Clerk Defies Supreme Court, Refuses Gay Marriage Licenses

[MTL]

MTL
****************************************************************************

The problem for me is the number of Americans who seem to opine that they Constitutionally have
"Freedom OF Religion",
but that Atheist Americans are not vouchsafed "Freedom FROM Religion"

Having "In God We Trust" being emblazoned on everything from your currency to your police cars
seems to mean, to many Americans,
that if you don't believe in God, you don't enjoy the same freedoms that Theists do.

I remember reading about a disputed quote, allegedly from former president George H. W. Bush:

" No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.
This is one nation under God. "

I certainly understand the concern, and I agree that it is un-Constitutional to have those things on our money, etc. They are the result of petitioning by the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic organization) in the 1950s, at a time when our Red Scare (Senator McCarthy) was in full swing, and the politicians who voted for it were afraid to appear atheistic and thus suspect-communist-sympathizer. It would have been political death. I find the legal tap dancing it has required, for our SCotUS to defend it as neutral, to be amusing, and I suspect strongly that it will soon find its legal death at the hands of someone who can prove harm, and thus standing to bring suit.

but I feel that simply "protecting religion", seems like a poorly-thought-out principle,
since some religions
....Islam comes to mind....
DO have passages in their holy writs that make tolerating anyone NOT of their religion, a sin against God
...albeit that not every member of the religion chooses to take it so literally.

We do not protect religion, except from government intrusion against the individual right of conscience. And, apparently, taxes. There are places where they do encroach, such as holding services in tax-paid schools, or National Day of Prayer services, and we fight back... but we use the Constitution to do it. Just because we cannot win hands-down, due to weight of certain traditions that have grown up in the wake of our national crisis over communism (and its lingering anti-atheist sentiments) and the political deaths of those who were seen as allied with us, does not mean it is not in its death gasp, historically. The USA is growing more secular, despite all the noise those fundies can make.

To me, to Constitutionally "protect religion", carte blanche, is naive,
DEPENDING on what a given religion might require of its followers.

At best they have a home-field advantage. They do not have carte blanche. See, e.g., Kim Davis.

It's a bit like saying "freedom to be a Neo-Nazi"
....freedom to assimilate; freedom to persecute with impunity,

Yes, we have the absolute freedom to be a Neo-Nazi. They have the absolute right to speak their minds and to try to recruit members. And likewise I have the right to fight back, verbally, against that. The moment they "persecute", their "impunity" goes away and they are arrested by the FBI, who keeps tabs on them. Quickly.

I feel like it could have been more carefully defined,
and because it wasn't,
religion has the upper hand in America, today.

Today? Religion has always had the upper hand, in this country. The French author of Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote in the 1830s that the reason religion flourished in the USA was because we kept government out of it, and left them alone, whereas countries (e.g. Sweden and England) which pushed official state religions saw their believing populace fade and die. I would venture to say that the excesses of the past 50 years, with respect to religious intolerance in the USA, particularly the fallout of the Reagan '80s and "Moral Majority" '90s, is one of the major factors in the decline of religious sentiment among the younger generation, today.

So, I don't dispute that legally, American law certainly protects religion in the way that you have illustrated,
and that yes, an attorney would certainly have a much easier time justifying the legal persecution of an Atheist refusing service to someone based on their religion,
as opposed to vice-versa;

It would be a major victory for atheism if a prominent atheist lawyer took the case, pro bono publico, on behalf of an oppressed religionist against another atheist who was actually trying to deny her government services as a result of her Constitutionally-protected right of conscience. Not only does it build up the "Wall of Separation", but it shows them that we are committed to the principle, even in their defense. One of the major reasons, I think, for their willingness to attack the Wall is not only because they think God Wills It, but because they assume we would do it to them-- after all, their preachers have been telling them for generations that atheists are evil and are out to destroy their faith. A substantial showing of defense of the principle of free conscience would go a long way toward poking holes in that idea.
As in Sweden, etc., I think that once they cease to feel persecuted, themselves, while the neutral parties see their attacks on the secular communities of the USA, the hordes of the faithful will begin to die away.

Spectacular answer, on all points!  I appreciate you taking the time.

I wasn't aware that "In God We Trust" wasn't on the currency until the 1950s
...I always assumed it was there from the beginning!!

Very interesting observation about the state-religions of Sweden and England as well.

So you basically state that the Constitution does NOT give Religion the upper hand,
it is only the Religious that would have you think so.