logo Sign In

The Persecution Season is Heating Up — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: JediSage
Originally posted by: BrikHaus81

Freedom of religion in this country is also freedom from the religion of others.


You are sorely misinformed. Can you provide constructionist language that supports your point?


OK, well I don't really know what "constructionist language" is, and I'm not going to bother debating this to death with people who would rather nitpick my argument than provide rebuttal arguments, so I'll just provide a link to what I think is an interesting article about freedom of vs. freedom from religion. It contradicts some points I tried to make earlier and back up some as well.

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/freedomfrom.htm

If you don't want to read the whole thing, I think this paragraph sums up the argument nicely: "What freedom from religion does mean, however, is the freedom from the rules and dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs so that we can be free to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. Thus, we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion because they are two sides of the same coin."

Mahoromatic Revival Project – http://mahoromaticrevival.com/index2.html
Follow the Evangelion Instrumental Project! – http://sandcamel.blogspot.com
Cowboy Bebop Returns! – http://bebopreturns.blogspot.com

Author
Time
Post link
To avoid the freedom of religion/freedom from religion arguments, I think that the major thing I have a problem with on things like this is that people have the freedom to worship how they choose, or not worship if they so choose. But this doesn't mean that they have the rights to repress the public expression of someone else's religion. Freedom isn't allowing people to express views that you agree with, but allowing them to express views that you disagree with. Just because someone disagree with Christians, doesn't mean that they have the freedom to never see or hear anything anywhere having to do with Christianity.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Number20
Just because someone disagree with Christians, doesn't mean that they have the freedom to never see or hear anything anywhere having to do with Christianity.


Exactly. If people truly start to believe this about ANY system of thought, theological or otherwise, it's a first step towards facism.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: BrikHaus81
Originally posted by: JediSage
Originally posted by: BrikHaus81

Freedom of religion in this country is also freedom from the religion of others.


You are sorely misinformed. Can you provide constructionist language that supports your point?


OK, well I don't really know what "constructionist language" is, and I'm not going to bother debating this to death with people who would rather nitpick my argument than provide rebuttal arguments, so I'll just provide a link to what I think is an interesting article about freedom of vs. freedom from religion. It contradicts some points I tried to make earlier and back up some as well.

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/freedomfrom.htm

If you don't want to read the whole thing, I think this paragraph sums up the argument nicely: "What freedom from religion does mean, however, is the freedom from the rules and dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs so that we can be free to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. Thus, we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion because they are two sides of the same coin."



You seem to be under the delusion that the phrases "Freedom of" or "Freedom from" religion appear somewhere in the constitution - they don't. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Having a nativity scene in a Christmas festival on public property does not qualify as a government entity making a law respecting the establishment of religion, nor does it qualify as a government entity forcing you into a specific religious belief.

I'm not religious in the slightest, but this newfound PC ultra-sensitivity to anything and everything perceived to be Christian is pure fucking bullshit regardless of what side of belief you fall on.

Harrison Ford Has Pretty Much Given Up on His Son. Here's Why

Author
Time
Post link
Freedom is gay, not really I mean we all like to be free to do what we want, but that makes some of us free to do some really fruity stuff!

HARMY RULES

Author
Time
Post link
Stinky, you never cease to impress me. You have the most fantastic ability to say exactly what you mean in the simplest and crudest way, and the majority of the time your views are fantastically and shockingly wise, in a crude kind of way. Great stuff.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
Where does the PC madness end?

I have to say I was VERY pleased with NBC last night. They had a CHRISTMAS special dedicated to the lighting of the CHRISTMAS tree at Rockerfeller center, and they played a lot of sacred CHRISTMAS songs (i.e. not just the secular musings of Santa and sleigh bells, but the good stuff like O Holy Night).

If anybody got offended by that, I hope they realized that they could change the channel.
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.
Author
Time
Post link
In observation of Christmas, I'm going to try to post some examples of the types of things happening in America with regards to this argument. My intention is not to start a flame war, but to inform. I'm not going to get into the rights and wrongs of any these instances. I'll try to put something here every day through Christmas day.

Here's today's example:

"And make no mistake, the court is going to have a United States marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of court." - U.S. District judge, Southern District of Texas 1995.

This was a case regarding prayer before a school graduation. The judge applied this ruling to all forms of prayer (all religions), but a Christian prayer was at issue, and this is a clear violation of the free exercise clause.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
I agree with ADM. Where does PC madness end? I acutally wrote a short story last week, parodying political corectness in today's society. I had lots of fun with it too, but the thing is, if you take out all the exageration from it, it could actually happen. In my story, a young boy dies trying to make a reindeer at the zoo fly...and instantly the legend of Santa and his reindeer become the most politically incorrect topic that Christmas season.

I think its sad that even at my school we can't put up Chirstmas decorations or really celebrate the season at all. When you're at school every day of the week and there's nothing Christmas-y about it, it really gets rid of the spirit of the season. My orchestra director actually got in trouble last year for saying Merry Christmas to the audience at our Winter concert. He told us we could still preform Christmas songs, but none of the speeches made could use the term in it. It's seriously almost funny. But the sheer stupidity of it gets in the way of being funny.

Watch DarthEvil's Who Framed Darth Vader? video on YouTube!

You can also access the entire Horriffic Violence Theater Series from my Channel Page.
Author
Time
Post link
Some schools have gone so far as to ban any holiday-themed songs from being performed by the band or choir, out of fear of offending anyone. So in the end, nobody is pleased. Its pretty ridicious. It wasn't too long ago that I was in school, and we had a tree, sang christmas carols, etc. How far we've come. Its sad.
Author
Time
Post link
Are we believing that Christmas should be represented in the culture around us because it is the dominant religion in the country?

Or, do we believe that Christmas should be represented in the culture around us because it has some "right" to be displayed, even when people in authority are apposed to that?

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
I think that Christmas has expanded to the point where it has become not so much religious, but just a secular holiday. I mean really, my family isn't religious at all and we still the lights, tree, etc.

Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room!

Author
Time
Post link
The thing about Christmas is that, in my mind, its so much more than just celebrating the birth of Jesus. Christmas is also a time to celebrate giving and loving, and being with your family, and togetherness in general. (I know that was badly written.) It's very hard to put into words, but you really don't have to believe in Jesus or be Christian to have the Christmas Spirit. Celebrating Christmas with the trees and the santa displays and wishing your fellow man a Merry Christmas doesn't have to have anything to do with the birth of Jesus. It's just showing and celebrating and wishing upon others the Christmas Spirit. I have a Jewish friend, and they celebrate Christmas, to an extent. They put up a small tree and exchange presents. Celebrating Christmas and having the Christmas spirit doesn't have to be directly accosciated with religion. It's so sad that people try to be so politically correct that they miss the point of it and make Christmas a political struggle.

And schools go nuts about this stuff, and its not just Christmas they go batshit insane with the rules about. I'm in 8th grade and you need a permission slip to watch a PG movie in school. It's nuts.
Watch DarthEvil's Who Framed Darth Vader? video on YouTube!

You can also access the entire Horriffic Violence Theater Series from my Channel Page.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
If anybody got offended by that, I hope they realized that they could change the channel.


Amen!

If you can't take the heat, stay out of the boiler room.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Are we believing that Christmas should be represented in the culture around us because it is the dominant religion in the country?

Or, do we believe that Christmas should be represented in the culture around us because it has some "right" to be displayed, even when people in authority are apposed to that?


We're believing that it should not be prevented from being represented, displayed, or talked about in a public forum, and that the people doing it should have their free exercise rights protected. If the "people in authority" thought it was a good idea to stone people for over-due parking tickets it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing.

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
The non-religious nature that a religious holiday can have is the perfect example of why the government cannot separate religion from all of the other ideologies that exist in our world. To invent strange laws based upon something like a separation of church and state, is ridiculous enough in the first place. To the point where it is today, where we have an incongruous medley of religions being officially represented at every turn, while trying not to offend anyone at the same time, is pure madness.


Originally posted by: JediSage

We're believing that it should not be prevented from being represented, displayed, or talked about in a public forum, and that the people doing it should have their free exercise rights protected.

Then where does that logic stop, exactly? Does every last, little, stupid religion in this country get its own display of the same size? Should a public forum accommodate anything and everything the "public" may want to place there? No restrictions whatsoever?

And, just so you know, the “right” that you describe above has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion. Putting a nativity scene in a public park, for instance, is not an action protected by the first amendment when those in charge of the park want to prevent a nativity from being there.


Originally posted by: JediSage

If the "people in authority" thought it was a good idea to stone people for over-due parking tickets it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing.


A country is not allowed to dictate its own policies or determine its own laws in your mind? Should we simply invent new "rights" in response to each decision that you happen to personally disagree with?

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup

Originally posted by: JediSage

We're believing that it should not be prevented from being represented, displayed, or talked about in a public forum, and that the people doing it should have their free exercise rights protected.

Then where does that logic stop, exactly? Does every last, little, stupid religion in this country get its own display of the same size? Should a public forum accommodate anything and everything the "public" may want to place there? No restrictions whatsoever?

Should the Christians of America simply "go away" because 1 group feels under-represented or offended? I do not advocate representing 1 religion at the expense of another. I just want that one religion to have fair and equal access to public resources and freedoms that most other philosophies and interests (including secularist) enjoy.

And, just so you know, the “right” that you describe above has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion. Putting a nativity scene in a public park, for instance, is not an action protected by the first amendment when those in charge of the park want to prevent a nativity from being there.


So, free exercise rights end where public property begins?

The word "public" carries with it certain cannotations, meaning that the "public" may use it within certain guidelines, ie: so long as they don't disturb the peace, have people walking around naked, murder, assault anyone, perform human sacrifices, whatever. We now read the 1st amendment as covering everything from dung-covered pictures of Catholic religious icons and art exhibits with human cadavers that MUST be protected, yet a nativity scene is bad.


Originally posted by: JediSage

If the "people in authority" thought it was a good idea to stone people for over-due parking tickets it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing.


A country is not allowed to dictate its own policies or determine its own laws in your mind? Should we simply invent new "rights" in response to each decision that you happen to personally disagree with?


We're not talking about inventing "new" rights. We're talking about protecting existing rights that were respected for over 150 years, that have, in the past few decades, been taken from us in whole or by piece. If "the country" wants to change it then they should do it via amending the First Amendment, not through judicial fiat.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: JediSage
I do not advocate representing 1 religion at the expense of another. I just want that one religion to have fair and equal access to public resources and freedoms that most other philosophies and interests (including secularist) enjoy.

Again, where does that stop? Do you know how many different religions you can find in the United States? You really want them all to have “equal” access to public resources? How would you stop a public space from being overrun with hundreds of equally-sized religious displays?


Originally posted by: JediSage
And, just so you know, the “right” that you describe above has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion. Putting a nativity scene in a public park, for instance, is not an action protected by the first amendment when those in charge of the park want to prevent a nativity from being there.

So, free exercise rights end where public property begins?

Hardly. Good Lord. Sid you even read the above-quoted paragraph before trying to reply to it?

I was informing you that the free exercise of religion is completely unaffected by the ways our public officials decide to manage public property. If a town allows a nativity while preventing an Islamic display, the free-exercise rights of Muslims are not being offended. If that same town then decides to allow an Islamic display and prevent the nativity, the free-exercise rights of Christians are not affected.


Originally posted by: JediSage
The word "public" carries with it certain cannotations, meaning that the "public" may use it within certain guidelines, ie: so long as they don't disturb the peace, have people walking around naked, murder, assault anyone, perform human sacrifices, whatever.


That’s not true at all. The government has every prerogative to limit access to public property in any way that it deems fit. If it wants to charge a fee for people to gain access to a public park, it can do that. If it wants to allow a marathon supporting cancer research while banning a KKK rally in those same streets, it is capable of making that decision without offending any rights or principles.

Government makes decisions with unfair preferences all of the time. It’s the way a society works. We provide economic incentives to encourage people to serve in the military while ignoring other roles. We currently give tax-breaks to heterosexual, married couples because our society believes that such families are benefit to our nation more than other kinds of families would be. We often preserve the state of our environment by preventing people from utilizing private resources in any way they would wish. Each of these decisions naturally discriminates against their alternatives.

That is not to say that there are not issues where equal access to public property is important for protecting our freedoms. There are no easy answers when it comes to things like this (I’ve studied the issue for many years). Though I believe it can be safe for us to say that while common access should be equal and fair, uncommon access should not. If we decide to give an unusual amount of access to one group (like in the case of a nativity in front of a town hall), there are no “rights” requiring us to give that exact same level of unusual access to every other possible group that might want it. Tell me where the constitution says otherwise.

Our country has been discriminating in the favor of Christianity since it was founded. Even Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the least religious founding father, oversaw many government actions that actually endorsed Christianity with our federal government! So long as private religious observances were not hindered by an action, this kind of public favoritism was totally compatible with the constitution as far as our founding fathers were concerned.


Originally posted by: JediSage
We now read the 1st amendment as covering everything from dung-covered pictures of Catholic religious icons and art exhibits with human cadavers that MUST be protected, yet a nativity scene is bad.


That kind of speech is not to be protected by the government as it relates to public property or public funding. If we decide to prevent such exhibits from getting government assistance, then we have every right to do so.


Originally posted by: JediSage
We're not talking about inventing "new" rights. We're talking about protecting existing rights that were respected for over 150 years, that have, in the past few decades, been taken from us in whole or by piece. If "the country" wants to change it then they should do it via amending the First Amendment, not through judicial fiat.


The “right” to put a religious display on public property when the proper authority is apposed to that action is not a right that has ever existed in our country. Sorry.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: JediSage
I do not advocate representing 1 religion at the expense of another. I just want that one religion to have fair and equal access to public resources and freedoms that most other philosophies and interests (including secularist) enjoy.

Again, where does that stop? Do you know how many different religions you can find in the United States? You really want them all to have “equal” access to public resources? How would you stop a public space from being overrun with hundreds of equally-sized religious displays?

That is where the government's management of the resources in question comes into play. Part of the responsibility that comes with managing them means making sure that group 1 is not holding an event on the same day/time as group 2.

Originally posted by: JediSage
And, just so you know, the “right” that you describe above has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion. Putting a nativity scene in a public park, for instance, is not an action protected by the first amendment when those in charge of the park want to prevent a nativity from being there.

So, free exercise rights end where public property begins?

Hardly. Good Lord. Sid you even read the above-quoted paragraph before trying to reply to it?

I was informing you that the free exercise of religion is completely unaffected by the ways our public officials decide to manage public property. If a town allows a nativity while preventing an Islamic display, the free-exercise rights of Muslims are not being offended. If that same town then decides to allow an Islamic display and prevent the nativity, the free-exercise rights of Christians are not affected.

How are they NOT offended? Religious displays/gatherings are constitutionally protected speech, and have been since the day the Bill of Rights was passed. George Washington declared a national day of prayer and thanksgiving the day after it was enacted into law.


Originally posted by: JediSage
The word "public" carries with it certain cannotations, meaning that the "public" may use it within certain guidelines, ie: so long as they don't disturb the peace, have people walking around naked, murder, assault anyone, perform human sacrifices, whatever.

That’s not true at all. The government has every prerogative to limit access to public property in any way that it deems fit. If it wants to charge a fee for people to gain access to a public park, it can do that.

No argument. Free speech is not at issue here.

If it wants to allow a marathon supporting cancer research while banning a KKK rally in those same streets, it is capable of making that decision without offending any rights or principles.


100% disagreement. A KKK rally is by definition a free speech exercise, repugnant as it may be, and they have every right to freely assemble under the First Amendment so long as the assembly is peaceable. Yes, the governing authority can levy a fee, run them through mountains of paperwork, etc; but in the end the authority in question cannot legally deny them the right to assemble on public property.

Government makes decisions with unfair preferences all of the time. It’s the way a society works. We provide economic incentives to encourage people to serve in the military while ignoring other roles. We currently give tax-breaks to heterosexual, married couples because our society believes that such families are benefit to our nation more than other kinds of families would be. We often preserve the state of our environment by preventing people from utilizing private resources in any way they would wish. Each of these decisions naturally discriminates against their alternatives.


None of the examples you cite is a First Amendment issue.

(I’ve studied the issue for many years).


As have I.

Though I believe it can be safe for us to say that while common access should be equal and fair, uncommon access should not. If we decide to give an unusual amount of access to one group (like in the case of a nativity in front of a town hall), there are no “rights” requiring us to give that exact same level of unusual access to every other possible group that might want it. Tell me where the constitution says otherwise.


Free exercise rights are not a question of commonality vs uncommonality, but since you brought it up, how do you define uncommon access in light of the fact that displays of this type were never an issue until relatively recently?

Our country has been discriminating in the favor of Christianity since it was founded. Even Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the least religious founding father, oversaw many government actions that actually endorsed Christianity with our federal government! So long as private religious observances were not hindered by an action, this kind of public favoritism was totally compatible with the constitution as far as our founding fathers were concerned.


You lost me here.

Originally posted by: JediSage
We now read the 1st amendment as covering everything from dung-covered pictures of Catholic religious icons and art exhibits with human cadavers that MUST be protected, yet a nativity scene is bad.

That kind of speech is not to be protected by the government as it relates to public property or public funding. If we decide to prevent such exhibits from getting government assistance, then we have every right to do so.


Check out the story about the dung covered portrait of Mary in NYC a few years back...

Originally posted by: JediSage
We're not talking about inventing "new" rights. We're talking about protecting existing rights that were respected for over 150 years, that have, in the past few decades, been taken from us in whole or by piece. If "the country" wants to change it then they should do it via amending the First Amendment, not through judicial fiat.

The “right” to put a religious display on public property when the proper authority is apposed to that action is not a right that has ever existed in our country. Sorry.


Oh well, then case closed. LMAO.

ANYWAY, you are sorely misinformed about this. "Sorry".

The United States is what's called a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. This means that the power of the government and it's people are curbed by laws. The notion that the government can deny rights to it's citizens (rights that are explicitly protected in the country's founding documents and the writings of it's founders) places waaaay too much power in the government's hands and paves the way to even more totalitarianism than we're already dealing with.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Today's example:

A fourth-grader from St. Louis, MO was disciplined 3 times for praying quietly over their food during lunch time. The student's mother filed suit and a religious rights public interest law firm handled their case. When the issue came to light the school district insisted the child was disciplined for other issues not related to the prayers, however the law firm testified with four sworn statements from witnesses that the student was not disciplined for any other reason. The case was settled out of court.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: JediSage
Today's example:

A fourth-grader from St. Louis, MO was disciplined 3 times for praying quietly over their food during lunch time. The student's mother filed suit and a religious rights public interest law firm handled their case. When the issue came to light the school district insisted the child was disciplined for other issues not related to the prayers, however the law firm testified with four sworn statements from witnesses that the student was not disciplined for any other reason. The case was settled out of court.


I simply cannot belive this... Unbelivable...
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
I can believe it. This world is fucking nuts. It's awful, and its horrible, but its real, and its sad.

Schools can't legally surpress your religion. Now, if your religion is to dance around nude every day at lunch time and sacrifice a goat, I think there's probably a line to draw there in schools. But let's say I answered a science question with an answer stating that"God did it." I would get it wrong, and I know I would probably get a detention for it for being such a "smart ass." Then I could say that I believe in God and I am firm in my answer. Could they, would they, still give me punishment? Probably. Now, if I did that, I really would be being a smart ass. But let's say there really was a kid who believed that and really did do it in full honesty. Should they punish him? No.
Watch DarthEvil's Who Framed Darth Vader? video on YouTube!

You can also access the entire Horriffic Violence Theater Series from my Channel Page.
Author
Time
Post link
Wow, I must say, I’m impressed by your use of the quote tags, Jedisage.


Originally posted by: JediSage
That is where the government's management of the resources in question comes into play. Part of the responsibility that comes with managing them means making sure that group 1 is not holding an event on the same day/time as group 2.

Oh my God, that’s brilliant! How could I have missed such an obvious solution?!

Oh, wait, sorry, what about when fifty different religions all require a display all at the precise, same time in accordance to their religious traditions? Since public spaces are generally not infinite, are you going to discriminate against some of them by saying they cannot have a display put up on their “special” holy day? Wouldn’t that contradict your principle?

Plus, what about the amount of time you give to a particular group? Clearly you believe that differently sized displays are unfair and wrong, but what about displays that are up for a week (like for some kind of holy week), does then every group get a week of time to present their display on public property? (To keep everything fair?) Or would you discriminate and allow one group to have more display time than another?

Plus, might I inquire how you would schedule time for the normal, usual use of a public space? If every possible religious group can take up a road or a park at any time it wishes under your principle, because it is religious and every religion must be given access to public resources at all times, then how would we have any time left over for people to use a road for transportation or use a park for picnics?

I apologize for giving you so many of my questions, Jedisage. I’m sure you’ll consider them very stupid and not worth your time, but they are very troubling to me and I would hope that I am not too presumptuous in asking you for enlightenment. I should inform you, though, that I am aware of the Supreme Court’s most recent decisions as it relates to limiting the problems that I have brought up to you here (and their decisions are decisions that I happen to strongly disagree with), but your scheduling principle seems very novel and interesting by comparison. I’d love to learn more!


Originally posted by: JediSage
How are they NOT offended? Religious displays/gatherings are constitutionally protected speech, and have been since the day the Bill of Rights was passed.

Well, I know it’s probably very stupid of me to contradict you, but as far as I know, the free exercise of things like religious displays and religious gatherings were constitutionally protected from positive government action. In other words, people were free to express their devotion to God or express some other kind of spirituality in an unhindered manner so long as government had no compelling reason to interfere. I’m almost certain, based upon my knowledge of our history as a nation that this was the original intent behind the first amendment to the constitution (as it relates to religion anyways). I know that modern courts have ruled in favor of a “separation of church and state,” but I consider that to be bad law and a complete misinterpretation of anything found in the Bill of Rights.

In terms of particulars, discreet behavior limited to private property is perhaps the best protected form of religious exercise since a number of protected rights overlap in that instance. Unless a group is doing something that the governing authority deems too dangerous, too disturbing to its surroundings, or too immoral, it has no right to interfere with that private practice. In terms of public exercise on public property, things get more complicated because a number of basic actions are to always be protected when they are aimed at the government (such as “petitioning” the government), and yet, beyond that, at the same time, the federal government is allowed within limits to decide how its resources shall be used in society and by whom (plus the capacity for causing a bad disturbance or creating danger might be greater on public property). Thus I believe that we can conclude that our government may often have many compelling interests to prevent a publicly religious observance.

Now, that said, nowhere does the constitution, as far as I know, declare that a government authority must provide public resources to facilitate religious expression. Free religious expression is protected from positive interference, not from the lack of positive support. Again, perhaps you can educate me and tell me why the government is required to support each and every religious display from each and every religion, using public property, but I know of nothing in the constitution that states such.


Originally posted by: JediSage
George Washington declared a national day of prayer and thanksgiving the day after it was enacted into law.

So, how exactly does that prove that every religion has a “right” to access public resources despite the will of the government? (Again, I’m sorry if I’m not as quick as you.) As far as I know, your religious “right” has not forced our government to make Hanukkah into a federally recognized holiday yet.

It would seem to me that your example is actually supporting my argument. You’re showing me that government can have religiously oriented policies whenever and however it chooses. There is no requirement for government to treat every religion equally and thus officially declare a holiday whenever a particular religiously oriented outlook wants one (as I’m guessing you would have to support for the sake of consistency).


Originally posted by: JediSage
If it wants to allow a marathon supporting cancer research while banning a KKK rally in those same streets, it is capable of making that decision without offending any rights or principles.

100% disagreement. A KKK rally is by definition a free speech exercise, repugnant as it may be, and they have every right to freely assemble under the First Amendment so long as the assembly is peaceable.

Yes, the governing authority can levy a fee, run them through mountains of paperwork, etc; but in the end the authority in question cannot legally deny them the right to assemble on public property.

So, first, the government can give one ideological group tons of paperwork and fees that another ideological group is not required to endure? Isn’t that “unfair” and unequal in your world? Doesn’t that violate your understanding of our “rights”?

Second, I’m guessing that you actually have heard of obscenity laws, correct? In my understanding of our history, our rights in this country were never intended to be protected to every extreme we could imagine. That would be madness (you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater). If we decide as a society that parts of the KKK ideology should be considered obscene by our government, we can forbid it from being openly presented upon public property. Nowhere are we stopping people from committing that same obscenity on their own private property in this instance. A KKK rally can still freely assemble via private resources; they just won’t get positive government assistance. The exact same principle should be allowed to prevent a rally from displaying a giant sign with the word “FUCK” over Washington D.C. or prevent a sexually obscene “parade” from being held on the streets of New York. Is my point of view here making any sense to you?

Though I wouldn’t want you to misunderstand me; I do believe that I understand your desire to curb oppressive government laws and protect our freedoms. Oftentimes our government regulates every little detail of our lives simply because it thinks it has a “clear interest” and it too often does not. However, deciding where the line should be drawn between too many laws and not enough laws is no easy task (the same goes for every law we make in our society), but that does not mean we should give away our duty to decide these laws to unaccountable judges. If they can invent new “rights” from nowhere, then they can un-invent old rights just as quickly. It is our duty to clearly define what our rights are and how they should be protected and if those rights must make sense.


Originally posted by: JediSage
Government makes decisions with unfair preferences all of the time. It’s the way a society works. We provide economic incentives to encourage people to serve in the military while ignoring other roles. We currently give tax-breaks to heterosexual, married couples because our society believes that such families are benefit to our nation more than other kinds of families would be. We often preserve the state of our environment by preventing people from utilizing private resources in any way they would wish. Each of these decisions naturally discriminates against their alternatives.

None of the examples you cite is a First Amendment issue.


I’m sorry, but according to your view of the world, it seems to me that they would be. You’re saying that government has an obligation to support every ideological observance with public resources. Therefore, it seems to me that an anti-military, peace group should be able to get official status for peace activists within the federal government with the same kind of economic incentives as military jobs. After all, we can’t have government discriminating and favoring one ideology more than another, correct? A pro-military group’s ideas shouldn’t have more sway over our government than an anti-military group, should it? Wouldn’t that be unequal in your view of the world? Shouldn’t every possible ideology in the universe receive an equal response from the government?

Or, are you somehow saying that sometimes our government can discriminate in favor of one ideological group over another? Do you actually believe that we can sometimes decide to give government resources to certain groups and behaviors more than others? If so, then on what principled basis? (Again, I’m sorry if my questions are below your great intelligence, but I truly am curious to know how you’d respond to them.)


Originally posted by: JediSage
Though I believe it can be safe for us to say that while common access should be equal and fair, uncommon access should not. If we decide to give an unusual amount of access to one group (like in the case of a nativity in front of a town hall), there are no “rights” requiring us to give that exact same level of unusual access to every other possible group that might want it. Tell me where the constitution says otherwise.


Free exercise rights are not a question of commonality vs uncommonality, but since you brought it up, how do you define uncommon access in light of the fact that displays of this type were never an issue until relatively recently?


I’m sorry, I must have been unclear. I never said that free exercise rights were an issue of “commonality” versus “uncommonality.” I was talking about how government can decide how and when public property is to be used. Under that system (which I firmly believe is the traditional system in our country), I propose that we can then recognize that certain traits are common to all people and to all ideologies. Then, on that basis, whenever our government decides that objects with certain traits should have automatic access to public property, it should not then consider acting to prevent that access for a particular object so long as it remains within the common use that other objects with similar traits have automatic access to. In the event that it does go beyond that “common use,” our government can decide if it should be allowed or disallowed.

For instance, if a government declares a road to be used by the public freely for the transportation of people and private property, in my mind it should not be able to discriminate between kinds of people or between kinds of private property in any fundamental sense (where common traits overlap). Private property and private beliefs are not under the jurisdiction of the government unless they are being clearly presented in an indiscreet (public) fashion (or if they constitute a clear danger or nuisance to society of course).

If a government, on the other hand, declares a “rally” or a “marathon” to be an unusual use of those same streets, then it can decide which of these unusual events to allow and which of these unusual events to disallow on a case by case basis as they are presented. There are no laws that I am aware of that should prevent our government from discriminating between ideologies when deciding which unusual public uses should be allowed.

Now, if a KKK member wants to transport racist leaflets in his car on public streets, he should be allowed to do so. Transporting literature is a part of the common purpose of our public streets and we should not be able to prevent his literature from being discreetly transported on it simply because we find it to be abhorrent. However, a KKK rally could easily be considered by a government as an action that disturbs the ordinary use of a street and therefore not automatically allowed. The government does not need to tolerate the unusual use of its public streets for a hate-filled rally if it doesn’t want to. On the other hand, a marathon to prevent cancer would also be an unusual use of those same streets, yet our government can decide it to be a beneficial disturbance and allow it on that basis.

I suppose, boiled down to the simplest terms, a common use of public property is something that is allowed by default and an uncommon use of public property is one that has a very unclear status or one that must have proper permission before going forward. (I’m not claiming my ideas here are perfect though. As I said before, there are no easy answers on this subject, but these in particular are my own and you can analyze them in whatever way you wish.)


Originally posted by: JediSage
Our country has been discriminating in the favor of Christianity since it was founded. Even Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the least religious founding father, oversaw many government actions that actually endorsed Christianity with our federal government! So long as private religious observances were not hindered by an action, this kind of public favoritism was totally compatible with the constitution as far as our founding fathers were concerned.


You lost me here.


Oh, I’m sorry, if one so knowledgeable as yourself is confused, the mistake must be mine, correct? Let me see . . . .

First I was attempting to bring some of our country’s history to your attention. I then sought to use that history to prove that government has always been allowed to be unequal when it came to supporting religion. Judaism and Islam were never given an equal amount of attention as Christianity. Your “rights” (as I understand them) did not force the government to give equal time or space to every other religion in our country, and therefore I concluded that the “right” of every religion to have equal public support doesn’t exist.

If that doesn’t help clear things up, then perhaps you could inform me of what might exactly be confusing you? In that case I can quickly try to correct any mistakes I made with my communication.


Originally posted by: JediSage
Check out the story about the dung covered portrait of Mary in NYC a few years back...


I’m well aware of that event. What is it from that story, exactly, that you believe I should keep in mind?

As far as I’m concerned, that portrait should not be considered “publicly” protected speech. If we do not wish to publicly fund that particular idea of “art,” or have it displayed in public spaces, we should not be required to do so by any kind of a supposed “right.” Do you disagree with my assessment here?


Originally posted by: JediSage
The United States is what's called a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. This means that the power of the government and it's people are curbed by laws. The notion that the government can deny rights to it's citizens (rights that are explicitly protected in the country's founding documents and the writings of it's founders) places waaaay too much power in the government's hands and paves the way to even more totalitarianism than we're already dealing with.


And who here is advocating that we “deny rights” to citizens?

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Another example of the state sanctioned neutrality police in action (and of the state successfully enforcing free speech abridgements on public property, no need to thank me, this one's free)...

In January of 2002 a kindergartener in Saratoga Springs, NY joined hands with two friends at a snack table and said "God is good. God is great. Thank you, God, for my food." The teacher disciplined the child, the principal sent a note home to the parents saying the behavior was inappropriate and would not be permitted. The local school board then issued a press release saying the child would not be allowed to do this again. A suit was filed via a public interest law firm and the child's parents, the case was successfully settled out of court, with the school board acknowledging the child's right to prayer at school so long as it was not "disruptive", and of course refuting that they did anything wrong.

Oh, and before the outcry continues (I'll be composing a response to the last TipTup thread at some point during the Christmas break), here's a piece about the government's ability to intervene in free exercise situations (I find the compelling interest standard a good way to hold the gov's feet to the fire) -

Wiki -
Compelling interest

The Supreme Court under Earl Warren adopted an expansive view of the free exercise clause. The Court required that states have a "compelling interest" in refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct as it decided Sherbert v. Verner (1963). The case involved Adele Sherbert, an individual who was denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays as required by her Seventh-day Adventist faith. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Court ruled that a law that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest, even though it might be "neutral on its face," would be unconstitutional.

The "compelling interest" doctrine became much narrower in 1990, when the Supreme Court held in Employment Division v. Smith that, as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice, it is constitutional insofar as the free exercise clause is concerned. In 1993, the Supreme Court revisited the free exercise clause when it decided Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. Hialeah had passed an ordinance banning ritual slaughter, a practice central to the Santería religion, while providing exceptions for some practices such as the kosher slaughter of Judaism. Since the ordinance was not "generally applicable," the Court ruled that it was subject to the compelling interest test, which it failed to meet. The Court therefore struck down the City's ordinance.

Also in 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which sought to restore the "compelling interest" standard. In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) the Court struck down the provisions of the Act that forced state and local governments to provide more protections than required by the First Amendment, which the courts enjoy sole power to interpret. According to the court's ruling in Gonzales v. UDV (2006), RFRA remains applicable to federal statutes, which must therefore still meet the "compelling interest" standard in free exercise cases.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
I found the following text on an uber-left-wing website, but it perfectly illustrates why a "support for everything" approach doesn't work:

A method of resolving conflicts:

Hawaii probably has the greatest diversity of religious expression of any state in the United States. If it were not for the aloha spirit, one might expect the greatest potential for conflict would occur here.

There has been some friction. Over a decade ago, former Mayor Frankn Fasi founded a spectacular Honolulu city Lights display on the City Hall lawn. It was originally a secular display. Then, in 1992, a member of a Pearly City persuaded Fasi to add a nativity scene featuring the birth of Christ. In 1997, the American Atheists threatened to launch a discrimination suit because a Buddhist booth which celebrated Bodhi Day was being discriminated against by having been given a less desirable location. The Atheists and the city administration reached a compromise: a lottery would be held each year for the available locations.

horizontal rule
The 2004 display in Honolulu, HI:

In 2004, Santa, elves and massive toys make up the secular City Lights display. Thirteen non-profit groups applied this year for adjacent spaces. The five winners were:

1. The Wahiawa Door of Faith Church sponsors a Christian nativity display. A a sign over the crèche says: "Happy Birthday, Lord Jesus."

2. The National Assembly of the Bahá'í Faith has a "Garden of Humanity" with flowers representing diverse human cultures. This represents the Bahá'í belief that God provided a succession of prophets, from Noah to Jesus Christ, Mohammed, The Bab, and Baha'u'llah.

3. The Good Shepherd Lutheran Church portrays the legend of the candy cane. Its curved shape is symbolic of a shepherd's crook -- a link to Jesus.

4. A political action committee Stand Up for America installed a map of the United States with a banner rejecting Agnosticism, Atheism, Buddhism, Humanism and other non-theistic religions by proclaiming "One Nation Under God."

5. Another political action committee, the Alliance for Traditional Marriage and Values constructed a wedding cake topped with male and female figures -- presumably a just-married couple. The Honolulu Star Bulletin newspaper describes the "underlying message [as] being opposition to same-sex unions." A sign includes two lines from "The Wedding Song," which paraphrase text from the Gospel of Matthew: "The union of your spirits, here, has caused Him to remain; for whenever two or more of you are gathered in His name, there is Love." A beautiful thought. But, a cynic might suggest that the "two or more" could actually refer to an opposite-sex couple, or a same-sex couple in Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands or Belgium, or even a group of polygamous spouses.

So, now, instead of having some beautiful displays reflecting our most common culture and our most popular traditions, we end up with lame, crappy-looking anti-atheist displays and other politically divisive displays? Is that solution really better than offending a few people by limiting religious recognition to that which is most popular?

The Supreme Court has recently ruled that not every religion has to be represented in a limited time and space so long as multiple religions are represented at the same time and so long as "secular" symbols (like Rudolph) also get displayed with them. Call me crazy, but I think this is an incredibly ridiculous and rather stupid ruling.

If a small town somewhere is almost totally made up of Muslims, they should be able to have an Islamic display in front of their local town hall if they so choose. Just because there may be a few Christians in same the town is no reason that we should require that community to put up crosses or nativities. Same thing goes for requiring secular symbols simply because we believe some "right" requires them. I mean seriously think about it! Do we really believe that all human beings have the innate "right" to see a Rudolph display?! This is an absolutely silly way to look at our laws. It’s certainly not what our founding fathers intended (thankfully they weren’t that stupid).

That's not to say that I believe the majority in a local area should callously leave out other religions, since that would obviously be disrespectful, but I am saying that there is no such thing as some kind of human "right" that requires a schizophrenic recognition of religion at every turn. There's no reason why we should ultimately be forced to start instituting lotteries for public display space just so we don't offend anyone with an actual, intentional decision. I say we just let some people be offended because those people are probably idiots. You seriously can't make everyone happy.

So long as citizens are not denied the right to exercise their religion freely, the majority can decide to have a government that is biased in the way it recognizes religion. Nobody’s rights are being hurt by that.


Originally posted by: JediSage
Another example of the state sanctioned neutrality police in action (and of the state successfully enforcing free speech abridgements on public property, no need to thank me, this one's free)...

In January of 2002 a kindergartener in Saratoga Springs, NY joined hands with two friends at a snack table and said "God is good. God is great. Thank you, God, for my food." The teacher disciplined the child, the principal sent a note home to the parents saying the behavior was inappropriate and would not be permitted. The local school board then issued a press release saying the child would not be allowed to do this again. A suit was filed via a public interest law firm and the child's parents, the case was successfully settled out of court, with the school board acknowledging the child's right to prayer at school so long as it was not "disruptive", and of course refuting that they did anything wrong.


School officials trying to prevent a girl from personally praying over her meal would be a clear violation of the first amendment on so many grounds that it's not even funny.

However, if you were implying that your above example directly applies to what you and I are arguing about, then you'll forgive me if I state that you are incorrect. Elected representatives deciding against the placement of a particular nativity on a piece of public property would totally be their right. No sane idea of religious exercise is being burdened or hindered with that choice; it's simply a group of politicians deciding policy within the extent of their authority. (Though, I will say that if they claimed that the nativity should be prevented on the basis of "the separation between church and state," that would be a completely false excuse.)

It's our duty to keep stupid and unreasonable politicians out of office and it is our duty to supervise government bureaucracies from making idiotic decisions, but it is never our duty to whine and pretend that our rights are being hurt just because we don't get to see our nativity on public property! I want the crybabies from every political faction to simply go away! They should shut up, stop being offended by every little thing, and let the most popular aspects of our culture be recognized, when and if the majority wishes it!

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005