FFRF- Jousting at Windmills?
.
Recent online discussion at the Wisconsin State Journal produced some comments defending FFRF’s (Freedom From Religion Foundation’s) legal challenges of religion as being “within their rights.” I find it surprising that FFRF persists in their vendetta to eradicate public mention of religion, considering that atheists are often listed as tax-exempt religious organizations themselves, and even the textbook definition of religion includes the beliefs that they espouse. So, ultimately atheists are just pushing their OWN religious beliefs in preference to those of others.
Supporters of FFRF have also argued that Judeo-Christian values “have shaped Western Civilization by means of state-sanctioned swordpoint.” Perhaps FFRF and its supporters are confusing militant Islamic radicals with peace loving Christians in 2011? It is hard to find evidence of “enforcement of religion by sword point” in the US, where 80% of us are Christian, and in Madison, where 53% are Catholic, 22% Evangelical Lutheran, and only 10% of the population is outside of Christian denominations (ref). Not too many swords being wielded by Mayor Cieslewicz or by President Obama recently as far as I can tell.
. Is not FFRF jousting at windmills? Like Don Quixote, FFRF has imagined an enemy where no enemy exists in 2011 America.
.
If FFRF were so “within their rights,” they would have more supporters than 0.003 of 1% of America, their frivolous lawsuits would be on a larger and more meaningful scale than at present, and they would enjoy better success in court.
To date, most of their demands and lawsuits have been directed at small communities, which cannot afford litigation costs. For example, recently FFRF has challenged Marshfield, WI’s City Council’s practice of prayer . The population of Marshfield is about 18,000; Marshfield is about 7% the size of Madison.
A number of FFRF’s and similar legal challenges have already been denied by the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court (1983, Nebraska Legislature prayer), as well as a 2008 U.S. Court of Appeals ruling written by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, have upheld legislative prayer . Is FFRF also planning to initiate a lawsuit against President Obama, who ended his State of the Union address with the words “God bless America?”
FFRF’s recent, larger-scale attempt to declare the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional did succeed for one week in April of 2010 with a liberal Wisconsin judge (Barbara B. Crabb,District Judge) ruling in their favor, but the ruling was promptly challenged by the U.S. Department of Justice . The Obama administration is planning to fight to preserve the law establishing the National Day of Prayer. The idea of a national Day of Prayer has existed since 1775, and was supported by the constitutional congress, and by numerous Presidents, including President Lincoln.
The rationale for preserving the National Day of Prayer can be found at the American Center for Law and Justice .
There can be no denying that FFRF efforts towards the enforcement of public ATHEISM should be resisted by all reasonable Americans, just as those trying to force ANY particular religion should be resisted. FFRF’s efforts at intimidation of small communities by litigation are misguided and are to be condemned. FFRF should practice the same tolerance towards religious Americans that religious Americans practice towards FFRF.
Why are our many different religious roots so revered in the United States? The United States was first settled by people fleeing governments which forbade free exercise of religion. In more recent times, my own relatives came here fleeing the occupation of Lithuania by an atheist regime which denied religious freedom. Those unable to escape, spent decades in Siberian exile and in concentration camps. I wonder if FFRF atheists realize where radical vendettas by intolerant people wishing to control the beliefs of others (either atheist zealots OR religious zealots) can lead? How many RELIGIOUS groups have intimidated FFRF with numerous and frivolous lawsuits?
Syte Reitz grew up in Queens, New York, in a family of Lithuanian immigrants who fled Nazi and Soviet domination during World War II. Her education includes a Ph.D. in Biochemistry, and post-doctoral work at Princeton University. Syte left her job as an Assistant Professor at Oakland University, Michigan, to devote herself to raising her children, and ultimately homeschooled them through the end of high school. She is a member of Madison's Cathedral Parish.
Great post–how I wish the WiSJ would pick it up!
[...] claims injustice and sues each time atheism is not enforced in the public [...]
[...] is the home of much radical liberalism… birthplace of the progressive movement, of the Freedom From Religion Foundation , and home to the liberal University of Wisconsin at Madison . Detractors refer to Madison as the [...]
Syte,
You mischaracterize FFRF’s intent as to eradicate all religion. The organization opposes actions of government entities of communities, states, and of the federal government that abuse power by favoring any particular religion over others, or over non-religion. As someone whose family fled a regime for its dominant, established views and actions, you should actually consider siding with the FFRF against the establishment of any particular point of view, religious or not. There is a good reason why our wise founders placed the Establishment Clause as the first right mentioned in the Bill of Rights, even before mention of the Free Exercise Clause.
Best regards,
-Arik
Arik –
I am afraid that the mischaracterization of FFRF is yours, not mine.
My first article on FFRF was prompted by Annie Laurie Gaylor’s public objection to the expansion of UW Madison’s Catholic student center in the Wisconsin State Journal. http://sytereitz.com/2011/01/freeedom-from-religion/
Annie Laurie Gaylor opposed private expansion on private property using private funds.
The leader of FFRF had no problem with student atheists being funded on campus, or Sex Out Loud being funded on campus. But she opposed a Catholic Student project, which was not using university funds.
This is just one example of FFRF members actively fighting free exercise of religion in America.
FFRF’s primary activity appears to be policing Christian America and threatening litigation wherever they find public expression of religion.
FFRF appears to specialize in intimidation by litigation and focusing primarily on small towns and groups which cannot afford the legal bills to fight FFRF’s lawsuits.
FFRF often makes frivolous chip-on-the-shoulder accusations against America’s 80% Christian majority, which I call “jousting at windmills.”
Many of FFRF’s law suits are dismissed by the courts, citing the fact that freedom of speech DOES allow the mention of God in America, and the fact that the sight of a Christian symbol does not constitute undue pain and suffering.
Christian America (80% of America) does NOT sue FFRF and does NOT attempt to eradicate FFRF’s views. FFRF should extend the same tolerant courtesy to the rest of us.
FFRF does not even represent atheists or agnostics, most of whom are quite tolerant of Christian beliefs, and some of whom participate in annual Christian celebrations such as Christmas. FFRF represents bitter extremists, who work hard to force their own beliefs on the rest of America, and who have even promoted paganism in the Wisconsin State Capitol at Christmas. Both atheism and paganism are religions, and FFRF promotes the public enforcement of both.
You have some cheek, citing my family background in your argument– “fleeing a regime for its dominant, established views and actions.” The regime my family fled was Soviet USSR, whose policies on religion resemble remarkably those of FFRF —forbidding public expression of religion, and privately ridiculing and working to undermine religion. I have personally witnessed what extremists who hate religion and who devote their lives to eradicating it can do to individuals and to a whole society. My grandparents were sent to Siberia by overconfident atheists who resembled FFRF and pushed their own views too hard.
You appear to be blind to the fact that FFRF is a group with little tolerance and “dominant, established views and actions,” resembling the Soviets more than they the freedom fighters they claim to be.
[...] So it’s not easy. We can’t sue everybody. We try to single out small communities with small budgets (like Marshfield, a small WI town that hardly has any cell phone coverage), and we sue them whenever their teenagers try to pray on a sports field or their teachers hang the ten commandments in a hallway. We hope that they will stop expressing their beliefs out of fear of our lawsuit which they cannot afford. That way, we do not have to go to court and risk losing the case, or use up our meager budget. But people have no sympathy for us. They don’t understand our pain. They accuse us of jousting at windmills. [...]
[...] which his organization can sue. Not a very courageous man, nor a very courageous organization; suing primarily small communities who cannot afford the litigation costs to fight FFRF, and too timid to tackle Islam. FFRF seems [...]
Nice post which FFRF also planning to initiate a lawsuit against President Obama, who ended his State of the Union address with the words God bless America. In which The United States was first settled by people fleeing governments which forbade free exercise of religion. In more recent times, my own relatives came here fleeing the occupation of Lithuania by an atheist regime which denied religious freedom. Thanks a lot .
[...] The right to public prayer has actually been constitutionally upheld numerous times. Yet the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) continues to attack public prayer wherever they think they can win, through legal intimidation of groups with small budgets, like the town of Marshfield, WI. [...]
[...] article I originally quoted in 2010. Whether threats of litigation similar to those used by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) are responsible for removal of these articles is not [...]