response 51 of 185:

Jul 23 02:34 UTC 2003

so a monumant in a park is assaulting you, eh?  How many times you gonna run
up and smash your face into it?

response 53 of 185:

Jul 23 03:16 UTC 2003

I see religion as a private thing.  Between me and whatever/whomever I
worship.  Putting the monument in a PUBLIC park takes that particular religion
out of the private venue and into the public one.  I find it offensive (even
though I was raised in a Christian home and still follow the Christian ethic.)

response 55 of 185:

Jul 23 13:20 UTC 2003

If a person has a religious belief that requires that they smoke pot, 
it isnt suddenly going to be legal for them. Maybe a bunch of 
Rastafarians should start getting high while sitting on that monument. 
I wonder what Bruce would think about that. 

response 57 of 185:

Jul 23 17:06 UTC 2003

I think it is self evident - "private practice" means not imposing the
practice on the public. 

But points have been made about some laws that do indeed prevent even the
private practice of some religous doctrines (i.e., the use of some drugs
in ceremonies - alcohol OK but peyote not). Polyamy by Mormons is another
example.  It was outlawed for all - but primarily on the religous
principles of other Christian sects. (This may actually change with
improved separation of church and state. I don't think there can be any
purely secular objection to the totally consensual practices of polygamy
or polyandry that does not involve force or fraud.) 

The trend is toward secular law not restricting private behavior that does
not have direct negative consequences of loss or injury that society
wishes to prevent. Such laws could restrict religious practices that cause
loss or injury, such as forced female circumcision, ritual crucifixion,
and withholding of medical treatment of children.

response 59 of 185:

Jul 23 17:46 UTC 2003

Look it up.

response 61 of 185:

Jul 23 21:50 UTC 2003

Re #47:  What, ANOTHER defect in your understanding?!  (sorry, sarcasm
getting out of hand here.)

Bruce, you *really* need to do more reading, especially about the
"establishment clause".  When the Constitution was ratified, several
states had established churches:  they were officially recognized by
the law and received tax monies.  It took some time to dis-establish
these churches and make the states compliant with the Constitution,
but eventually all churches were equal.  That's what it's about,
making people of all religions (and of none) equal before the law.

The people opposed to this were the antidisestablishmentarians.  You
ought to remember this word from grade school, but it's obvious that
you never thought about what it meant.  It's time to start.

Giving public land to a sect for a religious monument (before the
fact, or after) is establishment, and it's unconstitutional.

response 63 of 185:

Jul 23 22:51 UTC 2003

Is the Eagles a religious group?  They are indeed a fraternal order, founded
to promote family values.  They were originally composed mainly of actors and
theater owners.

Apparently they are responsible for mothers day, and for getting the social
security act passed.  They also supported medicare, the jobs after 40 bill,
and social security.

They are the people who donated the monument.

response 65 of 185:

Jul 23 23:39 UTC 2003

Mr. rcurl-
Do you consider "imposing" to be forcing other persons to do something 
against their will or merely to be speaking or acting within earshot of 
persons who may not be in agreement with such speech or acts?  We would 
maintain it is the former, but suspect that you believe it to be the 
latter.

response 67 of 185:

Jul 24 04:01 UTC 2003

So they could get upset walking past a church?

response 69 of 185:

Jul 24 14:04 UTC 2003

it is a monument to a religion, isn't it?  You can tell it from other
buildings, the style is rather unique.  It just screams religion at you,
infringing on your right not to have to deal with religion.

response 71 of 185:

Jul 24 16:07 UTC 2003

Thank you, Mr. bru.  Since Mr. rcurl takes the extreme position 
that "to expose" is tantamount "to impose," we do not believe that the 
basis for a rational discussion of this issue exists.

response 73 of 185:

Jul 24 16:33 UTC 2003

This is always a hard issue.

Here's the key thing, that I think most people would agree with:

  The government's treatment of a person should not be better or
  worse depending on that person's faith.

This doesn't mean it can't take their faith into consideration - it'd
be fine with me if an agency give Jewish employee's Fridays off while
giving Christian employee's Sundays off, or if people of different
faiths are given different options for how to swear to tell the truth
in court.  They can put crosses up on graves of Christians in Arlington
National Cemetery, as long as they have a way to accomodate non-Christian
soldiers too.  But there should be no PREFERENCES based on religion.

I don't think that that is controversial.

So let's take a trickier case.  Suppose we have a big fancy nativity
scene in the lobby of city hall.  A non-Christian stepping in the door
is going to feel like he has just stepped into someone else's church.
Not a place that he really belongs.  A place where he may or may not be
entirely welcome.  Such a prominent display of one religion's symbols is
likely to cause people of other religions to EXPECT to be treated like
second class citizens, whether they actually are or not.  It might well
make them more reluctant to seek help from city law, feeling that it is
primarily there for Christians.

If that happens, then this person is effectively excluded from some forms
of government assistance,  In an slightly indirect way, the person is
not going to get equal service from the government.

To exaggerate it to the point of near absurdity, if city hall had a
glorious painting of a black man being lynched by the Klan hanging in
the lobby, blacks might be reluctant to come to city hall for help,
even if everyone there treats blacks with perfect respect and fairness.
The expectation of ill treatment would be enough to stop many, even if
there was no actual ill treatment.

Thus keeping religous symbols off government property is a good thing.

But the line is awfully blurry in the US.  We have this big fuss
about this monument in a park, but it still says "In God We Trust" on
the currancy, and "under God" in the pledge.  Congress opens with a
"nondenominational" prayer.  Our politicians wrap themselves in God
whenever they can't completely cover themselves with the flag.  Given all
that, the monument seems like a pretty pety issue.

I'd like to see the line cleanly drawn and all that stuff religated
to history.  A monument in a park is not as bad as a nativity scene in
the city hall lobby, but we shouldn't have to be making fine judgements
about where the boundary line is.  Just ban it all.  Nobody's religion is
going to be harmed by this.  Some Christians may take this as a sign that
the government doesn't love them above all others anymore - but if they
ever felt that way, then that only proves that the problem was a real one.