Quote, "...even though you give up nothing and they give up everything." Is the fundamental error in thinking. "They" do not give up everything. They can still hold their religious' plays, sing-alongs, prayers, and everything religious at their church, private property, rented property, theater, and most venues not considered "government property."
BTW, the same restriction on government property applies to all religious' activity whether it's Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu, and all organizations considered to be "religious."
Foxfyre wrote:I don't know that they are a recent phenomenon, Mesquite. I just think in the last few decades the fantatical anti-religious activists have made a big deal out of them. Most have been around for a very long time and until recently were not considered an issue or a problem. I grew up with a creche on the Courthouse lawn at Christmastime.
I don't know about your creche,
but the current Ten commandments cases involve displays that are very recent in relation to when our country was founded. If you know of any court cases involving religious symbology that is not recently installed (last 50-75 years) I would be surprised.
Quote:The Ten Commandments have been on display at the Texas state capitol for more than 40 years -- one of dozens of such monuments donated to states and cities by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, a national civic group.
Source
Quote:At issue in the case are Ten Commandments displays that were posted in prominent locations in the McCreary and Pulaski county courthouses in 1999. County officials claimed that the Ten Commandments provide the foundation of American legal tradition. However, as many courts have found, the Ten Commandments are inherently religious principles and should not be promoted by government officials.
Source
mesquite, If I'm not mistaken (memory from college law course) the American laws were drawn from British common law. What preceeded British law is beyond my scope of knowledge.
ci, the thing that always amazes me is the fascination with the Ten Commandments as if it were something to look up to. The Bible has plenty of uplifting moral passages that could be used for proselytizing, but the Ten Commandments are linked to some of the most brutal portions of the old Testament. This part is not usually carved into the monuments;"for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;" Great stuff not.
I think, English law, like others, has been created by experience - as Holmes put it "The substance of the law at any given time pretty nearly corresponds, so far as it goes, with what is then understood to be convenient." (The Common Law (1881)
mesquite
I totally agree.
Foxfyre wrote
Quote:I said nothing anywhere close to this. I say the First Amendment does not distinguish between public and private. It says the government shall not establish religion. it does not say the people shall not be religious or that the people shall be religious only in the privacy of their own homes and churches. It says the government shall not prevent the people's free exercise of religion. It does not say the government shall not prevent the people's free exercise of religion in their homes or churches. it shall not infringe the free exercise of religion period.
First Amendment:
Quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
I really have to disagree with your contention here Fox. The first amendment does say that there shall be no establishment of religion by government. When government places one religion above others by allowing that religion to place religious articles on government property it is establishing religion. Or would you be perfectly happy with allowing Sun Young Moon to erect monuments in every court house in the land claiming he is the messiah? I rather doubt you would. Read the first amendment again. It restricts what GOVERNMENT can do. Goverment is by the people. The MAJORITY can't violate the constitution. That is why the constitution was written, to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Our founders were wise in realizing that the majority is not always correct. That is why they put restrictions on them.
I really don't know where you learned what you did Fox. But 2+2 does NOT equal 5.
In relooking at the first amendment it raised some interesting points I thought I wuold share
First Amendment:
Quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
There seems to be a pattern of the present Republican administration to make the 1st amendment apply to government.
Examples.
The claim that it is private expression when religious items are on public property.
The WH feels government should have their own "free" press. They pay people in the press to say things. They make fake news reports to play on TV.
The WH creates their own "peacable" assemblies and block other people from access. Bush meetings with citizens are carefully screened to block out citizens that might disagree.
What a to-do.
Debate it is not.It can never be.
Michelangelo's David is a front rank,first order religious symbol.Explaining why would be a waste of time.One might say that the artist would have been executed in ancient Greece for making it.It is a seminal image of the Faustian culture and portends the Differential Calculus,perspective (banned out of sight in the classical age),the conquest of space in the widest sense,orchestration and money credit.It reveals an inner meaning behind the exterior surface which was revolutionary.A dynamic ego.An unconscious striving towards movement,distance and depth.It came at a time when the city began to dominate the countryside.Take a look at Rubens and see if you can find anything remotely comparable in Classical art.We see the depiction of boundless energy striving to overcome boundless space.A totally alien,not to say blasphemous,concept to the civilisations of the middle-east.What they had are now dead forms.David goes through to E=MC squared in one dynamic thrust.
How to explain?Hopeless really.Words don't suffice.Intuition,analogy and homology,metaphor,impression and physiognomic tact (eh?)(Love at first sight.)
I'll try to give you an idea.It might work.
Study the difference between adverts placed during the big football games and those during soaps etc.Translated,the latter would be easily understood by the immortal Xanthippe but the former (I'm generalising the trend not being specific which I didn't ought to have to say), her husband could not have made head or tail of.Xanthippe could have understood washing up liquids,choc-chocs,perfumes etc etc but Socrates wouldn't have known which way up he was with the fare of the football audiences.And you don't need to know much about advertising to know where talent and money (the same thing) are expended most.
Then you start thinking.(Oh dear!)
Only rolling pins are required for religious icon/Constitution arguments.The gentlemen who wrote the Constitution would have been just as much in the dark as Socrates on the football ads.
This is here in the Yucky.To the extent that it isn't the same in the US you are falling behind.We don't have a written constitution.We make it up as we go along as Walter pointed out.
We have millionaire footballers making the sign of the cross in close up camera shots every match and nobody bothers.It never gets mentioned.There are many Catholic footballers in Europe and S.America and most of them go through this ritual to,presumably,call God to their aid and to lay a curse on the opposition.Nobody gives a flying fornication.The Pope stays out of it because He leads a catholic congregation.
Look at your sport.When did we ever show any sign of failing to buy your productions.But we will never buy that one.It fails the intuition test.All the players look the same in the anonymity body protection armour.It's depersonalised.An icon.
So it is really more different over here than you might think.Exteriors might look similar but the depths are different.Look at the fuss you made over the breast at the Superbowl.We laugh at that.We shook our heads slowly from side to side at the simplicity.
I'm pretty old fashioned myself and I can't make moss nor sand of a lot of what goes on but I'm not going to stand in the way.It looks pretty good fun.It might be what it takes to keep the show on the road.Who knows?I certainly don't.Once you light the blue touch paper you are supposed to stand well clear and watch the effect.
spendius,
None of your examples involve governmental institutions. This debate is specifically about governmental endorsement of religion.
wande:-
I'm talking religion.Not sects or cults or heresies running wild to satisfy wandering desires
Did you see my post on Bible translations?
Beards are religious symbols and so are posters depicting scantily clad young ladies.Hence the chador and shaving likewise.
The thread is what the police here call a "domestic".
It's a squabble over details.Perhaps you noticed that two of the ladies stalked off last night.One to watch American Idol and the other was just fed up.
That measures committment.
spendius,
The information you provide does add perspective to this debate.
You mention Europe a lot. Earlier, Walter told us about the banning of religious symbols in the public schools of France and Germany. What is your opinion of that?
wande:-
I understood that the French attempt to proscribe Islamic dress in girl's schools had failed.
It was tried here and also failed.
I don't know about Germany.
It's a non issue.Wound up by troublemakers in cahoots with lawyers.It runs on days when there's not much news.Watch it vanish when the England football manager gets caught in flagrente or Prince Charles acts daft.Again.
spendius wrote:wande:-
I understood that the French attempt to proscribe Islamic dress in girl's schools had failed.
From where do you know this?
[Until now, it is the first time, I (and as far as I could find out: the French as well) have heard such.]
hyper,
Your topic is now being debated between 2 European members! Does A2K have any members in Iraq?
parados wrote:Quote:You see, those people of faith who advocate live and let live are asking nothing of the anti-religious but their noninterference. The anti-religious fanatics are demanding the people of faith to give up cherished historic symbols, practices, and customs that they have enjoyed for generations. This would be favoring the anti-religious over the religious. In my opinion, it violates every First Amendment principle in real terms. In less tangible terms it will leave the world a much bleaker place.
I think I see some of the problem here Fox. There is a difference between the government and the person. As a person I am free to say whatever I want and worship whatever religion I want. As the government however I am required to be mindful of others.
You seem to think that it interferes with my right to worship if the government doesn't support my religion. That is completely backwards. No one is saying that people can't practice their religion outside of government. The key is they can't practice it AS government to interfere with my religion or lack thereof.
ya know, you might have hit the nail on the head. i will have to contemplate this line of reasoning for awhile
cool, I like foreigners
Hey, were exactly is everyone from? how separated is the church from the state (if you are not American, I am getting rehashed too much on that one)
The governing party in norway is currently the Christian people's party. On the issue of islamic extrimists they say: "You shouldn't mix religion and politics".....
how strictly to the laws they produce follow christian doctrine?
