Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Foxfyre, harmful is not the criteria.

Snopes had a very good article about capital art which I pointed you to a while back, and to which you replied that you do not get your news from Snopes. It is an informative article with photos of some of the artwork.

National Capital

Once again, context, intent, perception.

They are illegal - for the tenth time.

Mesquite I fully understand your side of the argument. I have helped coach a debate team who argued both sides of the issue and (at a different time) have served as debate judge on this issue. I fully understand what you are saying when you say that if it is religious, it has no place in the public sector. I disagree with it, but I understand and respect your point of view.

So why is my simple question so difficult to answer? The question again is: Are the religious engravings, words, objects, figures that have been on government buildings in Washington DC for generations illegal and should they be removed?

It is this question nobody wants to answer yes or no. Why?

It's, I believe, because of the paradox. Reasonable people realize the stuff has been there for generations, it is part of the buildings, it has harmed nobody, and it would be expensive to remove. But if it is illegal, how can it stay? If it stays, how can it be illegal? But if that stuff has harmed nobody and has not compromised separation of church and state, and we decide it should not be removed, then how can we consider other art objects with relgious symbols or overtimes to be harmful and/or a violation of church and state?

I realize it is a conundrum. It is also the argument that has helped net a win for many a debate team.

No, Fox, the conundrum is that it's the Supreme Court that will determine the final decision on it's removal. They don't always rule correctly.

Do you honestly think the Supremes are going to vote to remove all that religious stuff that is even in their own building? I don't think so. But I hope they see how if they don't, it is hard to make a case that an object d' art with religious overtones anywhere is a violation of Church and State.

And you still aren't answering the question either C.I.

It's not a violation of church and state. It's a violation of the separation of church and state. I do not make the laws of this country. As it concerns this issue, it's the Supreme Court that will decide. Not me. That IS my answer.

The United States Supreme Court does not have a monument to the Ten Commandments on display.

The frieze depicts sculptured figures of famous lawgivers throughout history. Moses is but one of many famous lawgivers who are depicted on the frieze. Moses can be readily identified because he is holding tablets . . . however, the Hebrew writing on the tablets is incomplete and what little writing that can be discerned is obscured by Mose's beard. It is the lawgiver, among many lawgivers, who is depicted . . . not the Ten Commandments.

A reasonable observer would not look at the frieze and believe the purpose of the frieze was to support religion. The same cannot be said about a monument that displays the Ten Commandments.

See Court enters debate over display of Commandments

Debra, Thank you for clarifying the issue; it seems Fox is determined to misrepresent something to make her point. She's the one that needs to do her homework before challenging others on false assumptions.

As you all have ignored my posts,deliberately,I may as well leave the thread.If I come back in 10 years I expect you will all be going over the same sterile ground for the very simple reason that you must have a need to spend your time going over and over and over the same sterile ground.
Your motor vehicles are religious symbols.

Spendius, I've seen no posts from you since several pages back when you said we all had a one track mind. Your opinion that you didn't like the debate was noted, but I did not see that it required a response any more than I usually see any personal criticism as requiring a response. I'm sorry if you feel ignored even as you continue to criticize how the debate is conducted on the thread. I will regret it if you leave, however, as you are one of the few that seem to be sort of on my side of the debate.

C.I., I misrepresented nothing. I was intentionally careful to be specific with my question which was a reasonable question and that you refused to answer while aooearing to get angry that I would presume to ask it and accusing me of twisted logic.

Mesquite was more diplomatic and quite un-insulting but he also chose to dodge the question.

Debra answered the question so far as the frieze iat the Supreme Court building is concerned, and I thank her for that. She also went on to cite court opinion that a stand alone object with religious overtones has as a rule not been permissable, but if you mix two or more religious symbols it can be permissable. Again I thank her for an informed, reasoned, and useful response.

For myself and my own understanding of the First Amendment, I agree with the rule re the frieze. I also agree that no one religion should be favored or any religion excluded on public property. I do have a problem with the court insisting that two or more religions be represented because to me this comes perilously close to its own kind of 'establishment of religion'. In other words, it seems reasonable that the court would have to allow a Jewish minorah alongside the crech or the Christmas tree if this was requested, but to make it a requirement just feels wrong.

I think the court runs a risk of mandating its own version of religious belief by ordering two or more religious symbols if only one is requested.

I have disagreed with many of the court's rulings of course. I know too many judges who have gotten it wrong on other stuff to believe judges are infallible, including the Supremes. And, I think too often an activist court goes with its instincts rather than tradition, custom, or former undestanding of the law. None of this religious symbolism on public grounds was a problem for roughly the first two hundred years of the existence of this country, but these kinds of cases have only come up in the last several decades. There also seems to be a peculiar hypocrisy in making Chrsitmas, a celebration decidedly rooted in Christian belief, a Federal holiday while prohibiting symbols of the celebration, etc.

But I am looking forward to the Supremes finally taking a stand on this issue. And I hope the ruling they come up with is compelling for all.

awww, Spendius...don't leave...we love you here. How about you renew the thread on Iraq? Or Iran? India? England? come on, join back in the frey.

hyper:-

How can I refuse such a charming request.

Religion,as a unifying belief system,is firmly entrenched in the bone marrow of any viable culture.The way the debate was is too shallow for me and I really didn't wish to spoil threaders fun.
My remark about motor vehicles was not meant as a facile sarcasm.I meant it.

What sort of 'depth' are you looking for Spendius? I have't seen the debate as pertaining to religious belief, but rather as to the constitutional right to have a religious belief and to freely exercise it without interference of government. Others see the debate somewhat differently and take the discussion in that different direction.

In that, I thought the debate here went about as deep as it could for the mostly lay makeup of the people participating in the thread.

But what do you want to see here that hasn't been happening?

well, we haven't left America. Maybe, we need to compare America to other countries, pointing out the flaws and attributes in all systems of Democracy, not just ours

Yes hyper:-

More a western,capitalist,scientific,(dare I say Faustian) agenda rather than a divisive parochial pub fight.

Other cultures are girding their loins for the big showdown.My aim is for us to win.

Foxy:-

I think the constitution is there to serve our needs not the other way round.Nothing is set in stone in our type of culture.That's a depth position for real conservatives.The conservation of the moving point.It goes too fast for many I will admit.

Have a look at Times They Are A Changin'.Your old road is rapidly agin'.I find it hard myself sometimes.

Foxy:-

I'm none to keen on this "lay make up" idea.This is a philosophy thread.There are thousands of threads for the laity.

I don't understand your point, spendius. By 'laity' I mean ordinary people using ordinary knowledge as opposed to the professional legal eagles who will argue from purely legal perspectives. I, like you, see the problem as broader than the narrowest fine points of the current law, and based on comments by those who oppose my position on separation of church and state, they also are basing their conclusions outside a purely legal perspective.

There are so many subtle considerations that cannot be divorced from the debate and still be intellectually honest. For instance, Federal offices close and there is no mail service on Sunday. Why Sunday? It's a weekly Christian celebration and has been since the Third Century A.D.. I can't think of any other major religious group who celebrates Sunday as a religious day. Thanksgiving was instituted by Christians to give thanks; Christmas is the day Christians celebrate the birth of Christ. Yet our federal government includes all these in their official holiday calendar while the mail continues to be delivered on Yom Kippor.

So, we have the paradox of 'custom' versus legal rulings and an unwillingness to discontinue the customs no matter how much they seem to favor a particular religion. You might think the Jews would insist their Sabbath Day (Saturday) be afforded the same respect, but, to their credit, they do not. Why? Partly because it would affect the economy and partly because they don't see it as any big deal. The Jews are some of the most tolerant and accepting and live and let live of all peoples in practice if not always in principle. (Note: A few Christian groups also celebrate their Sabbath on Saturday.)

I won't mind at all if the debate is expanded beyond the U.S. Constitution, but few other countries with intentional secular governments have the same demographics or religious intensity that you find in the U.S. Most of the churches of Europe stand mostly empty and religion is not so much an obvious factor in the public life.

spendius,

I do not understand why "laity" should be excluded from the philosophy threads. We are all "armchair" philosophers. I doubt there are many people who make a profession out of philosophy.

foxfyre,

You have a good point about the many inconsistencies in how church-state separation is put into practice. Justice O'Connor commented that it is difficult to know where to draw the line. Justice Breyer commented that he has come to the conclusion that each case involving religious symbols on government property needs to be looked at individually.

Foxy:-

I wouldn't know where to start on that given I haven't got the rest of my life.

I think the Jews learnt long ago that when in Rome do as the Romans do.

Sunday around here is a consumer binge.A lot of people work on Sunday.Veblen considered the consumer to be working.He styled it the "night shift".

I have picked up that the US is more involved with what I would call "old-style" religion than we in Europe.Did you see my reference to home decoration?Some people here have Black Masses and Witch's Covens but nobody bothers them so long as they fulfill your usual conditions.I think we would say that you are distracting yourselves from more important issues such as the one I raised about the deep fat fryer.

I recently had business dealings with an Islamic family and you should have seen the lady of the house's culinary skills.What a happy family they looked which is more than I can say for most people I meet.I left with a basket full of delicious goodies.What a lovely lady and outside she wears the full kit.

Things will change.Patience is required.Politics really is the art of the possible.

Regards.