Loudmouths

The problem in this is that most of these people are Atheist. They become offended because they either lack the personal belief that they are right and the practicing religious are wrong and somehow might change their minds. These people take active measures to suppress the public messages the religious offer.

Yet the religious bow their head, tuck their tails, and take the brow beating with but a wimper. If the religious were as vigorous about protecting their Constitutionally established right as the Atheist were in their freedom to express their religious beliefs, there might be less active bitching and a bit more passive practice.

Understand this. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In this statement, the government, cannot endorse any one religion over another nor can it it prohibit the free exercise there of. This means that while the government itself cannot require the practice of christian religions in school over other religions, they also cannot prohibit the individual from practicing their own religious beliefs (to an extent). There are some limits they may impose, such as one cannot completely disrupt the educational process in the classroom so that they may pray or they cannot sacrifice another human being as a part of their practice.

The Atheists have managed to argue themselves into a corner. According the the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Kaufman v. McCaughtry, Atheism, by having a body of individuals with similar beliefs is a religion itself. "...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." Furthermore, the 7th Circuit Court also stated that "the Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes nontheistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones."

When an individual places a cross on the side of the freeway, as a sign of their religious mourning of the loss of a loved one, they are doing a passive practice in that it affects noone outside those who are personally involved. When an atheist actively seeks the governments intervention of the practice of said religion, they are in violation of the Constitution of the United States. A parallel freedom for the atheist would be to put up a sign stating their views or beliefs. Or to develop some other symbology of their cause.

It may be time for some counter-suits against individuals who would seek to remove religion from the public sphere and those government entities who move to prohibit the individuals right to practice that religion.