Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

hyper426 wrote:

There is nothing that says a monument can't be there, only that we can't coerce you to believe in it a certain way.

The location of a religious monument makes a difference in "establishment clause" cases. If government property, a religious monument gives the appearance of government endorsing religion.

spendius wrote:

There's an interesting story about the World Cup football finals played in England in-oh about 1966 or so.We won with a hotly disputed goal and shortly after the Gov't won the election.

Just to clear this: it really was in 1966, it wasn't a regular goal at all .... and all was the work of communism: it was a Russian [Azerbaijani] linesman whose totally wrong decision decided the 1966 World Cup final.

If it doesn't infringe on your rights to have a satanic monument in your park, then why would it infringe on your rights to not have a ten commandments one?

Lola writes

Quote:

If it doesn't infringe on your rights to have a satanic monument in your park, then why would it infringe on your rights to not have a ten commandments one?

It infringes on rights when a small minority can dictate a matter of preference to the majority. My personal rights are not infringed one way or the other. But the only democratic way to decide on matters of public preference is to a) the majority elects people who make the decisions or b) the people vote on their preference and the majority wins. I do not individually have the right to put the monument in a public park; you do not have the right to individually determine that it can't be there. The monument itself violates nobody's rights so let the people decide either by representation or by democratic vote. If most don't want it there, it doesn't happen and those who did want it there are not hurt in the least. If most do want it there it happens and those who don't like it are not hurt in the least.

Live and let live.

When my rights are violated or your rights are violated, then I'll join with anybody to defend them. Until then, I will defend the right of people to exercise all their first amendment rights, not just the part that most pleases the anti-religious crowd.

And Ros, I have read all those opinions and others. I just don't agree with them. I am hoping the Supremes won't agree with them either.

The Supremes may agree with you too and, if they do, I will live with that for now.

I do think that the more militant minorities try to force their ideology on the majority in way that the majority see their rights violated, the more we will see backlash and resistance that simply did not need to happen.

I just don't think you can make a case for what you just said Ros. I believe you believe it. But I don't think you can write out a reasoned apology for it. I think you are dead wrong, and I know you are incorrect in your characterization of me.

I've already given my opinion and a very detailed rationale for why I think the courts are wrong on that one Lola. And no, everybody isn't free to erect a monument in the town square. It has to be done according to community law and standards. My only quarrel is that the monument itself in no way violates any component of the First Amendment. To disallow the monument because it has religious overtones does. To disallow the monument because it is ugly or because most people don't like it is fine. You can't disallow it because it is religious without violating the First Amendment any more than you can require it to be there without violating the First Amendment.

Live and let live.

I do not believe the letter or intent of the Constitution restricts expression of religious beliefs to private property. I believe it explicitly says and intends that the free exercise of religion not be infringed publically, privately, or any other way that does not violate the inalienable rights of others.

If you restrict all religious expression to private property then all expressions about anything would have to be restricted to private property. As nobody wants that, then allow religion its reasonable place in the world.

Live and let live.

If it doesn't infringe on your rights to have a satanic monument in your park, then why would it infringe on your rights to not have a ten commandments one?

As I said, I wouldn't be offended if the monument were in your own front yard, but public places are for all the people, not just some.

Can you explain why it's so important to you to give expression to your Christian beliefs on public property? I don't mind if my expression of religious beliefs are restricted to non-state outlets

Can you tell me why it is so important to you for religious objects or expressions to be removed from public property? Can you specifically explain how your rights are infringed by the presence of these things?

Pledge Protection Act of 2004 - Amends the Federal judicial code to deny jurisdiction to any Federal court, and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of the Pledge of Allegiance or its validity under the Constitution. Makes this limitation inapplicable to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

The U.S. Supreme Court suggested it might permit some depictions of the Ten Commandments on public property as the justices debated the constitutionality of displays in Texas and Kentucky.

Several justices signaled they may let Texas keep a 6-foot- tall monument on its state Capitol grounds. They noted that many legislatures open sessions with a prayer and that the high court itself has a decorative frieze that shows Moses, holding a tablet depicting the commandments, among other historical lawgivers.

``You don't object to that,'' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said to Duke University law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, representing homeless lawyer Thomas Van Orden of Austin, who challenged the monument. Later, though, she told the Texas attorney general that every monument on the state Capitol grounds ``conveys a message of state endorsement.''

O'Connor has been the court's pivotal vote in religion cases, saying that displays are unconstitutional if an ``objective observer'' would see them as a government endorsement of religion.

She and other justices questioned the motivations behind two Kentucky courthouse displays that include a framed copy of the commandments alongside other documents considered foundations of U.S. law. Originally, county officials displayed the commandments alone, adding the other documents only after being sued. Lower courts ordered the displays removed.

``Isn't it the case that there's no sensible reason to believe that there's any objective here other than the display of the Ten Commandments?'' Justice David H. Souter asked.

`Avert His Eyes'

Display proponents, including the Bush administration, say the commandments are a foundation of secular U.S. law and placing them on public property doesn't violate the Constitution's ban on government establishment of religion. Critics say they are a government endorsement of religion.

Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia spoke in favor of keeping the Texas monument on the Capitol grounds.

``If an atheist walks by, he can avert his eyes,'' Kennedy said. Saying the government can't accommodate religion is ``hypocritical and it's asking religious people to surrender their beliefs,'' he said.

The commandments are ``a profound religious message believed in by a vast majority of the American people,'' Scalia said. ``There's nothing wrong with the government reflecting that.''

Symbols of Law

Justice John Paul Stevens questioned how far governments could go, asking Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott whether the state could display a 6-foot crucifix outside the Capitol. Abbott said he doubted it, because a crucifix wasn't a recognized symbol of law.

Noting that the monument contained religious symbols such as the words Chi and Rho and a Star of David, Souter said it was hard to find there was ``anything here but an expression of approval by the state of Texas for a religious expression.''

``The Ten Commandments is enormously divisive right now,'' Chemerinsky told the justices.