A judge in Lacrosse Wisconsin has ordered the removal of a monument dedicated to the ten commandments from a public park. The monument, located across the street from the Eagles Club was donated by that organization in 1965. U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled Monday that the monument be removed because its presence in a city park violates the Constitution's First Amendment. The issue was raised in a lawsuit by the Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation and 23 La Crosse area plaintiffs The city had tried to mitigate the issue by selling the property to the Eagles Club, but the judge set the sale aside, ordered the property returned to the city, and then ordered the monument removed. As it now stands, the monument may be removed to a local church property on main street, but the city council needs to decide whether they want to take the case to the Supreme Court. So, is it now illegal to have a display on private property? A religious display, that is.185 responses total.
The article says it is not private property. Anyway, a church on Main St in Lacrosse has offered space on its property for the monument.
Re #0: I don't get that from the text at all. It would have been legal if the court had allowed the sale, but as long as the park remains public property the Constitution forbids displays of Islamic, Buddhist, Taoist, pagan, animist, Druidic, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Shinto, or other religious stuff. The question is, why did the court stop the sale? The story says "the city" was trying to sell the park, but what does that mean? The mayor? The city council? Did they have the right to do that? I mean, if I found out that somebody was trying to sell a piece of public (i.e., my) property in order to get around the First Amendment, I'd try to stop it, too.
A relevant consideration is whether the city was to receive fair market
value for the land, and another is whether the sale was planned before
the issue of the monument came up.
<snip>
In June 2001, the Freedom From Religion Foundation ("FFRF"), through
counsel, asked the City to remove the Monument from Cameron Park. The
City refused this request. Id. Instead, on July 11, 2002, the Common
Council of the City passed a resolution authorizing the sale to the
Eagles of a small piece of land--twenty by twenty-two feet--immediately
under and around the Monument.2 The deed to the Eagles contains the
restriction that "appropriate fencing, landscaping and signage shall be
provided by 10/24/02 and maintained in order to commemorate the youth of
the La Crosse area for their assistance and great help for the spring
1965 flood that the City of La Crosse experienced." The Eagles installed
a wrought iron fence, approximately four feet high, around the perimeter
of the parcel on October 24, 2002.
...
The attempted transfer of the parcel does nothing to terminate the City's
endorsement of religion. That transfer was, admittedly, a strategy to
"get around" the First Amendment and to maintain the Monument in the
park, where it remains today. Even if the City complied with the formal
requirements of a sale of park property--which it did not--what the City
deems to be "appropriate fencing and signage" does not disavow the
inherently religious message of the Monument.
</snip>
source: http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/may03/index.php?ft=lacrosse.html
Hey, Bruce! The city council of La Crosse broke the law, so maybe we should "send them home" just like we did with Rabih Haddad, huh?
Bullshit ..no laws were broken. This is another case where the ideas the founding fathers brought forth have been preverted by liberals. The "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution. It merely states that congress shall not establish a state church. The only reason that is there is because so many of the settlers came here to escape religous persecution. The same persecution you liberals are trying here. Any religion should have the freedom to display any message they choose on public property. I remember my tax dollars being spent so some pervert could hang a crucifix in a bottle ot urine and call it art. I guess you dumb liberals would say" oh that's freedom of speech" you hypocrites.
(Every post sabre makes says exactly the same thing:
View ignored response.
What a dullard!)
Your rebutals are where the lack of contexnt lies. "DUH what a dullard..er DUH he doesn't agree with our liberal agenda and he always posts against it" You have yet to post a meaningful arguement against any thing I post. Only a dumb jackass would say every one of my posts are the same. They come from a position that is pure from leftist nonsense like the bullshit that gets applauded on this bbs.
"Any religion should have the freedom to display any message they choose on public property." Somehow, I suspect that this would piss off the religious right even more than the current situation. :)
The park isn't private property.
If religions (and everyone else) had the freedom to display any messge they choose on public property, can you imagine what public property would look like? A battle of religious icons PLUS commercial spam.
This response has been erased.
I'd like a close-up view of the signs along the fence...
Abortion, other.
Clearly the building that currently houses the SCOTUS needs to be either demolished or moved to private land (maybe the SCOTUS should have to pay rent?) by the reasoning of #10 et al. Church Street in A2 needs to be renamed as well. Hmm, I wonder if the residents of Arlington National Cemetary need to have their markers redone? The Tomb needs renovation to change the phrase. Hmm, as a priest in the cargo cult of United - we worship the 747 - I must should file a lawsuit to get the city of chicago to rename the United Center. Works for me...
Sabre, if you are so pissed by liberals disdain of Christianity, why don't you behave more like Christians say everyone should? If you are an example of a loving Christian, then all I have to say is Hail Satan!
RE:#10 Any religion that has 501c-3 isn't a venture for profit. They serve the local community and hence they serve the public. RE:#15. That's the excuse every dirtbag like you uses."Oh he doesn't act like a christian, therefore Christ isn't real" You consider that a license to sin. You consider it a passport to please. When you hail satan make sure you suck his cock. Novomit...you make me *barf*
Stop it, sabre. You should feel embarassed.
So Lacrosse wanted to sell the land to the Eagles, in order that the illegally-installed Christian monument could stay. What do you bet that the Satanists, Wiccans, Muslims or even folks as inoffensive as Buddhists couldn't get in on such land sales? What do you bet that the people protesting this "oppressive" court decision - including Bruce - would scream bloody murder if it was seriously suggested to be fair to all faiths? It shows just how little thinking the right-wing religious fanatics allow themselves to do, or how transparent their agenda is (to establish Christianity as the state religion of the USA, and probably a particular sect). Bruce, please tell me: are you that blind, or do you think we are? Does this stuff *really* fool you?
Russ, y'know what? If the Buddhists wanted to put up a memorial in a public park, and then need to "buy" the land to keep it, I'd say cool. Because it's the memorial that's important to me, in this case.
OK, but then would you support automatic sale of public property to religous organizations?
I'd go for that--I have my eye on a nice piece of public property in town, and if all I have to do to buy it cheap is to form a religious group...
Let him without sin cast the first stone . . . Jesus probably makes you barf as well, yes? Don't worry, though, I am sure that the feeling is mutual.
This response has been erased.
You already cast the first stone.
This response has been erased.
*nathan lane yell and faint*
This response has been erased.
Sabre's posts need more intelligence. I cranked up the "brightness" on my monitor to the max, but it didn't work. Since sabre won't fix the problem at the source, I went to twit-filtering. I'm amazed that there are still people who haven't. Let him do what he does best: talk to himself.
some people find entertainment in my posts russ..unlike yours no one will listen to your jealous whining so STFU. I wish you would make good on your filter threat. You piss and moan like a two year old.
I tried using twit filters, but when I did, PicoSpan didn't scroll right, so I deleted them. As for sabre, he does seem too stupid to reply to, but as others have said, it offers occasional amusement. As for me casting the first stone, I think your posts will show that that is incorrect, not that such a thing would bother you, but Jesus himself tended to feel more sympathy for the downtrodden and "sinful" while seeming to disdain those who were really into condeming others (the pharisees). If "God is Love", I have yet to see anything of the sort emanating from you sabre. Then again, the "right thinking" murdered Jesus as well. I think I will take my chances with the wrong-thinking.
novomit, it sounds like you used a filter, but deleted your *pager* in the process. Try using a filter but add the following command to the end: | more That will give you a filter *and* a pager. All I see when a response is deleted is a skip in the response numbers; it works great.
The monument wasn't there illegaly. It had been placed there in 1965, a time when such actions were still considered legal by the government.
Sorry, one does not imply the other. It wasn't any more constitutional then that it is now.
I don't think the federal government placed that monument there in 1965.
I have been thinking about this some and I wonder if there might be an argument for keeping the monument in the park because of artistic and historic reasons. It has a religious theme, it is true, but there are lots of other examples of public art that do too. Perhaps the value of this sculpture is that it reflects the minds of the people in the town in 1965 when it was installed? It would be a shame if the idea of creating a separation of church and state became so extreme that public money could not be used to support anything with a religious theme. Would such legal precedent be used to rid public art museums of anything in their collections that had a religious theme? That would be the majority of most collections, I imagine.
There are no written religious messages associated with almost all art in museums that is based in biblical or other myths, and hence the art does not, per se, convey any religous beliefs. Also, the art is usually arranged by period, which mixes in many different depictions, not just religious ones. (The religious art does become rather repetitious in many museums, however, even if well executed.)
I think one reason I resist twit filters so strongly is seeing how smug people who use them are. Of course, I suppose there could be (and probably are) a lot of people who use them and don't feel the need to point it out gleefully whenever their filter hides something, but if so, how would I know?
I will mention it once that I do for your benefit. I remember this discussion well. Again, I see twit filters as an active sorting; simply skimming is passive. If I feel that I need to view an ignored response, I will do so, otherwise filtering saves me some time and space. It is simply a tool; no more, no less.
Re #37: I agree. I don't mind if people use twit filters, but I do think it's a bit annoying when they make snarky comments about it.
re#36 - A lot of art *does* have written religious messages actually. Even the art that does not have a written message usually was created to convey a religious message to an illiterate population. And yet, it still has a secular value. Could there be a secular value to this monument in La Crosse?
The written religous messages are usually in Latin. You have to be cued into the tradition to get any religous message from most of the religious art. Most of it just depicts stories from the bible, which means no more to those not part of the tradition than art depicting Greek mythology means to those unfamiliar with Greek mythology. In so far as the art conveying religious messages to the illiterate public - that only worked if the public was first indoctrinated by oral transmission of the creed. The art was also used, of course, as advertising to induce the illiterate public to inquire about what the fuss was all about. After the reformation the public wasn't kept quite so illiterate as the bible was published in local vulgates. I don't think the objection is to any secular value of the LaCrosse monument. The objection is having the Ten Commandments written in English exhibited on public property (with no "balance"....for example, equivalent quotes from the Koran and other religious texts, and responses from different traditions of secular humanism.....).
Yes. I wouldnt have any trouble with adding balance to the site. I just worry that this concept of total separation of church and state could be used to rid museums of important works just because they happen to have a religious theme. Maybe the solution would be to allow a statue of Darwin, some sort of Wiccan statue, Verses from the Quoran, A big nekkid statue of Baccus swilling wine and humping nymphs, and whatever else at the site. ;) I am sure that the Christians wouldnt object to that.
This response has been erased.
I dont know. Can they?
This response has been erased.
Re #32: Just because it took years for someone to enforce the Constitution doesn't mean it wasn't being violated for the intervening time. If you drive 75 in a 55 MPH zone but there's no cop there to clock you, are you not breaking the law? Re #37: I don't make a point of it except when I see someone else obviously wasting their time with an idiot (specifically, not having fun).
problem is, I understand the law to say the government cannot create a religion, not that there cannot be religion in government. Also could be understood to mean government will make no law preventing religion, which it is currently doing.
No laws have been adopted that prevent the private practice of religion. If you think otherwise, please let us know of one.
If I was required by my religion to throw poop in your face, you might hope the government would pass a law to prevent *THAT*, bapster.
That would not be private. And for the record, Bruce is not the arbiter of what the establishment clause means (thankfully!), but the USSC is.
so a monumant in a park is assaulting you, eh? How many times you gonna run up and smash your face into it?
It's promoting religion. Endorsing it, if you will.
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.)
Re 48. Any religion requiring human sacrifice would probably be illegal. Maybe not the whole religion, but practising parts of it. Not that that would be a bad thing. I am not too fond of people who take their holy writs too literally trying to impose it on others via government, but I think it is really an impossibility to keep government and religion 100% separate . . . that would only have the effect of barring people from trying to practise their religion if they are politicians. If a person is a Christian, and they get elected, part of following their religion means obeying certain rules and trying to get society to function in a certain "godly" way. To disallow this would be religious discrimination, since that politician would be barred from practising his religion as he understands it. On the other hand, making a point of not electing such people if you strongly disagree with them would be a good idea. Unless they are running for president, of course.
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.
re: "#46 (russ): Re #32: Just because it took years for someone to enforce the Constitution doesn't mean it wasn't being violated for the intervening time." Were there no prior judicial decisions on religion/religious displays? re: "#48 (rcurl): No laws have been adopted that prevent the private practice of religion...." Mr. rcurl (and Ms. glenda) - Please state your definitions of "private practice." Thank you.
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.
We believe that the definition is quite far from "self evident." And ever if it were, what is self-evident to you is quite often different than what is self-evident to us - as you may have previously noted. Now, if you would please, what do you mean by "imposing?"
Look it up.
I suspect that if a city council were to decree that every citizen got a piece of land in a public park to do what they wanted with, some of those citizens would put up religious displays and the courts wouldn't have a problem with it. Likewise, if a city council were to decide to sell a public park and put it up for auction to the highest bidder, and the highest bidder happened to be a church, I doubt the courts would have a problem with that either. The issue here is that when a city council decides to sell a piece of land to a particular religious group, without giving anybody else the opportunity to buy the land, that's pretty clearly a case of the government unfairly favoring that religious group. There's a case like this going on in Salt Lake City right now. There's a plaza outside Temple Square where some people like to protest against mormonism. When I was there, those protests seemed to consist of people handing out flyers advertising religious other than mormonism, and a group waving a rainbow flag and being video taped by the mormon security forces, who are stiff looking men in dark suits wearing earpieces. (http://www.gibbard.org/~scg/photos/mg.jpg is a picture somebody I was with took of the actual video taping, another photo is http://tinyurl.com/hu2r). The church wants to be able to have the protestors arrested, and the city is thus trying to give the plaza to the church.
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.
This response has been erased.
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.
This response has been erased.
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.
"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.
So they could get upset walking past a church?
Howso?
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.
A church isnt built on public land. Because that monument is on public land, not only must people be exposed to it, it is also using that public land. Maybe someone would rather put up a monument to something else, something, perhaps, a bit more secular.
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.
Is klg insane?
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.
Re #69: don't be silly. Chruch architecture is just another pile of bricks (or whatever), like other buildings. I can usually identify its function (although a week or so ago I saw one labeled "Hair Salon" - I think there is one on Broadway from which greetings cards are sold). The only thing "religous" about a church structure is sometimes the message on the kiosk. Re #71: more distortions And, of course, "God" has no place on our currency or in our patriotic slogans or pledges. It is just pandering to a politically powerful majority.
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.
This response has been erased.
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.
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.
This response has been erased.
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.
This response has been erased.
Re #60: That guy looks like an Agent. ;> Does that mean the Matrix is run by Mormons?
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?
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.
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. ;>
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.
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.
Au contraire. Architecture is frequently used to communicate religious connotation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This response has been erased.
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."
That still holds.
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.
This response has been erased.
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.
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.
I disagree. An icon may to you represent a "creed", however, from what I see, most religionists cannot agree even with themselves even over the most trifling things, thus to say that a picture imposes any particular creed is to me kind of silly. As for as the degree of intimidation, I can see what you mean but if my local hospital had a statue of Krishna on the front lawn, it wouldn't bother me even though I am basically a heathen. Looks more like nitpicking to me.
Is it a government owned hospital? If so, I do not think a statue of Krishna would be appropriate. One of Galen would have more relevance.
More appropriate perhaps, but I doubt either would make a bit of difference to me. If it had a plaque on the wall that said "Hindus Served First", I might try another hospital, but just a statue of some god or guy wouldn't bother me. Especialyl if I had just been short or was crapping blood or something.
If I'd been short (sic) or crapping (sic) blood, or other wise sic, I would be glad of any hospital: they could have any statues, icons, plaques, etc they wanted. But we are talking THEORY here.
Ah, THEORY, well why didn't you say so??? Sicem, rover!
Oh, "theory". That which those with no facts claim when backed into a corner. The fact is that the "establishment clause" was there simply to prevent the state declaring a state religion. Folk then were really sensitive as folk had been murdered by a state merely for being members of a particular religion. In the case of the edifice in the public park, the mere fact that it was put up is not a violation of the establishment clause so long as it had community approval. Thus a community of satanists could just as easily erect a statue of stan without it being a violation. Where is enters into the area of violation is when the state prohibits the same. Rcurl, do you really mean to suggest that if NAMBLA declared itself a religion then its proclivities are socially acceptable?
Of course not. Even religions must adhere to the laws of society. (Where did I mention NAMBLA, anyway?)
Re #105: Isn't erecting a monument to one religion in a public park, but not to other religions, essentially the same as banning those religions from erecting their monuments?
I think pvn is claiming that there's a difference between the government erecting a monument, and "the community" erecting it. The problem with this argument is that in a democracy the community is the government.
In a democracy yes, but folk should remember that the USA was originally supposed to be a republic.
In this case, though, aren't we talking about a local government?
Given how frequently locally-overwhelming-majority religions have abused minorities, i'd say that this sort of "soft money" state sanctioning of religion needs to be firmly discouraged.
Which means then that you logically support polygamy/polyandry on the grounds that a minority religion might practice it?
Are you suggesting there is something "wrong" with polygamy/polyandry? If so, what?
the hooter's chick and wifey-poo didn't get along..
114: well, it's illegal, for starters. also, from the admittedly little I've seen of it, practitioners of polygamy are rarely able to support all the resulting children and wind up on welfare. there was an interesting case that got prosecuted not too far back--tom green, or tom smith, or something like that, I think.
Well, they dont necessarily need to end up on welfare. Seriously, I think it is just as wrong to ban polygamy as it is to ban homosexual marriage. The idea that marriage can only be between one man and one woman isnt one I subscribe to. Anyhow, most kids on welfare are either born to unmarried parents or to parents of more traditional marriages.
Re #116: "all the resulting children" - how is this different than single motherhood or large families of couple marriages. etc? "on welfare" - how is this different than all the single mothers on welfare (as slynne aludes to)? The most major problems that I have read about involve spousal abuse.
Anyone who thinks that local government should be able to give land (or anything else) to religious groups for the purposes of the latter ought to read about the Rajneeshis and their attempt to take over a town's government.
Re: #113 I'm afraid that i may not be able to follow your logic, pvn. Could you explain in more detail?
resp:116 Most of those examples, I would think, are when there are many, many wives-- about 5 or more-- not, say 2 or 3. Personally, I'm not a real supporter of multiple marriages, but at least let's be fair with the illustrations. This is also where the marriage contract is *practiced*... I know of at least one relationship that is like this that isn't cemented by marriage all the way around. There's a husband, a wife, kids between them, and a boyfriend, with kids from his previous marriage. They all live together and seem to live pretty stably. I don't approve of this, but I don't see welfare circumstances. They do live in a house...
If you're not a "real supporter" of multiple marriages, I presume you won't enter into such. But shouldn't other people do so if they want to? It really isn't any of your business. Your "appoval" is irrelevent.
Personally, my only objection to polygamy is that it seems that cultures that practice polygamy usually practice forced marriage too. God forbid that 14 year old girls actually decide for themselves who to marry.
The answer there is to raise the age at which a person can get married to 18.
Based upon my experiences, and as a parent, I think 30 would be better.... 8^}
This response has been erased.
Hmmm. I'd been thinking of the (mostly-Mormon) high-profile cases that have come to my attention. Those really bug me--besides forcing or brainwashing barely pubescent girls into marriage, I think incest is relatively common. I think the "elders" of societies like these are on a total control trip. Having said that, and considered a situation where three consenting adults have concluded that they want to spend the rest of their lives together, I find that I could care less what they want to do. Ain't my business. And yet, I don't think that more than two people (regardless of sex) should be able to get married. I think the law should define a different ceremony/institution/whathaveyou to ensure legal rights in such a situation. (Then again, of people that can and do get married, maybe half of them actually understand and mean the vows they're supposed to speak. So I don't know why any of this matters to me in the first place. People suck.)
Vows are tricky things, especially when they become irrelevant because of significant changes in circumstances or the people involved. Contracts I can understand, as they also contain terms for termination, but vows don't seem to recognize human nature. I think it admirable to keep one's "vows" so long as keeping them is relevant to something, but what then when they are no longer relevant?
resp:122 Oh go soak your head, Rane-- now you're making judgment calls (about mine, no less, ya hypocrite). It was a point of clarification and my own bloody opinion. Sure it's not relevant and people are going to do what they damn well please-- it was for any stray idiot that might get the mistaken idea I condoned it, if somehow that could be construed. Pete's sake almighty, take a chill pill.
Actually, that makes some sense. No more marriages as such, just make rules for a new kind of corporation for individuals to pool their resources and be treated by society as a unit in many senses. Built-in procedures for any individual leaving the corporation and so forth.
...for further details, read any Robert A. Heinlein book. :)
From a really old Doonesbury cartoon: "Personally, I favor a system of lapel pins".
I think #138 touches upon a large part of the problem: a lot of people just don't want homosexual and other variant marriages to be CALLED marriage. As shown in Vermont, it is more acceptable if called something else. Of course, "A rose by any other name.....".
I don't think I'd enjoy polygamy much, and thus don't feel very strongly about it. However, if the goal is to ban forced marriages, incest, spousal abuse, and people not taking care of their children, it strikes me as far more effective to ban those things rather than to ban polygamy. A polygamy ban on those grounds strikes me as really reaching.
I'd settle for banning brainwashing in addition to the list in 134, but you'd have to be able to enforce all these things. So far, track record on effectiveness not all that great.
Re: #133 Hmmm... The Church says "baptism"; the state says "birth certificate". The Church says "confirmation"; the state says "legal age". The Church says "late rites", the state says "death certificate". Looks to me like the state needs to say that "marriage" is also strictly a Church function and switch to the "partnership" business instead. Not that lots of Church types wouldn't have a hissy fit over that, but it'd be amusing to counter-attack with suggestions that they be required to get state permits & pay state fees to baptize, confirm, ordain, etc. - after all, those things are at least as important as marriage (from a religions point of view), so it's just as important that the state make sure they're properly register, restricted, taxed, etc....
What the churches do now is on top of the state marriage. None of what they do has any legal significance. Therefore I see no need for state regulation of what they do in these regards. However the term "marriage" has now been coopted into law, so the churches should find their own new term to describe what they do.
You horrible little man. You are the epitome of what is wrong with our country - not the least because you think it is yours alone along with similar like minded. Our founding persons wrote the 1st ammendment language prohibiting the state from establishing a state religion not because they were against religion per se but because they didn't want the power of the state to favor one over another. ITs the "establishment clause" not the "separation of church and state". Likely as not our founding persons would think you insane to suggest that one could run a republic without some sort of church - be it cosmic muffin or hairy thunderer - as one needs some sort of structure to civilize the savage beasts (children) in the first place. (Do you have any children that are not in prison?) Or perhaps you are one who violates the 1st by calling for the state establishment of the religion of statism - the state is such a model of efficiency, just look at AMTRACK or Medicare. The only reason I bother to enter this item is to warn other readers that you are a statist - others would say fascist.
Re #133: I used to think that, too, but a recent survey shows that 44% of opeople say they'd be less likely to back a Presidential candidate who supported civil unions. Only 10% said they'd be more likely. 41% of people favor allowing civil unions and 53% oppose them. Re #136: I totally agree, of course. Re #138: Yes, the state is so wasteful that a whopping 3.6% of Medicare spending goes to administrative costs. The private health care industry does so much better, they only waste 31%. ;>
re #136: Hear, hear. Would you consider running for governor of California?
Our founding persons wrote the first amendment because they saw the consequences of the church meddling in state affairs and the state meddling in church affairs. No, they were mostly not against religion, but many of them were deists at best and pretty much avoided religious organization. But most founders did think a republic could be run without religions, and they founded one - the USA. My three children have never committed a felony. The oldest is 48. They are all educated, civilized, contributors to society, and non-religious. Why would you assume otherwise? It would seem that you are a narrow minded demagogue, and your likes are one of the things wrong with our country.
re: "#141 (rcurl): ... But most founders did think a republic could be run without religions ...." Not according to our readings.
You are clearly mistaken, as our constitution nowhere requires religion.
Yes, repeat, no , it merely evolved from a context that presupposed such. "Endowed by the Creator" for example ain't exactly a "secular" statement. And you claim 'deists' are athiests which is patently absurd. The genius of the US Constitution is that ultimately it is the individual citizen granted authority (perhaps even 'ex nihilo') delegated to State (or federal). Thus if the citizens of New Zion want to have a cross as part of its city symbol it is neither the state nor the federal government's place to prohibit it.
It obviously did NOT evolve "from a context that presupposed such", or there would be some content that mentioned "such". The writers, of course, had some personal opinions on "such", and probably on other matters too such as their diet, but kept that (and personal diet recommendations) strictly to themselves, as we all should if we are public servants. It certainly is the federal governments obligation to deny religious expression in the course of public duties. Any such religious expression is inclined to "establish" because of the public authority held by public servants.
Rane, you insist upon considering the Consitution in a vacuum. It was not written in one. The authors had many other texts, which provided the background for what they put into that short document.
Not at all - in fact I said so directly. Everyone has a background that influences their behavior. But the founders, GIVEN their background, choose to completely eliminate religion from the governmental structure they created. That speaks volumes to their intent.
No, they didn't "eliminate religion," they eliminated the established churches (that is, the state-run churches) from the Federal government. It's a big difference, but one that just doesn't' seem to get through to some people. (Including some currently sitting Justices.)
They eliminated religion *"from the governmental structure" as specified throughout the Constitution*, is what I asserted.
No, they did not eliminate religion; they elminated the church. This is the critical difference you just cannot (or will not?) see.
This response has been erased.
They eliminated *mention of religion playing a role in government*. Are we there yet?
This response has been erased.
That is what the first amendment states, but the body of the Constitution is what has no mention of religion except for the requirement that it not be a condition of holding office. I've just been talking about what is in the Constitution, not about the results of the implementation of the Constitution. I think it is significant that no role for religion is stated in the Constitution. This was a deliberate act of the founders, regardless of their own several religious persuasions.
And I think you are wrong about the significance.
So, you think they just "forgot" to tell us where it is OK for religion to have an official governmental function?
well "In God We Trust" seems to be fairly well used by the Government. Is money our government religion? What about ont eh front of government buildings? Many of them have a mention of God. And who has not gone in for a IRS audit praying to God and that he will listen to them.
This response has been erased.
None of that is in the Constitution nor specifically sanctioned by the Constitution (but rather implicitly banned in the First Amendment). But, yes, money is the religion of a lot of people, and many in government. Though that isn't relevant here, as what the Constitution means by "religion" is pretty well understood. I presume that thousands have gone for an IRS audit without any thought of gods. That's Readers Digest humor.
Consider the source.
"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting
for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation" (Art I, Sec 3).
"Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the
following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) . . . "
(Art II, Sec 1).
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of
the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers,
both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by
oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test
shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust
under the United States" (Art VI) {An interesting distinction: Oaths are,
by their very nature, religious, but no "religious test" can be used as
a quallification.}
There is no contradiction there. A person my state an unrequired oath - or affirmation. There is no "religious test" involved.
And yet, religion still has a role in governing, as demonstrated. It occurred to me a bit later that what the Constitution, including the 1st Amendment does is keep the government out of the churches.
That is the argument of church leaders that have also opposed the display of the 10 commandment monument, prayer in school, etc. It is only a lunatic fringe that keeps trying to seat a theocracy. But it still goes both ways - keep Religion out of Govenment and Government out of Religion.
(Did you think I was in favour of that monument? Prayer in school is a more difficult question, because I believe it should be _permitted_ but *not* required.) Religion cannot be kept out of government as long as people are religious. The idea of separating religion from life is fallacious.
That's why I capitalized Religion, to distinguish the philosophy in religion from the business of Religion. It is the latter that is "separated" from the State in the first amendment.
Re #165: There are no schools that have banned people from praying. What's not allowed is a publicly lead prayer. In a school environment anything like that becomes effectively required.
I don't agree that it "becomes effectively required," but I do understand the sentiment. Banning publicly led prayer is a violation of the 1st Amendment's protection of free exercise. And we are never going to agree on that.
That's right. There are legal limits to "free exercise" and publicly lead prayer is as inflammatory as shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. There are many other examples of legal limits on "free exercise". Live with it.
I do. Doesn't I mean I have to like it. I live with lots of wrongnesses. This is just one more.
Re #168: Let's take Christianity out of the picture for a moment. Let's say that the principal of the local public school started reading a prayer to Allah over the public address system at the beginning of class each day. Wouldn't you see that as him unfairly imposing his religious views on students who weren't Muslim?
It wasn't the example of the principal leading prayer that I was considering, because I _do_ consider that crossing the line into the "required" zone. I was thinking more of a student-organised event, where all participants were physically present, led by students. Students, specifically including the BMOC, do not have the authority to carry it into the "required" zone.
I have no problem with student led prayer in such a circumstances, as long as the event is solely for those wishing to participate in such prayer, and that the venue and scheduling processes are available to any student led events. This is the same as the use of school facilities for student organizations.
Not if the school were mainly muslim... But why do they ban kids congregating in a room for a prayer session?
Why not if the school is mainly muslim? The same principles and laws apply. I don't think kids are banned from congregating in a room for a prayer session so long as it does not interfer with the class schedules which occupy the school day. They should be able to congregate on their own time after school hours.
The logic behind banning a gathering of kids in a room for a prayer session is that if a school declines to ban such activity, then the school puts itself in the position of having to differentiate between a legitimate religious session and something that isn't, but makes itself appear to be. The school faces serious potential legal liabilities for selectively barring groups from access that it offers to other groups, and at the same time, if the school declines to select, then it opens itself up to other liabilities should something untoward happen on school property under the guise of a religious meeting. The banning of all such activity by individual institutions is not mandated by government, it is mandated by prudent practice in light of the current state of the legal system. That's why they ban kids congregating in a room for a prayer session (in those places that do it). (russ slipped in)
err, rcurl, not russ. Sorry!
I think the issue arises for Muslim students because their religion prescribes prayer at fixed hours of the day, some of which would occur during school hours. This came up in the New York school system in 2001, when they concluded that students could pray so long as they did not disturb classes nor require a special room for the purpose. This is discussed at http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_praf.htm Public schools function in the US under the US Constitution, which supercedes an infinity of possible particular individual preferences, wishes, and practices. Just as the schools can ban smoking, they can ban religious exercises that disturb classes or require special accomodations, so long as all students are treated equally in this respect. Ultimately, of course, some individuals may not want to follow US law in these regards and have chosen to have their own schools. This has been true since the nation was founded, and is accomodated by all public school systems with respect of educational requirements.
When I was in Kuwait, I went to an Indian school. However, the majority of the class was Muslim. They never took time off to pray at the prescribed time. The only thing they did different from the rest of us was go to Religion Studies class, instead of attend our "Moral Science" class. (Their class focussed on Islam and the Quran, the Morla Science class focussed on ethics and honest living) I don't think that working people also prayed 5 times a day. The only place I noticed that the 5 time a day rule applied was on TV. They would interrupt the broadcast to put the prayer on. I guess the prayer 5 times a day seems to be more theoretical than practical. You would see people praying sometimes (like the shopkeepers in a back-room), but it wasn't that evident. (I don't know how the school would have handled it if the students did want to pray. I never heard of such a case. For all I know, these students could have been praying silently all those years :P )
This response has been erased.
i don't get angry at satan either.
This response has been erased.
1. thou shall not fart in here nor light them with a match elsewhere, it's bogus.
This response has been erased.
I wouldn't call the bible "literary art", but it is literature. Whereever it is appropriate to have books it would not be inappropriate to have a copy of a bible (or the koran, or the Rubaiyat....).
You have several choices: