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.

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.

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.

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?

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. ;>

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.

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.