Originally posted by: Tiptup
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
None of the examples you cite is a First Amendment issue.
(I’ve studied the issue for many years).
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.
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.
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.
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.