|
Grex > Agora46 > #92: Keep your religion off your private property! | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 185 responses total. |
glenda
|
|
response 75 of 185:
| 
Jul 24 16:48 UTC 2003 |
Also, if the monument is in a public park, tax dollars are paying for the
upkeep, even if it is just in cleaning around it. I resent having my tax
dollars being spent on a religious icon. It should be going to programs that
serve everyone, not just one section.
|
tod
|
|
response 76 of 185:
|
Jul 24 16:53 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 77 of 185:
|
Jul 24 17:07 UTC 2003 |
re: "72 (polytarp): Is klg insane?"
Perhaps it's just chemobrain.
re: "#73 (janc): ... it'd be fine with me if an agency give Jewish
employee's Fridays off...."
Actually, we'd prefer Saturdays.
"A non-Christian stepping in the door is going to feel like he has just
stepped into someone else's church."
Speak for yourself.
re: "#74 (rcurl): ... Re #71: more distortions...."
Unfortunately (for you) in your own words, Mr. rcurl.
|
dcat
|
|
response 78 of 185:
|
Jul 24 17:47 UTC 2003 |
resp 76: the issue is that where they've been unable to get zoning clearance
to build freestanding towers, or where people are actually willing to make
a fuss about how ugly they are, they've taken steps toward integrating them
into existing buildings. One of the most common such installations is in the
otherwise-unused space in church steeples. The cell company gets a place to
put their tower, people in the area don't have to see an ugly radio tower
everytime they turn around, and the church gets a bunch of rent money from
the cell company to renovate their frequently-deteriorating buildings.
Everyone's happy.
|
tod
|
|
response 79 of 185:
|
Jul 24 17:52 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 80 of 185:
|
Jul 24 19:53 UTC 2003 |
Re #69: There's a pretty vital difference. A church is erected and
maintained on private land, using private money. There's a big
difference between this, and the government deciding to single out one
religion for special treatment by placing a monument to their faith on
public land.
|
tod
|
|
response 81 of 185:
|
Jul 24 19:54 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 82 of 185:
|
Jul 24 20:27 UTC 2003 |
Re #60: That guy looks like an Agent. ;> Does that mean the Matrix is
run by Mormons?
|
klg
|
|
response 83 of 185:
|
Jul 25 01:42 UTC 2003 |
re: "#80 (gull): ... A church is erected and maintained on private
land, using private money...."
This is entirely correct; however, Mr. rcurl indicated that he felt that
merely being exposed to a religious edifice against one's will is an
imposition. And, you would certainly agree, that even a church that is
erected on private property is likely to be seen by innocent passers-by.
How can the right to erect a religious structure on private land be
reconciled with the desire by some not to be "offended" by seeing it
while on the public street?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 84 of 185:
|
Jul 25 06:03 UTC 2003 |
I pointed out that a "religious edifice" is not a promulgation of
religion. I pointed out that I have seen such edifices used as a hair
salon, card shop, and now I recall also as flower and antique shops. A
"religious edifice" is just a pile of bricks (or whatever) and has no
religious significance at all in itself. Structures may, of course, have
been associated with one use or another during their existence, but that
is just a matter of what the structure housed.
Religion is only in the communication and associated practice of doctrine.
|
gull
|
|
response 85 of 185:
|
Jul 25 12:45 UTC 2003 |
Re #83: I'm making my own argument. I'm not all that interested in
trying to help Rane out of the hole he's dug for himself. ;>
|
janc
|
|
response 86 of 185:
|
Jul 25 13:53 UTC 2003 |
I'm perplexed by Rane's whole course of argument as well. I gave my
main argument for avoiding regilous monuments on federal property.
I could build a couple others, including one about what is best for
the health of religious institutions (basically the more secular power
church leaders have, the more succeptable they are to the tempation
of abandoning the true mission of their faith in the pursuit of power,
a tendancy that has never done any faith any good). But I'm not eager
to sail on the vessel Rane is building.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 87 of 185:
|
Jul 25 16:39 UTC 2003 |
We've been talking about "religious" buildings on private property that
can be seen by the public. These have been pointed to as possible "public"
display of religion and the question asked why it also does not offend the
first amendment (or those supporting the first amendment). The answer is
that such buildings, while often of execrable architecture, are not of
themselves public religious expressions, except perhaps to those steeped
in their associated lore. A building is not communication of religious
doctrine or itself a religious rite. In fact, such building hide the
ongoing religious expressions occurring within them from imposition on the
public.
You may now return to the topics you have been discussing in related veins.
|
klg
|
|
response 88 of 185:
|
Jul 25 17:04 UTC 2003 |
Au contraire. Architecture is frequently used to communicate religious
connotation.
|
oval
|
|
response 89 of 185:
|
Jul 25 17:08 UTC 2003 |
here there is a big old church that's been squatted for community use. there
you can go, get a cheap beer from the bar, look at art exhibits, listen to
live music. complete with visits from police wanting to shutdown the events.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 90 of 185:
|
Jul 25 17:25 UTC 2003 |
Re #88: it only conveys "religious connotation" to those already indoctrinated
into that particular creed. To others it at most conveys allusions to some
ancient myths, especially if decorated with related icons.
|
scg
|
|
response 91 of 185:
|
Jul 25 17:54 UTC 2003 |
Rance's argument is still loopy. A crucifix in a public school classroom
would only convey religious connotation to those already familiar with that
particular creed. To anybody who was really that oblivious to the culture
going on around them, it would just look morbid.
The First Ammendment doesn't say that nobody has to see anybody else's
religion. It just says that the government (and by extension those acting
on behalf of the government) can't impose a religion on people. If you own
property that's zoned for the sort of traffic your church is likely to
generate, you can build a church on it. Somebody who owns the land next door
can build a satanic temple on it, while the neighbor next to that can build
a Thai restaurant, grocery store, or even an office building that the general
public can only look at the outside of. Hopefully, those of us who don't
follow a particular religion, can still walk past that religion's places of
worship and recognize that whatever iconography is visible is part of
somebody's culture, if not necessarily our own.
But that's all private enterprise, people or groups of people building the
structures they want to build for their own purposes on their own land. It's
a very different thing if the government decides to build a church, or make
land available specifically for that purpose. It may not force the rest of
us to look at anything we would otherwise not have to look at, but it does
make us subsidize it.
In a way this is too bad. A lot of European cities, and older American
cities, are built around beautiful churches, which have been given a prominant
place in the town and fill it nicely. Those towns are much more beautiful
places as a result. But they're beautiful places now, with those churches
open for anybody who is willing to be quiet to wander in and look around, as
long as they're respectful of those using the buildings for religious
purposes. When they were built, in an era of forceful "government
establishment of religion," they were built on behalf of churches that
tortured and executed nonbelievers. That certainly seems to me to be a
situation worth avoiding.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 92 of 185:
|
Jul 25 19:23 UTC 2003 |
I have only argued that religious structures on PRIVATE PROPERTY does
not impose religion upon the public. Religous structures on PUBLIC PROPERTY
(e.g., schools) does unless all religions, sects, belief systems and
opinions have equal accesds.
A crucifix in a public school classroom *does* convey religion only to
those in the know, but it also conveys an authority of that religion
over the behavior of the public. It does not do so in private venues.
|
tod
|
|
response 93 of 185:
|
Jul 25 19:31 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 94 of 185:
|
Jul 25 19:52 UTC 2003 |
Flipflop Alert. Flipflop Alert.
"#66 (rcurl): "Imposing" of religion occurs in situations in which
people are exposed to religous expression while within their rights to
not be so exposed because it is a public venue."
|
rcurl
|
|
response 95 of 185:
|
Jul 26 01:38 UTC 2003 |
That still holds.
|
scott
|
|
response 96 of 185:
|
Jul 26 02:01 UTC 2003 |
A "flip-flop" would be more like George Bush Sr. sayinc he'd never raise
taxes, and then raising taxes. Or like W. Bush saying he wasn't into
nation-building, and then later saying that he'd be rebuilding Iraq.
|
tod
|
|
response 97 of 185:
|
Jul 26 03:06 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
novomit
|
|
response 98 of 185:
|
Jul 26 14:23 UTC 2003 |
Religious icons on public property do not "impose" anything on anyone. As Jan
mentioned, it can make certain normally non-stressful events more stressful
on occasions, but no one id being forced to do anything by a public display
of faith. That is tantamount to saying the agys holding hands in public are
"imposing" their sexuality on heterosexuals. If you don't like it, fucking
ignore it. Ignorung things is a uch more potent form of vengeance than
singling them out and criticising them.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 99 of 185:
|
Jul 26 18:09 UTC 2003 |
What religious icons on public property is give tacit governmental support
to the particular creeds represented by such icons. They can induce some
apprehension that if you are not of that creed that there may be some
degree, even if small, intimidation or discimination. Religious icons
on private property only express the creed of those private individuals and
do not reflect governmental support of such.
|