Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

majority rule is not even on the list of issues heard by the Supremes in this case.(not should it ever be)

0 Replies

What's this "90%" about?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

What's this "90%" about?

I agree. The 90% seems rather high. But the idea, I suppose is that the majority can disrespect the minority if they want to. Now how American does that sound?

0 Replies

Every respectable polling organization has come up with the same conclusion that 90% or more of Americans believe in some sort of diety and thus hold some sort of religious view, Walter. And a substantial majority do not mind the Ten Commandments hung on a wall or engraved on a work of art.

There are some who think that substantial majority should have to give up what they like so the very small minority can have what they want. I say, the majority should be able to prevail so long as the rights of the minority or not infringed.

So until the minority can show me how the Ten Commandments engraved on a monument harm them, coerce them, or infringe on any right they have, constitutional or otherwise, I will say there is no violation of the Constitution or any inalienable right for the momument to be allowed to be on public lands.

0 Replies

Quote:

Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)

source: CIA factbook

0 Replies

Lola writes

Quote:

The difference here would be the location of the abortion clinic or gay pride posters. If they are officially posted or placed in a public place, a place designated for all the people, not just some, they are legal.

And the monument or whatever is also placed in a public place designated for all the people, not just some; therefore it is legal.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

The difference here would be the location of the abortion clinic or gay pride posters. If they are officially posted or placed in a public place, a place designated for all the people, not just some, they are legal.

This is The Constitution 101. This is such an obvious distinction. Why do I have to keep repeating myself?

Can you rephrase that? I don't understand the point you are trying to make...thanks.

Another angle to consider is books. The DaVince code can be considered a very anti-christian book. Yet, I have become a Christian, and have read that book. It is my right to do so. My librarian, however, is a devout Christian who had bought the book, and THEN heard about its controversy. Because of this, she wasn't going to shelve it. Me, I stole it for a week. It was my right to read it, and if it would have changed my Christian outlook (which it didn't), then that would have been MY fault. If a Christian monument, or saying, makes you change your belief, or makes you feel like you need to change your belief, then I would say that your beliefs are not very strong to begin with.

0 Replies

Oh, and Fox, I believe that I become more and more attached to your logic

0 Replies

hyper426 wrote:

Lola wrote:
The difference here would be the location of the abortion clinic or gay pride posters. If they are officially posted or placed in a public place, a place designated for all the people, not just some, they are legal.

This is The Constitution 101. This is such an obvious distinction. Why do I have to keep repeating myself?

Can you rephrase that? I don't understand the point you are trying to make...thanks.

Another angle to consider is books. The DaVince code can be considered a very anti-christian book. Yet, I have become a Christian, and have read that book. It is my right to do so. My librarian, however, is a devout Christian who had bought the book, and THEN heard about its controversy. Because of this, she wasn't going to shelve it. Me, I stole it for a week. It was my right to read it, and if it would have changed my Christian outlook (which it didn't), then that would have been MY fault. If a Christian monument, or saying, makes you change your belief, or makes you feel like you need to change your belief, then I would say that your beliefs are not very strong to begin with.

I'll try this again.

Foxfire wrote:

Quote:

Why should you have the right to deny 90% of the population a symbol that happens to have religious connotations just so you won't have to see it? Can we make the same rule about an abortion clinic or posters promoting a somewhat lewd gay pride parade or a feminism rally that some might not bleieve in or even find offensive? Can't you see that if you don't afford tolerance to the religious even though you are not, you can't expect anyone to be tolerant toward those things you believe in and they don't.

If you're required to do something religious or are rewarded for being religious or punished for not being religious it is illegal. A religious symbol or image simply is not.

and I said:

Quote:

The difference here would be the location of the abortion clinic or gay pride posters. If they are officially posted or placed in a public place, a place designated for all the people, not just some, they are legal.

This is The Constitution 101. This is such an obvious distinction. Why do I have to keep repeating myself?

I see I made an error. I skipped the word "not".

It should read:
The difference here would be the location of the abortion clinic or gay pride posters. If they are not officially posted or placed in a public place, a place designated for all the people, not just some, they are legal.

Works of "art" which convey a specific religion are not premitted in public places.

0 Replies

Lola writes

Quote:

Works of "art" which convey a specific religion are not premitted in public places.

Can you please show me where the Constitutional clause guaranteeing the free exercise of religion does not apply in public places? Can you show me the Constitutional clause prohibiting the display of works of 'art' in public places? Can you define a very clear and logical argument for how a work of art in a public place establishes a religion? Can you explain in precise terms how this in any way infringes on any right afforded to you by the Constitution?

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

This is The Constitution 101. This is such an obvious distinction. Why do I have to keep repeating myself?

It's because Fox's definition of "Establishment" is not the same as ours Lola.

Fox defines establishment as forced thought or coersion:

Foxfyre wrote:

How is the intent illegal if nobody is expected or required to agree with it and nobody is rewarded or punished for agreeing or not agreeing with it? The constitution mandates no establishment of religion--so whatever the 'intent' a work of art is intended to convey, people are free to look at it or not, read it or not, or believe it or not.

In order for us to convince Fox that she is wrong, we would need to demonstrate somehow that her definition of Establishment is wrong. I have tried to do this by citing examples in which her use of establishment would be unreasonable in extreme conditions, but she objects to those examples by arguing that extreme conditions will not exist if people will just be reasonable (this is all covered about 20 pages back in the discussion).

(sorry to speak for you Fox, but this is where I see the root of our disagreement)

0 Replies

Well my definition of establishment goes back to the debates on this subject among those who wrote the Constitution. The extent of their notion of separation of Church and State was that the government would have no say over what the church was or how people would exercise their religious faith. It followed that the church could also not dictate to the government what government should be for then the church could dictate an establishment of religion.

Again as I have said many times in this thread, there was zero intent that those in government not be religious and zero intent that the public life would be religion free. In fact, they were explicit that the Republic they gave us and the Constitution they wrote for us would not work in the absence of a moral people. And most of them equated morality with a religious faith.

I will be shoulder to shoulder with any of you to protest whenever the state attempts to mandate any form of religious belief or overtly or covertly favors any particular brand of religion over any other. I will not agree that a generic religious slogan or motto or the Ten Commandments hanging on the wall or inscribed in marble constitutes an establishment of religion.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I will not agree that a generic religious slogan or motto or the Ten Commandments hanging on the wall or inscribed in marble constitutes an establishment of religion.

I disagree with your interpretation of establishment and with your interpretation of the founders intentions. In addition, several federal courts also disagree with your interpretation, and I suspect that the Supreme Court will also disagree.

0 Replies

Oh, and while I'm thinking about it, thanks Hyper. To me it is so simple. If you deny Christians, Jews, Moslems, Buddhists or whomever their constitutional right of free speech, free expression, freedom to be religious in public, you can deny anything to any group that you don't like. The First Amendment I think is not so ambiguous as some would like to make it.

0 Replies

I don't think it has to do with a different definition of establishment entirely.

I think it has to do with a failure on Foxfire's part to recognized her disrespect for the rights of others. There's no harm caused her by not allowing her religious symbol on public property. It's the same for everyone. No one can have their religious symbols. It's equal. And it doesn't prevent her or anyone from displaying their religious symbols on their own property. It doesn't prevent any of us from expressing our religious viewpoints on a2K or in the media or in our place of worship or on the racquetball court.

The fundies, think it's ok to ignore other's rights. That's not the way the constitution goes. All men are created equal (a metaphor, if I ever heard one). All men are created equal doesn't mention women either, but is there anyone here prepared to argue that because that phrase doesn't include women, and even knowing the the founding fathers didn't think women should be included, this means women should not have equal rights under the law? I doubt it.

Being able to respect the rights of others is necessary in any productive society. I don't think Foxfire should have to look at symbols of my lack of religion in public places. Why does she think I should? It's insensitivity and disrespect, plain and simple.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Oh, and while I'm thinking about it, thanks Hyper. To me it is so simple. If you deny Christians, Jews, Moslems, Buddhists or whomever their constitutional right of free speech, free expression, freedom to be religious in public, you can deny anything to any group that you don't like. The First Amendment I think is not so ambiguous as some would like to make it.

I didn't say "in public" I said in public places. These are not equivalent. Obviously.

0 Replies

foxfyre wrote:

I will not agree that a generic religious slogan or motto or the Ten Commandments hanging on the wall or inscribed in marble constitutes an establishment of religion.

Then I take it that you would not object to a placard proclaiming "Allah is the one true god and Muhammad was his messenger" being placed alongside the Ten Commandments in the Kentucky courthouse, or is this where "the will of the majority" comes in?

0 Replies

I would have no problem whatsoever with that Mesquite if somebody wanted it there. What could it possibly hurt? It should probably be sourced as I presume the 10 Commandments are sourced so that it is not misinterpreted as a proclamation.

And I find it ironic that Lola....I often find things ironic with Lola.....would say that I am disrespecting her by insisting on my constitutional rights while she sees no disrespect whatsoever in denying the majority a simple pleasure or satisfaction so she can have what she wants. The item in question asks or requires not one thing from her other than her noninterference.

How does one do something in public without being in a public place anyway?

Anyway, I have made my case here. The anti-religion people aren't buying it. And you don't have to. The first amendment gives you the right to think whatever you want. Isn't it great?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I would have no problem whatsoever with that Mesquite if somebody wanted it there. What could it possibly hurt? It should probably be sourced as I presume the 10 Commandments are sourced so that it is not misinterpreted as a proclamation.

I suppose what it could hurt is the pride of those insisting on the Ten Commandments being there. What could it hurt to take them down? Somehow I think it highly unlikely that the Ten Commandments are sourced on either the Texas monument or the Kentucky wall hangings. I can't even envision what sourcing would look like for the decalogue. Can you help me out?

Foxfyre wrote:

Anyway, I have made my case here. The anti-religion people aren't buying it. And you don't have to. The first amendment gives you the right to think whatever you want. Isn't it great?

What is the number for playing victim again? It is not anti-religion people, it is pro separation of church and state people.

0 Replies

Sourcing would indicate the passage from the Bible from which the exerpt was taken. Sourcing of the Islamic prayer would indicate its location in the Quran. What would it hurt to take them down? Nothing. What does it hurt for them to be there. Nothing. But if a lot of people enjoy having them there, why is it so important to some of you to deny them that? You aren't required to look at it, read it, believe it, recite it, or pay any attention whatsoever to it. So why is it so darned important that nobody else be able to enjoy it?

0 Replies

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know