Michigan mayor bans atheist City Hall display to not upset Christian ‘Prayer Station’
By David Edwards
Thursday, April 17, 2014 8:47 EDT

A Michigan mayor who says that he believes in freedom of religion has refused to allow atheists to set up a so-called “Reason Station” inside City Hall, saying it could upset Christians visiting the nearby “Prayer Station.”

According to the Detroit Free Press, Warren resident Douglas Marshall proposed the “Reason Station” to promote separation of church and state, and to tell people about using free thought, reason and logic.

But Warren Mayor Jim Fouts rejected the display for a period of one year because of Marshall’s affiliation with a group called the Freedom From Religion Foundation. In a letter to Marshall, Fouts explained that the Freedom From Religion Foundation was not protected under the First Amendment’s Establishment clause because atheism was not a religion.

“To my way of thinking, your group is strictly an anti-religion group intending to deprive all organized religions of their constitutional freedoms or at least discourage the practice of religion,” Fouts wrote. “The City of Warren cannot allow this.”

“Also, I believe it is group’s intention to disrupt those who participate in the Prayer Station which would also be a violation of the freedom of religion amendment,” he added. “For these reasons, I cannot approve of your request.”

Last year, Freedom From Religion had asked to participate in the city’s annual winter holiday display with a sign that declared that there “are no gods, no devils, no angels, No heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but Myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

A federal appeals court ruled that Fouts did not violate the group’s rights when he rejected the request.

Marshall, however, argued that it was unfair for the mayor to reject the latest request based on his association with Freedom From Religion.

“I do view this a violation of my free speech rights,” Marshall noted. “It seems to me that the mayor allows free speech in the atrium as long as he agrees with the speech… If he doesn’t, he denies speech he doesn’t agree with in the atrium.”
.....

Fouts explained that the Freedom From Religion Foundation was not protected under the First Amendment’s Establishment clause because atheism was not a religion.

Fouts explained that the Freedom From Religion Foundation was not protected under the First Amendment’s Establishment clause because atheism was not a religion.

Onyx8 wrote:I think he's wrong anyway. Didn't that already go through the courts? I think atheism was defined as a religion in this circumstance for exactly this purpose. (Much to the discomfort of many an atheist I would guess.)

orpheus wrote:. . . Obviously to a lot of us (me included), atheism is not a religion.

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005).   The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.”   In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”

Onyx8 wrote;
I think he's wrong anyway. Didn't that already go through the courts? I think atheism was defined as a religion in this circumstance for exactly this purpose.

Atheism and the Law
Matt Dillahunty

The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals declared atheism a religion in a recent decision (Kaufman, James v. McCaughtry, Gary) .
[...]
What the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals got right:

"... whether atheism is a 'religion' for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture."
[...]
"Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of 'ultimate concern' that for her occupy a 'place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,' those beliefs represent her religion."

"We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir. 2003) ('If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.')"

This is, essentially, the basis for their decision. They have, in the past, considered atheism to be a religion in the specialized sense that atheism, like theism, specifically addresses the concept of god for the individual. This definition is an attempt to address the implied protections guaranteed by the First Amendment.

"The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions"

They referred to another Supreme Court decision (Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)), where the court said:

"At one time it was thought that this right [referring to the right to choose one’s own creed] merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."

http://www.atheist-community.org/librar ... php?id=742

Mick wrote:It is interesting to see that this organization is adopting the standard approach to atheism, the affirmation that no deity exists. What's more, the sign they proposed commits them to the metaphysical view of naturalism. Given this, perhaps it would be better for them not to define themselves in opposition to the more conventional religions. Instead, focus on interpreting the universe through naturalistic lens. In other words, they should focus more on the naturalism part rather than identifying themselves as being not theistic, not religious, not believers in heaven, and so on. Otherwise, they appear adversarial and parasitic.

orpheus wrote:

Mick wrote:It is interesting to see that this organization is adopting the standard approach to atheism, the affirmation that no deity exists. What's more, the sign they proposed commits them to the metaphysical view of naturalism. Given this, perhaps it would be better for them not to define themselves in opposition to the more conventional religions. Instead, focus on interpreting the universe through naturalistic lens. In other words, they should focus more on the naturalism part rather than identifying themselves as being not theistic, not religious, not believers in heaven, and so on. Otherwise, they appear adversarial and parasitic.

I think they appear to be calling the government to account for violating the Constitution.

Mick wrote:It is interesting to see that this organization is adopting the standard approach to atheism, the affirmation that no deity exists. What's more, the sign they proposed commits them to the metaphysical view of naturalism. Given this, perhaps it would be better for them not to define themselves in opposition to the more conventional religions. Instead, focus on interpreting the universe through naturalistic lens. In other words, they should focus more on the naturalism part rather than identifying themselves as being not theistic, not religious, not believers in heaven, and so on. Otherwise, they appear adversarial and parasitic.

Mick wrote:It is interesting to see that this organization is adopting the standard approach to atheism, the affirmation that no deity exists. What's more, the sign they proposed commits them to the metaphysical view of naturalism. Given this, perhaps it would be better for them not to define themselves in opposition to the more conventional religions. Instead, focus on interpreting the universe through naturalistic lens. In other words, they should focus more on the naturalism part rather than identifying themselves as being not theistic, not religious, not believers in heaven, and so on. Otherwise, they appear adversarial and parasitic.

SkyMutt wrote:

Mick wrote:It is interesting to see that this organization is adopting the standard approach to atheism, the affirmation that no deity exists. What's more, the sign they proposed commits them to the metaphysical view of naturalism. Given this, perhaps it would be better for them not to define themselves in opposition to the more conventional religions. Instead, focus on interpreting the universe through naturalistic lens. In other words, they should focus more on the naturalism part rather than identifying themselves as being not theistic, not religious, not believers in heaven, and so on. Otherwise, they appear adversarial and parasitic.

The approach to atheism that Marshall wants to promote is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the mayor's refusal to allow his "Reason Station" is contrary to the Constitution or not.

As for appearing adversarial and parasitic, the Catholic church opposes the government allowing legal abortion (adversarial) and gains a large part of its income by taking money from its congregants, while enjoying a tax-exempt status (parasitic). It would seem that if Marshall appears adversarial and parasitic, that is entirely in keeping with his attempt to be treated with the same consideration as any religion.