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!
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.
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.
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...
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).
You lost me here.
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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?