add the quantifier that the gallery was government-supported, as in Rembrandt paintings hanging in a gallery that receives funding from the government. Incidentally, do you equally feel Halloween decorations showing devils are endorsements of religion?

Halloween is not government sponsored. Xmas, however, is - gov. workers get Xmas off. As to the gallery, it's still a separate issue when not dealing specifically with religion. Religion is specifically called out in the first amendment and was specifically called out in Jefferson's "wall of separation."

There are instances where this is true and false and I reject dogma.

I figured you would know that I meant that the government should refrain from taking sides on the issue that we are specifically discussing, and not in general. And, no it is not dogma. And, as a Xian, you do not reject all dogma. Now, before you jump on me, I'm not going to discuss it further.

Finally, I've already mentioned that I feel SCOTUS doesn't go far enough. We have seen a trend, however, in separating religion and government more and more as the years go along. My hope is that we will see more and more separation and more and more decisions handed down that actually follow the separation that was clearly meant in the original bill of rights.

Because it is endorsement. Whether it is endorsement of Xianity is particular or endorsement of religion in general, it is in violation of the first amendment (and 14th in the case of states) prohibition on government actions.

You keep saying that, but I disagree, and so do the courts.

It's a bad decision. What secular purpose is there in a nativity scene? It's pretty obvious that it's a religious symbol and hence it violates the separation of church and state when the government displays it.

Well, run for judge! Christmas is recognized and has heritage as a secular cultural phenomenon, not just a religious holiday. Again, when is a conifer a Christmas tree? When do nativity scenes constitute endorsement?

Completely different situation. If I own a gallery, I'm a private owner and I have no requirement to display anyone's artwork. When I'm the government, I have certain restrictions on what I can and can't do.

Sorry about that. I meant to add the quantifier that the gallery was government-supported, as in Rembrandt paintings hanging in a gallery that receives funding from the government. Incidentally, do you equally feel Halloween decorations showing devils are endorsements of religion?

When the government refrains from taking sides, it actually leads to maximal individual liberty.

There are instances where this is true and false and I reject dogma.

We aren't sacrificing liberty by upholding the first amendment - far from it.

I agree..

By allowing some religions to be endorsed, we are actually sacrificing everyone's liberty to believe as they want to believe.

I disagree, and again the statement is loaded, because I've not agreed that a creche or menorah or decorated conifer constitutes endorsement of religion, right? Neither have our highest courts. I asked you specifically when a decorated conifer became a Christmas tree, and now you're asking me to elevate your opinion above that of several independent Supreme Court decisions.

By allowing some religions to be endorsed, we are actually sacrificing everyone's liberty to believe as they want to believe.

Again, when do any of these things constitute endorsement? Surely you can't expect me to just accept your opinion as truth. Do you have some kind of rational standard?

The real entity that bears responsibility in all of this is the Supreme Court. All they've done in the past few decades is hand down a series of completely contradictory and ambiguous decisions.

They bear at least some of the responsibility (actually, not just the SCOTUS, but other courts as well) in that they've been too wishy washy to follow the law in regards to religion and the first amendment.

How are religious displays situated for secular purposes in a federal building tantamount to a "law respecting an establishment of religion?"

Because it is endorsement. Whether it is endorsement of Xianity is particular or endorsement of religion in general, it is in violation of the first amendment (and 14th in the case of states) prohibition on government actions.

But they're not. There is a difference between a Christmas tree or holiday tree or menorah or nativity scene etc. etc. It is a difference that the Supreme Court has set precedent for. Lynch v. Donnelly, 1984 established that purely secular purposes for installing nativity scenes are possible.

It's a bad decision. What secular purpose is there in a nativity scene? It's pretty obvious that it's a religious symbol and hence it violates the separation of church and state when the government displays it.

I disagree. Say you're an artist and a particular gallery has asked you to show your work, or maybe you asked them. Are your rights trampled on if you fail to meet their requirements?

Completely different situation. If I own a gallery, I'm a private owner and I have no requirement to display anyone's artwork. When I'm the government, I have certain restrictions on what I can and can't do.

Sure, if public areas refrained from any holiday ornamentation, we wouldn't have debates over municipal holiday displays, but then again, the notion of democracy is to procure the maximum amount of individual liberty alongside the minimum amount of individual or collective privation.

An across-the-board ban sacrifices liberty for comfort and convenience; such is anti-democratic to its very core, IMO.

Remember that we are talking about an across the board ban for the government only. When the government refrains from taking sides, it actually leads to maximal individual liberty. We aren't sacrificing liberty by upholding the first amendment - far from it. By allowing some religions to be endorsed, we are actually sacrificing everyone's liberty to believe as they want to believe.

The real entity that bears responsibility in all of this is the Supreme Court. All they've done in the past few decades is hand down a series of completely contradictory and ambiguous decisions.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (from 1st Amendment)

How are religious displays situated for secular purposes in a federal building tantamount to a "law respecting an establishment of religion?" Does Washington state or the city of Olympia have any law that entails respect in Christianity? When does a decorated coniferous tree become a Christmas tree? With the addition of ornaments? Tinsel? Star on top?

The government is allowing a specific religion to display and advertize itself on government property.

But they're not. There is a difference between a Christmas tree or holiday tree or menorah or nativity scene etc. etc. It is a difference that the Supreme Court has set precedent for. Lynch v. Donnelly, 1984 established that purely secular purposes for installing nativity scenes are possible. As far as Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, the conclusion was that acknowledgment of Christmas as a cultural phenomenon is permissible and constitutionally protected, but observance of Christmas through suggestions that we "praise God for the birth of Jesus Christ" or similar are in breach of the Establishment Clause. I'm not being rude, but you seriously don't think there is a difference?

All I'm saying (and other atheists) is that the clause "freedom of religion" must necessarily entail freedom from religion or else it is not true freedom.

Then I misunderstood you, and we're in agreement here.

Because it is impossible to accommodate all, someone's rights will always be trampled upon.

I disagree. Say you're an artist and a particular gallery has asked you to show your work, or maybe you asked them. Are your rights trampled on if you fail to meet their requirements?

I normally don't like black and white either, but in this case it fits.

Well, again, that's subjective, and my argument to that goes something like this. Per people's tendency on any side to whine, I think your argument has a grain of truth in that an across-the-board ban may in theory provide the least conflict. Sure, if public areas refrained from any holiday ornamentation, we wouldn't have debates over municipal holiday displays, but then again, the notion of democracy is to procure the maximum amount of individual liberty alongside the minimum amount of individual or collective privation.

An across-the-board ban sacrifices liberty for comfort and convenience; such is anti-democratic to its very core, IMO.

...the Olympia nativity scene is not "support" of religion.

I don't see how it could be interpreted in any other context. The government is allowing a specific religion to display and advertize itself on government property.

I disagree strongly. Our freedom of religion protects our freedom from religion.

That's not disagreement. All I'm saying (and other atheists) is that the clause "freedom of religion" must necessarily entail freedom from religion or else it is not true freedom.

Two different things, right?

Yes. Understood now.

In general, I tend to disagree with black-and-whites. I disagree here as well.

I normally don't like black and white either, but in this case it fits. How will you open to door to some and not discriminate? How will you open the door to all and logistically permit it? How will you open the door to all without discriminating against those that choose "none of the above?"

Slippery sloper. It may become an issue, and every year it seems there are at least a handful of them, but the vast majority of communities with holiday displays erected on public property never experience the mess at all. You *seem* to propose an across-the-board on behalf of the minority of examples.

Someone is always left out, whether it becomes an uproar or not. Even if it doesn't, that doesn't excuse the infringement on people's rights.

Slippery sloper. That it can and at times does become a burden on the state and citizens does not entail that it always will become a burden on the state and citizens.

Because it is impossible to accommodate all, someone's rights will always be trampled upon. This means that a burden to the people and the state will always entail.

If you're a bona fide religion and your holiday display meets the Supreme Court criteria and precedents, then it's a go. If you're not a bona fide religion, and/or your sign doesn't meet Supreme Court criteria, then no go.

The privilege to erect a holiday display should *not* be limited to bona fide religions, but any display erected should *certainly* respect Supreme Court precedents.

IMO it wasn't a straight-forward question, but loaded to the brim. A loaded question occurs a question presupposes something that has not been accepted by everybody involved. I don't know how you define the pertinent terms, but I would bet every cent I have that we define them differently. There is no sense arguing from two separate definitive contexts.

I said I did not approve of state-sponsored or state-endorsed attacks on religion. You asked if I support state-sponsored or state-endorsed support of religion. I don't, and it's not special pleading, because the Olympia nativity scene is not "support" of religion. I'm betting you feel it is, which is why I asked for your defs.

I do support the rights of religious expression that this country fought for, and I do think religious folk should put their displays on religious grounds, if nothing else to abide by that scripture which asks believers to take all means to live at peace with others.

It already is a burden in Olympia.

I would say it's a burden to the nation. If Gregoire decided to pull them both I would applaud right alongside you. In fact, if you want to co-author a letter, I'm down. I think it would be quite impressive to receive a letter from a (presumed) atheist and a non-atheist, both in at least partial agreement.

You can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion.

I disagree strongly. Our freedom of religion protects our freedom from religion.

I fail to see how the Supreme Court has the right to rule on what is or is not a religion.

Me too, because I didn't say the Supreme Court had the right to rule on what is or is not a religion. I said the Supreme Court retains the right to decide whether and when a holiday sign constitutes an endorsement of religion. Two different things, right?

I have just formed a new religion that has as a central tenet that we have to place religious displays anytime there is another religious display, or else my god will become furiously angry and will send hurricanes our way during hurricane season.

If you "just formed" your religion, then it is not bona fide for legal purposes. Have you filled out your 501(c)3 application yet? Written your necessary articles? There is a legal definition of a religion, and the ability of any person off the street to make up their own religion does not establish it as such for legal purposes. The legal definitions and administrative hoops necessary to form a bona fide religion exist to avoid precisely these types of problems.

The only way to stay neutral and not open these cans of worms is to not open the door to any..

In general, I tend to disagree with black-and-whites. I disagree here as well.

..since someone will always be left out and the uproar and subsequent fall-out will be an issue..

Slippery sloper. It may become an issue, and every year it seems there are at least a handful of them, but the vast majority of communities with holiday displays erected on public property never experience the mess at all. You *seem* to propose an across-the-board on behalf of the minority of examples.

Once the state opens the door, they have to accept all religious speech..

Correct, and until closed they have to accept all religious displays from bona fide religions that do not constitute endorsement of religion per Supreme Court precedents.

..which becomes a burden on the state and the citizens.

Slippery sloper. That it can and at times does become a burden on the state and citizens does not entail that it always will become a burden on the state and citizens.

Without definitions, such is fruitless. I'm not trying to evade you. Provide the defs and I'm down to get down.

It's a straight-forward question, and the rest of your comment answered it for me.

No, I mean all religions.

You can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. Your stance can lead to the sorts of rights abuses where one is free to choose any religion, so long as one chooses at least one religion - a la the boy scouts.

In theory it's pretty easy. If you're a bona fide religion and your holiday display meets the Supreme Court criteria and precedents, then it's a go. If you're not a bona fide religion, and/or your sign doesn't meet Supreme Court criteria, then no go. In practice, such could possibly become a burden to the people. As you note, come one religion means come all religions.

It already is a burden in Olympia. And, I fail to see how the Supreme Court has the right to rule on what is or is not a religion. I have just formed a new religion that has as a central tenet that we have to place religious displays anytime there is another religious display, or else my god will become furiously angry and will send hurricanes our way during hurricane season. And, additionally, since my god is jealous, he demands that the display to him dwarf all other displays by being at least ten times the size. Let's see the Wash. State government building fit that.

Well good, I'll interpret this to mean you don't support the FFRF sign being in the Washington state capitol, because if the above is true, it follows logically that you should equally fail to see any compelling reason for the government to endorse non-religion over religion, with things like insulting, anti-religious signs.

Both right and wrong. I don't support the sign from the standpoint that no displays should be there to begin with. Once the state opens the door, they have to accept all religious speech, which becomes a burden on the state and the citizens. The only way to stay neutral and not open these cans of worms is to not open the door to any, since someone will always be left out and the uproar and subsequent fall-out will be an issue, as it already is. Since the gov. did open the door and let the nativity scene in, they have to allow the sign that is critical of religion. Religion doesn't get a blank check to say/do what they want without criticism.

Or, you could simply explain your previous comment that I was addressing, and I think you know what I was asking.

This is the comment of mine you were addressing:

I feel the FFRF sign should be reworded because it contains explicit insults that are not part of the necessary exposition of ideas. The sign went beyond religious expression to an attack on religion. I do not support state-sponsored or state-endorsed attacks on religion.

You then asked,

Is it OK to have a sign supporting religion but not OK to have a sign attacking religion?

Your question assumes I agree that a sign supporting religion exists in the state capitol building in Washington, and it assumes we agree on what constitutes support of religion. Without definitions, such is fruitless. I'm not trying to evade you. Provide the defs and I'm down to get down.

And, the only way to do that is to not give any religion a soapbox.

I'm okay with our disagreement there.

You mean all religions and non-religions, right?

No, I mean all religions.

Again, how will you ensure that all religions will get to express themselves when they all come forward to ask for equal space?

In theory it's pretty easy. If you're a bona fide religion and your holiday display meets the Supreme Court criteria and precedents, then it's a go. If you're not a bona fide religion, and/or your sign doesn't meet Supreme Court criteria, then no go. In practice, such could possibly become a burden to the people. As you note, come one religion means come all religions.

I actually fail to see any compelling reason for the government to endorse a religion (over other religions or over non-religion) by providing a space for them to put up things like nativity scenes, even with any secular content.

Well good, I'll interpret this to mean you don't support the FFRF sign being in the Washington state capitol, because if the above is true, it follows logically that you should equally fail to see any compelling reason for the government to endorse non-religion over religion, with things like insulting, anti-religious signs.

I don't, hence my opinion the sign should be reworded or removed, or both of the displays should be removed.

Provide the following definitions and I'll take a stab at that:

Or, you could simply explain your previous comment that I was addressing, and I think you know what I was asking.

To me, neutrality simply means not preferring any one over any other.

And, the only way to do that is to not give any religion a soapbox.

Either all bona fide religions should be allowed to express themselves freely, or none.

You mean all religions and non-religions, right? Again, how will you ensure that all religions will get to express themselves when they all come forward to ask for equal space?

Tangentially, religious groups should put their displays on their own properties, IMO. As I said and you seem to concur with, unhealthy accommodationism can certainly breach both law and logic.

I do concur that religious groups should use their own property to display their religions. I actually fail to see any compelling reason for the government to endorse a religion (over other religions or over non-religion) by providing a space for them to put up things like nativity scenes, even with any secular content.

I implied your third class of sign in my first. Sorry if such was unclear.

Is it OK to have a sign supporting religion but not OK to have a sign attacking religion?

Provide the following definitions and I'll take a stab at that:

1) OK

2) sign

3) supporting

4) religion

The only way for the government to be truly fair is to remain neutral..

I agree with you completely, but I question your definition of neutrality:

..which means not including religious displays, even if they do have reindeer.

To me, neutrality simply means not preferring any one over any other. It means if we decree that talking in class is permissible in a certain manner and context, that if Jimmy wants to talk in class in said manner and context, then Jimmy can talk in class. If Jenny wants to talk in class in said manner and context, then Jenny retains the right to do so as well.

Either all bona fide religions should be allowed to express themselves freely, or none.

Tangentially, religious groups should put their displays on their own properties, IMO. As I said and you seem to concur with, unhealthy accommodationism can certainly breach both law and logic.