Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Re: How will the Supreme Court rule?

Debra_Law wrote:

On the other hand, the bald eagle is our national emblem. To our nation, the bald eagle represents soaring freedom. I don't see any separation of church and state issue if the government displays our national emblem.

Ok, maybe CI was right and the Eagle is a bad example.

Let's say that some group of people believe that marble columns have religious significance. Those people see religion in columns just like some of us see religion in the Ten Commandments. Will we then have to build courthouses without marble columns just because some group of people worships them?

It seems to me that the court will have to rule in such a way that not *all* objects of religious significance are in violation of the first amendment. My guess is that they will differentiate between the meaning of an object and the "intent" of the object. They always measure by intent, and I bet they will do the same thing again.

0 Replies

Marble columns will never be considered as having religious significance by our legal system to restrict it's use.

0 Replies

Well until recently neither were works of art that happened to contain religious symbolism.

0 Replies

It depends on where those "works of art with religious symbolism" is displayed. It should not be displayed on government property. Churches and art museums are okay.

0 Replies

I think in today's climate, those in authority would probably not put a work of art with obvious religious overtones on government property. But as those in authority in previous generations had no problem with that (and presumably neither did the public at large), there are religious slogans, mottos, engravings, etc. all over Washington buildings. I vote that we give C.I. the sand blaster and chisel to go pry all that stuff off government buildings. Smile

Seriously, as nobody has gone into religious frenzy and apparently nobody has been converted to any religious faith by that stuff in all these years, can we really conclude that it does any harm at all?

0 Replies

It ain't a matter of "conversion." It's called the separation of church and state. Seriously.

0 Replies

So you are going to take up the challenge to pry all that stuff off those buildings that has been there for generations? Or you think somebody should? Seriously?

0 Replies

That you would even suggest such a stupid thing makes you the "award" winner.

0 Replies

How does the question posed apply in other countries?

Religion and government in Iraq?
Religion and government in Israel?
Religion and government in Indonesia?

If it's good mixed together in the U.S., it should be good mixed together everywhere, right?

0 Replies

awwww, ehBeth, you intervened in the fight! I was having fun, relaxing, and watching them hit it off! Laughing

I believe that, personally, religion has its place in the gov., as long as a human's inalianable rights are not violate, which is very hard to interpret.

0 Replies

CI writes

Quote:

That you would even suggest such a stupid thing makes you the "award" winner.

Okay then the gauntlet is thrown. If the religious stuff already there on government buildings isn't hurting anybody and doesn't violate separation of Church and State and doesn't need to be removed, then why is a new work of art with relgiious symbolism or overtones a problem?

This is a serious question, honestly.

0 Replies

Your twisted logic is impossible to answer.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I think in today's climate, those in authority would probably not put a work of art with obvious religious overtones on government property.

Unless of course they were deliberately making a statement as in the case of Judge Roy Moore or the current Kentucky courthouse case.

0 Replies

Sigh. Okay. But I can't see how the logic is twisted. Either the stuff already there is illegal or it isn't. If it is, then it should be removed along with the Ten Commandment monument should it not? If it isn't, why is any such work of art considered illegal?

0 Replies

But then that monument had been there for ages Mesquite, if I'm remembering right. (I'm not positive about the time line on that one.) It wasn't Judge Moore that put the thing there was it? He defended it....with what I thought was a ridiculous defense.....but I think it had been there for awhile.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Sigh. Okay. But I can't see how the logic is twisted. Either the stuff already there is illegal or it isn't. If it is, then it should be removed along with the Ten Commandment monument should it not? If it isn't, why is any such work of art considered illegal?

As Dys has said a couple of times.

dyslexia wrote:

if the (1) intent demonstrates that it's message is religious, it's illegal (2) that it's context is religious, it's illegal (3) it's effects are religious, it's illegal. The monument that brought this to the Supremes opens with this line "``I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.'' Secular? hardly!

0 Replies

Judge Roy Moore had his monument installed in the courthouse rotunda in the middle of the night in August 2001.

0 Replies

So I'll ask you the same qustion I asked C.I. Are all the engravings, religious words, religious figures that have been on government buildings in Washington DC for generations illegal? If so, should it all be removed? If it is not illegal and should not be removed, then why would any religious art be illegal and should be removed?

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:
if the (1) intent demonstrates that it's message is religious, it's illegal (2) that it's context is religious, it's illegal (3) it's effects are religious, it's illegal. The monument that brought this to the Supremes opens with this line "``I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.'' Secular? hardly!

0 Replies

So should that stuff that has been on those buildings for generations be removed C.I.? The question is not whether the engravings are religious. I concede that they are. The question is are they illegal? And if illegal should they be removed? And if you think the engravings harmless enough so that they should not be removed, how is any work of art, even that with religious overtones, harmful?

0 Replies

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know