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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.