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.

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.

response 95 of 185:

Jul 26 01:38 UTC 2003

That still holds.