Ummmm... are you even remotely suggesting that people asking for the removal of nativity scenes from virtually everything isn't an organized movement of any kind? There are no organizations that support this or defends anyone that choses to support it?
Yes I am. It's usually some "concerned" parent who's a witch or in the Chicago area It's been a guy with the last name of Sherman.
Focus on the Family:
James C. Dobson, Ph.D., is founder, former president and chairman of the board of Focus on the Family, a nonprofit organization that produces his internationally syndicated radio programs heard daily on more than 8,300 radio facilities in 25 languages in more than 164 other countries.
Mission: To cooperate with the Holy Spirit in disseminating the Gospel of Jesus Christ to as many people as possible, and, specifically, to accomplish that objective by helping to preserve traditional values and the institution of the family.
Principles:
http://www.family.org/welcome/aboutfof/a0000078.cfmAssets: About $100 million as far as I can tell.
Then, you could look up Falwell or Robertson.
Now, the ACLU does support the athiests for the following reasons:
* Why does the ACLU oppose religious displays on public property
during the Christmas season?
Private citizens or private businesses are fully entitled to
commemorate holidays with religious displays, but when an agency of
government erects displays that symbolize Christian and/or other
religions, it is, in effect, endorsing the particular religions. In
two ACLU cases decided in 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that a
nativity scene displayed inside a Pennsylvania county courthouse
violated the Establishment Clause, but that a Hanukkah menorah
displayed outside another government building in the state was
acceptable because the "context" of the display was secular in that
it included other, non-religious symbols. The latter ruling echoed
the court's acceptance in a 1984 case, of religious displays on
public property as long as secular symbols like Santa Claus and his
reindeer are part of the display and its overall intent is secular.
The ACLU disagrees with these decisions. We believe that the place
for religious displays, as with religious events and practices, is in
the private sector -- the home, the religious day school, or each
person's place of worship. Moreover, spirituality is undermined and
religious symbols are trivialized when they are secularized in order
to permit government endorsement.
I agree with the technical justifications, but parsonally think its a bit silly unless the dollars really add up. But, I also think it's pretty easy to have the display with a little accommodation to non-christians. However, I think it would be even better if they were privately funded and the the minority religion had to fill out a "request to be included" form just to keep things from getting out of hand.
I don't think it's trivial when a judge puts a 1 ton statue of the 10 commandments in a court house to make a direct religious/political point about the one true religion. But, that's been hashed over already.
FWIW they have also defended religious freedom rights when they fall outside of the above criteria.
Charon
