Great. another group calls for removal of 10 commandments from public park.

[Azn Retribution]

http://www.thewgalchannel.com/news/2812747/detail.html

Here we go again: Group calls for removal of 10 Commandments from public park, which has been there for 50 years.

Christ what does every bleeding heart liberal agnostic expect us to do?
Remove every religious monument in the f*cking country thats on public property? You know we'd have to remove a great deal of national landmarks as well. The Washington Monument could be considered a Religious monument in away.

Where do you draw f*cking line between history, culture and religion.
I highly agree with separation of Church and State but this is ridiculous.


Do ya'all have anything better to do with your time??
Like go to the food bank more than once a year to feel like you can identify and know what its like to be homeless while maintaining a condescending posture that you know it all?

[kitty]

How would the washington monument be considered religious?

I completely disagree with christianity being to prominently centered in american government. I think the 'god bless america' stuff should be taken out of the pledge, and i don't think the ten commandments has any business in state property.

what about all the americans who don't believe in monotheistic religion?

[SunWuKong]

How would the washington monument be considered religious?

I completely disagree with christianity being to prominently centered in american government. I think the 'god bless america' stuff should be taken out of the pledge, and i don't think the ten commandments has any business in state property.

what about all the americans who don't believe in monotheistic religion?

well the point is, the Ten Commandments being there isn't infringing on anybody's rights, nor is it interfering with government policies.

so it's there and it's been there for a long time. but there's not really much of a need to take it out.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I think I've posted this before but I'll post it again anyway. The separation of church and state sounds fair on paper but the concept and practice is pretty much impossible to enforce. If you're in a position of power and also a man/woman devoted to your faith (because if you weren't devoted or serious then in this case your faith or specific religion would probably not matter), how your moral framework and engrained beliefs can possibly not influence which policies you choose to enact or support (among a slew of influences such as greed or other interests) is completely beyond me.

[Arex]

I think I've posted this before but I'll post it again anyway. The separation of church and state sounds fair on paper but the concept and practice is pretty much impossible to enforce. If you're in a position of power and also a man/woman devoted to your faith (because if you weren't devoted or serious then in this case your faith or specific religion would probably not matter), how your moral framework and engrained beliefs can possibly not influence which policies you choose to enact or support (among a slew of influences such as greed or other interests) is completely beyond me.

While I agree that one's moral framework and beliefs will necessarily influence the policies one chooses to enact, I don't think it's too hard to insist that politicians and other policy makers refrain from enacting policies that advance purely religious interests. For example, erecting a ten commandments monument serves no purpose but to advance religion. Thus, while a church can do it, as can a private individual, a judge really has no business erecting one in front of a government building. As for the attack on gay and lesbian marriages as being "against God," if you have to appeal to "God" justify a policy, then that's a policy that has no place in our laws.

Alex

[Yeahman]

"Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it." - GK Chesterton

My philosophy is that, legally speaking, all that which is not harmful to others should be permited. Frankly, I don't find the 10 commandments, headscarfs, star of David's, etc... dangerous.

[ism]

When some other religion starts taking a more dominant hold, you'll be thanking the civil libertarians for being objective about the situation. Just because someone wants to remove a Christian monument doesn't make them an atheist or agnostic. Many Christian civil libertarians support such separation.

It being there since time immemorial is basically asking for grandfathering. Why can't the owner of Chink's Steaks claim that defense? When we're dealing with something that's wrong now, there's no reason not to deal with it.

[Ron]

First of all, the Christian monuments shouldn't be there, in a public location. Second of all, you're right, it has been there for ONLY 50 years, which means it's still a bit modern. Better to remove it now than later, when it'll be a "historical" monument or something.

[Ron]

http://www.thewgalchannel.com/news/2812747/detail.html

Here we go again: Group calls for removal of 10 Commandments from public park, which has been there for 50 years.

Christ what does every bleeding heart liberal agnostic expect us to do?
Remove every religious monument in the f*cking country thats on public property? You know we'd have to remove a great deal of national landmarks as well. The Washington Monument could be considered a Religious monument in away.

Where do you draw f*cking line between history, culture and religion.
I highly agree with separation of Church and State but this is ridiculous.


Do ya'all have anything better to do with your time??
Like go to the food bank more than once a year to feel like you can identify and know what its like to be homeless while maintaining a condescending posture that you know it all?

I feel that you're stereotyping us liberals. I'm Democrat because I like their main system of economic development, and I feel that Democrats as a whole support minorities much more. I'd want to be a Republican, knowing that while I'm supporting my party, segments within my own party hate minorities. The Democrats have done a lot more to progress Asians and minorities as a whole, and I feel that the Republicans are becoming more like a symbol of White America day after day.

This is just my opinion, I'd like to hear yours, anyone out there! :biggrin:

[kitty]

awww... dems aren't all that... :) they just do a better job of being pc.

seriously, regarding the monument -- i really don't understand the need to insert judeo-christian beliefs into political institutions. why is god invoked in the pledge of allegiance? why do you feel the need to include the 10 commandments in federal buildings, which will only mean something to the christians among us? why do we have to put our hands on the bible when we testify in court?

for someone who was baptized christian but never attended church, i have developed my own system of religious beliefs. to me, the bible, the 10 commandments etc all have nice things to say, but i fundamentally find no significant meaning in them such that I feel the need to tell the truth once i touch the bible. If we are for a separation between church and state than I think we need to address the pledge and the use of the bible in court... moreso than these statues which are kinda incidental in the grand scheme of things.

[Yeahman]

Many Christian civil libertarians support such separation.
Very few, if any, devout Christians.

It being there since time immemorial is basically asking for grandfathering. Why can't the owner of Chink's Steaks claim that defense? When we're dealing with something that's wrong now, there's no reason not to deal with it.
Legally speaking the owner of Chink's Steads CAN claim that defense. But apart from that, "chink" is a degrading term. I don't feel that the 10 commandments degrade anyone.

[Yeahman]

seriously, regarding the monument -- i really don't understand the need to insert judeo-christian beliefs into political institutions. why is god invoked in the pledge of allegiance? why do you feel the need to include the 10 commandments in federal buildings, which will only mean something to the christians among us? why do we have to put our hands on the bible when we testify in court?
You talk as if federal buildings are required to have the 10 commandments.
To all your questions I respond "Why not?"

for someone who was baptized christian but never attended church, i have developed my own system of religious beliefs. to me, the bible, the 10 commandments etc all have nice things to say, but i fundamentally find no significant meaning in them such that I feel the need to tell the truth once i touch the bible. If we are for a separation between church and state than I think we need to address the pledge and the use of the bible in court... moreso than these statues which are kinda incidental in the grand scheme of things.
If you find "no significant meaning in them" then you should have no problem either way.

The First Amendment...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

There is no law requiring the 10 commandments to be displayed. Nor does its display prohibit the free exercise of other religions.

The separation of church and state was never intended to rid the state of religion but to prevent European-style (And English in particular) theocracy.

[SunWuKong]

awww... dems aren't all that... :) they just do a better job of being pc.

seriously, regarding the monument -- i really don't understand the need to insert judeo-christian beliefs into political institutions. why is god invoked in the pledge of allegiance? why do you feel the need to include the 10 commandments in federal buildings, which will only mean something to the christians among us? why do we have to put our hands on the bible when we testify in court?

for someone who was baptized christian but never attended church, i have developed my own system of religious beliefs. to me, the bible, the 10 commandments etc all have nice things to say, but i fundamentally find no significant meaning in them such that I feel the need to tell the truth once i touch the bible. If we are for a separation between church and state than I think we need to address the pledge and the use of the bible in court... moreso than these statues which are kinda incidental in the grand scheme of things.

but remember, the purpose of the separation of church and state is so that religious establishments have no influence over government and vice versa.

does the Ten Commandments being in public parks affect government policies? no. is the government influencing religious establishments by putting the Ten Commandments in public parks? no. is the Ten Commandments offensive to some people? i suppose a case can be made, but i personally don't see that as a very strong argument.

i would agree that it shouldn't be there in the first place if the funding for it was provided by the government or by a religious establishment (it could have been provided by private individuals or companies). but regardless, now that it's there, i only see it as a waste of government funds to remove it.

[rasheedgonzales]

My philosophy is that, legally speaking, all that which is not harmful to others should be permited. Frankly, I don't find the 10 commandments, headscarfs, star of David's, etc... dangerous.
the law makers in france seem to think otherwise...

[Napoleon Chynamite]

seriously, regarding the monument -- i really don't understand the need to insert judeo-christian beliefs into political institutions. why is god invoked in the pledge of allegiance? why do you feel the need to include the 10 commandments in federal buildings, which will only mean something to the christians among us? why do we have to put our hands on the bible when we testify in court?

Which is my point exactly. Judeo-christian beliefs are inserted and provide underlying structure for political institutions simply because the bulk of the forefathers who built or established the base for this country were of relatively conservative Christian background. They didn't mean to do it. It just happened. Because to them (and to most devout Christians even if they value separation), there is no difference between how they feel they should live their own lives versus how they feel the masses should live, likewise with the rules they feel they and the public should abide by.

If you are a super-conservative Christian politician and you deeply believe that abortion is a sinful forbidden act, what could possibly make you take action to support legislation that allows it or promotes lenience towards abortion clinics? Unless you have other influences like the temptation of money, but that's another story.

[kitty]

You talk as if federal buildings are required to have the 10 commandments.
To all your questions I respond "Why not?"


Don't you think that having these religious icons (that are only meaningful to a bare fraction of the population) is influencing politics?

I mean, less so than the Ten Commandments, but why is God invoked everytime the president addresses the nation? Obviously, we are supposed to believe we are 'one nation under God'. If I believe in America, but I believe in... say... Zeus, Hera, and Aphroudite, now I have a conflict of interests... as if I can't be a good American and believe in multiple deities.


If you find "no significant meaning in them" then you should have no problem either way.

The First Amendment...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

There is no law requiring the 10 commandments to be displayed. Nor does its display prohibit the free exercise of other religions.

The separation of church and state was never intended to rid the state of religion but to prevent European-style (And English in particular) theocracy.

Then, if it's not hurting anybody, and according to you doesn't really help anybody, then why... if it is obviously a mixing of church and state?

It does, however, place one religion as more important than others. If one religion is so deeply ingrained in the political world, then doesn't it argue to the populous that there is one religion that is better of 'more American' than another?

What kind of hubub do you think would be raised if Buddha were erected on federal ground as some sort of sanction of the law?

[kitty]

but remember, the purpose of the separation of church and state is so that religious establishments have no influence over government and vice versa.

does the Ten Commandments being in public parks affect government policies? no. is the government influencing religious establishments by putting the Ten Commandments in public parks? no. is the Ten Commandments offensive to some people? i suppose a case can be made, but i personally don't see that as a very strong argument.

i would agree that it shouldn't be there in the first place if the funding for it was provided by the government or by a religious establishment (it could have been provided by private individuals or companies). but regardless, now that it's there, i only see it as a waste of government funds to remove it.

don't you think this government sanction of christianity over other religions affects politics, policy, and the perception of other religions by the populous?

[Yeahman]

Don't you think that having these religious icons (that are only meaningful to a bare fraction of the population) is influencing politics?
No.

I mean, less so than the Ten Commandments, but why is God invoked everytime the president addresses the nation? Obviously, we are supposed to believe we are 'one nation under God'. If I believe in America, but I believe in... say... Zeus, Hera, and Aphroudite, now I have a conflict of interests... as if I can't be a good American and believe in multiple deities.
You don't have to believe it. The president can if he wishes.

Then, if it's not hurting anybody, and according to you doesn't really help anybody, then why... if it is obviously a mixing of church and state?
Obvious mixing of church and state? As long as it isn't an establishment of any one particular religion, it's OK with me. I can appreciate decorative art of any religion.

It does, however, place one religion as more important than others. If one religion is so deeply ingrained in the political world, then doesn't it argue to the populous that there is one religion that is better of 'more American' than another?
The only thing that is argues is that western culture has Judeo-Christian influence. Should government buildings, including schools refrain from putting up Christmas decorations? Or Easter, Valentine's Day, St. Patrick's Day, or Halloween?

What kind of hubub do you think would be raised if Buddha were erected on federal ground as some sort of sanction of the law?
If it was a tasteful and appealing display, I would be all for it.

[ism]

Very few, if any, devout Christians.

Legally speaking the owner of Chink's Steads CAN claim that defense. But apart from that, "chink" is a degrading term. I don't feel that the 10 commandments degrade anyone.[/QUOTE]

Well, I did specify Christian civil libertarians, who generally have the ability to make their beliefs work together. If by "devout Christian" you mean those that can't let go of fundamentalist desires to proselytize, then I can't refute you.

If the issue is about how degradation, don't the 10 commandments degrade anyone who doesn't believe in them? The first one pretty much degrades anyone who happens to believe in a different god/gods/godhead. The third, placed in a public area, commands that people give up their right to Free Speech. 50% of married Americans seem to disagree with the seventh.

Muslims generally hold that Jesus was not the messiah, but at best, a prophet. If this were engraved in the stone archway in your county courthouse, would you be amenable to it?

[Yeahman]

Well, I did specify Christian civil libertarians, who generally have the ability to make their beliefs work together. If by "devout Christian" you mean those that can't let go of fundamentalist desires to proselytize, then I can't refute you.
By "devout Christians" I meant practicing Christians of a mainstream denomination.

If the issue is about how degradation, don't the 10 commandments degrade anyone who doesn't believe in them? The first one pretty much degrades anyone who happens to believe in a different god/gods/godhead. The third, placed in a public area, commands that people give up their right to Free Speech. 50% of married Americans seem to disagree with the seventh.
No, I do not find the 10 commandments degrading any more than I find the star of David, degrading. You seem to confuse disagreement with degradation.

Muslims generally hold that Jesus was not the messiah, but at best, a prophet. If this were engraved in the stone archway in your county courthouse, would you be amenable to it?
You don't see John 3:16 in county courthouses. Because it's totally unrelated. I don't think the 10 commandments at the post office is appropriate either because there is no connection. The 10 commandments in a courthouse, the original divine law of the Abrahamic religions, is at the very least, relevent.
If in a county with a heavy Muslim population, there was a quote from the Qur'an having to do with the law engraved on the archway of the courthouse, I would have no problem with it and even admire it.

[Craig]

You don't see John 3:16 in county courthouses. Because it's totally unrelated. I don't think the 10 commandments at the post office is appropriate either because there is no connection. The 10 commandments in a courthouse, the original divine law of the Abrahamic religions, is at the very least, relevent.
How are the 10 commandments any more related to a courthouse than to a post office?

At most 2-3 commandments have nominal relevance to any general laws in the USA.

I think people are much more likely to steal in a post office than in a courthouse. Apparently (with the help of the great American media) murder has been known to be common enough in post offices for the phrase "going postal" to be coined into the vernacular. Why not stick the 10 commandments up there in the post office to warn off that 1 out of 100,000 postal workers that may be likely to murder at the post office this year ?

[Yeahman]

How are the 10 commandments any more related to a courthouse than to a post office?

At most 2-3 commandments have nominal relevance to any general laws in the USA.

I think people are much more likely to steal in a post office than in a courthouse. Apparently (with the help of the great American media) murder has been known to be common enough in post offices for the phrase "going postal" to be coined into the vernacular. Why not stick the 10 commandments up there in the post office to warn off that 1 out of 100,000 postal workers that may be likely to murder at the post office this year ?
The 10 commandmends weren't put in the courthouse to deter crime.
Don't you think that the original written law of the Judeo-Christian tradition has any symbolic relation to a court of law? So then why do you think they put up the 10 commandmends as opposed to a cross or Bible verse?

[Craig]

Don't you think that the original written law of the Judeo-Christian tradition has any symbolic relation to a court of law?
No, I don't.

So then why do you think they put up the 10 commandmends as opposed to a cross or Bible verse?
The 10 commandments are more recognizable to most people than a particular bible verse. It is a tool to reinforce the Christain viewpoint.

[Yeahman]

No, I don't.
Well take my word for it. I'm sure you can google for more info.

The 10 commandments are more recognizable to most people than a particular bible verse. It is a tool to reinforce the Christain viewpoint.
Did you miss the word,"cross," in my post or did you ignore it on purpose?

[kuilong]

Well take my word for it. I'm sure you can google for more info.


Did you miss the word,"cross," in my post or did you ignore it on purpose?

I think what you're saying is that the 10 commandments are included as a purely decorative ornament, and not meant to be a commentary on the way the American judicial system should act?

While I agree with this, and you (if I've read you correcctly) agree with this, there are many who believe the American judicial system should be based directly on Judeo-Christian principles, and would see this as encouragement to further their aims, which in general I disagree with and see as harmful to this country. You also said:

If in a county with a heavy Muslim population, there was a quote from the Qur'an having to do with the law engraved on the archway of the courthouse, I would have no problem with it and even admire it.

I'll disagree with you here and say that I'd be less opposed to symbols which favor religious groups which aren't as powerful as those who would support the displaying of the 10 commandments. While I don't like the idea of Muslim judicial texts being displayed on court buildings (e.g. Qur'an 6:151-53) I have no objection to, for instance, the Supreme Court building being designed in such a way as to evoke the image of a Greek temple -- since the pagan Greek religious elements of our society aren't exactly a major influence on anything. :P

[rasheedgonzales]

kinda off topic, but just wanted to comment on this, being muslim and all...
Muslims generally hold that Jesus was not the messiah, but at best, a prophet. If this were engraved in the stone archway in your county courthouse, would you be amenable to it?
this isn’t true at all. in fact, throughout the Quran, you’ll find Jesus’ name usually followed by either “son of Mary” or “the Messiah”. muslim belief is that Jesus was a Prophet, and Messenger sent by God to the children of israel.

i guess the misunderstanding stems from not really knowing what the word “messiah” means, which is understandable since a lot of people today aren’t too clear on it. the word messiah (hebrew) has the same meaning as christ (greek) and as the word maseeh (arabic)... all of them mean “annointed”.

[Craig]

Did you miss the word,"cross," in my post or did you ignore it on purpose?
Yes, I saw the word cross. People are more likely to look twice at text then they are to stare at a shape. Especially if the shape is extremely common, and occurs in many situations that are not religiously based. Also, being that the text is written, even spending a few seconds to read enough words to figure out what it is, it will leave a more lasting impression than a simple shape. Make the shape unique and stand out, and maybe you'll have a different situation.

[SunWuKong]

don't you think this government sanction of christianity over other religions affects politics, policy, and the perception of other religions by the populous?

i'm only talking about the public parks here. and in that particular instance, no, i do not think it affects politics, policy, or the perception of other religions. nobody is making a statement that other religions ought to be banned or prohibitted by having the 10 Commandments in a public park.

[SunWuKong]

let's reiterate the First Amendment here:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

no law is made by the simple fact that the 10 Commandments are engraved somewhere, especially at a trivial place like a public park. to me, it's silly to use the separation of church and state to argue that Christian themes be eradicated in anything that is government-related.

i feel that most people who disagree with something like this, in general, is not so much concerned about the separation of church and state (or the true purpose behind it), as they are concerned about building the US as a multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-religious (etc etc) society. the argument is that it is exclusory of other religions. well, that actually has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

but in this day and age, i don't think that the government should be decorating any of their properties with Christian themes unless they also do so with themes from other religions. in today's American society, we are trying to promote the US as a multi-xxxxx nation. there is no law to mandate this, but i think it's simply a sensible thing to do. however, that does not mean that i think it is important enough that we must spend money to go back and eradicate Christian themes from everything.

[kitty]

well, federal land belongs to the government, and the government is basically the 'active will of the body politic'. basically, what the government does is supposed to be the voice of the people realized.

so, whether it's in front of the supreme court or at the dmv or at a park, the message the government is sending is that 'we the government endorse this religion' upon the people.

Now, I looked up the Ten Commandments ('cuz apparently I'm a heathen) and found out, that only about six have anything to do with laws like 'not killing'... like nearly half of them are

- Thou shalt have no other god before me
- Thou shalt not make a graven image
- Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain
- Thou shalt not bow down to any other god

Now, I may be mistaken, but that seems like a pretty high endorsement of Judeo-Christian belief here... what business do these commandments have anywhere in a government-owned place, but to further Judeo-Christian influence in the government?

Yes, I find that offensive -- my government is basically telling me that I have to believe in no other God but theirs?

[Yeahman]

Now, I may be mistaken, but that seems like a pretty high endorsement of Judeo-Christian belief here... what business do these commandments have anywhere in a government-owned place, but to further Judeo-Christian influence in the government?
What business do Germanic gods have in government? Yet we invoke their names whenever we say the days of the week.

kittygirl, are you opposed to holiday decorations in government buildings such as a Christmas tree in a school?

Yes, I find that offensive -- my government is basically telling me that I have to believe in no other God but theirs?
Is the government requiring you to obey the 10 commandments? No. You don't "have to" believe anything.

[kitty]

What business do Germanic gods have in government? Yet we invoke their names whenever we say the days of the week.

kittygirl, are you opposed to holiday decorations in government buildings such as a Christmas tree in a school?


I haven't considered Christmas trees, but I do completely oppose prayer in public schools. If I stop to think about it, I would probably oppose Christmas trees, although I'm not sure if that has more to do with Christmas as a religious holiday or with this new-fangled commercialized American holiday... that involves Santa and reindeer.



Is the government requiring you to obey the 10 commandments? No. You don't "have to" believe anything.

but the mere act of the government sanctioning it is a decree to the people that we are supposed to believe something. That's the fact of what government is to the people. Why do we follow laws? Or the constitution? Because it is sanctioned by our government.

[Yeahman]

I haven't considered Christmas trees, but I do completely oppose prayer in public schools. If I stop to think about it, I would probably oppose Christmas trees, although I'm not sure if that has more to do with Christmas as a religious holiday or with this new-fangled commercialized American holiday... that involves Santa and reindeer.
And for many Americans, the 10 commandments is not a spiritual way of life but a secular symbol of codified law.

but the mere act of the government sanctioning it is a decree to the people that we are supposed to believe something. That's the fact of what government is to the people. Why do we follow laws? Or the constitution? Because it is sanctioned by our government.
We obey laws because we have the protection of the government if we do and we face their punishment if we don't. There is no obligation attached to a statue. It does not infringe on any of your liberties.
The constitution was not sanctioned by our government. The constitution created our government.

[kitty]

so if the gov't goes to war (say against terrorists) that has nothing to do with the will of the people?

and what about the other bunch of americans who are offended and threatened by the idea that their way of practicing religion is being attacked by three or four of the ten commandments that are in that public place?

[Yeahman]

so if the gov't goes to war (say against terrorists) that has nothing to do with the will of the people?
huh? I don't get your point.

and what about the other bunch of americans who are offended and threatened by the idea that their way of practicing religion is being attacked by three or four of the ten commandments that are in that public place?
Are they receiving any potential bodily or financial harm or disadvantage?
People can be offended by anything. I don't think religious symbols threaten anyone.

[Mr.Lum]

I hate people like this. I mean realy, get over it. its not killing you. there were these christians and secularists trying to get the mosque in my area to take down the star and crestent! retards.

[SunWuKong]

well, federal land belongs to the government, and the government is basically the 'active will of the body politic'. basically, what the government does is supposed to be the voice of the people realized.

so, whether it's in front of the supreme court or at the dmv or at a park, the message the government is sending is that 'we the government endorse this religion' upon the people.

Now, I looked up the Ten Commandments ('cuz apparently I'm a heathen) and found out, that only about six have anything to do with laws like 'not killing'... like nearly half of them are

- Thou shalt have no other god before me
- Thou shalt not make a graven image
- Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain
- Thou shalt not bow down to any other god

Now, I may be mistaken, but that seems like a pretty high endorsement of Judeo-Christian belief here... what business do these commandments have anywhere in a government-owned place, but to further Judeo-Christian influence in the government?

Yes, I find that offensive -- my government is basically telling me that I have to believe in no other God but theirs?

kitty, i think you are jumping into conclusions. since when do people blindly do whatever their government tells them to do, unless it's an act that they already personally want to do? and besides, the government isn't really even telling anybody to believe in anything in particular. i don't know about you, but if i see the Ten Commandments in a public park, i'm not going to think that the government is trying to peddle Christianity to me. in fact, i wouldn't really think twice about it.

would you be offended if themes of at least several major religions were presented?

honest question - are you going to convert to Christianity because the Ten Commandmants are engraved in a public park? i hope the answer is no.

[kitty]

no, i'm not arguing that the government will be actually expecting people to convert, but I am arguing that the reason why there is a division between church and state is because the government is supposed to be a representation of the will of all the people... and should not be influenced by the secular beliefs of some of the population.

I am personally offended by the idea that one religion is being held as 'more important' or 'more American' than any other because it is being condoned by the government, by being on government property. It's the same as the War in Iraq -- the government declares war as representative of America, so we can say 'America is going to war' or 'America supports the war'... obviously there are many Americans who oppose the war, but the government represents America in what it says and does... simply because of its position in our society and culture. Bush is our representative, even if fully half of us didn't vote for him -- his position makes him a representative of this entity called America.

Similarly, when he or 'the government' as an entity condones the placement of highly religious icons like the Ten Commandments on its property, it is saying 'we, as America, support Christianity'... and, this places an importance on Christianity over other religions...

*especially* considering that if the government condones the Ten Commandments, it supports all of them, including the ones that say 'there should only be one God', etc etc etc... which has no relevance to any Supreme Court, no federal building, no public park. I mean, I can kind of see where 'thou shalt not kill' might be relevant to the Justice department but what is being said with the government supporting the statement 'Thou shalt not have no other god before me' next to 'Thou shalt not kill'?

My question I guess really boils down to, do you guys actually support separation of church and state? And not why *shouldn't* those monuments be there, but why *should* they? What practical purpose do they serve, in comparison to the message that I, as an atheistic (theoretical) American, am getting?

[Yeahman]

no, i'm not arguing that the government will be actually expecting people to convert, but I am arguing that the reason why there is a division between church and state is because the government is supposed to be a representation of the will of all the people... and should not be influenced by the secular beliefs of some of the population.
Isn't that an arguement FOR a display of the 10 commandments?

I am personally offended by the idea that one religion is being held as 'more important' or 'more American' than any other because it is being condoned by the government, by being on government property. It's the same as the War in Iraq -- the government declares war as representative of America, so we can say 'America is going to war' or 'America supports the war'... obviously there are many Americans who oppose the war, but the government represents America in what it says and does... simply because of its position in our society and culture. Bush is our representative, even if fully half of us didn't vote for him -- his position makes him a representative of this entity called America.

Similarly, when he or 'the government' as an entity condones the placement of highly religious icons like the Ten Commandments on its property, it is saying 'we, as America, support Christianity'... and, this places an importance on Christianity over other religions...
In the eyes of the law no religion is "more important" or "more American." In the eyes of American tradition, Christianity is dominant. That is a historical fact and no law can change that.

The president can say that he likes the color red. Does that mean that "America supports the color red"? The president and government has limited jurisdiction. They can't speak for us on all matters. Religion is one of them.

*especially* considering that if the government condones the Ten Commandments, it supports all of them, including the ones that say 'there should only be one God', etc etc etc... which has no relevance to any Supreme Court, no federal building, no public park. I mean, I can kind of see where 'thou shalt not kill' might be relevant to the Justice department but what is being said with the government supporting the statement 'Thou shalt not have no other god before me' next to 'Thou shalt not kill'?
If you really believe that then our positions are more similar than you may think.
I see the 10 commandments, as a whole, as relevent to Western judicial tradition.

My question I guess really boils down to, do you guys actually support separation of church and state? And not why *shouldn't* those monuments be there, but why *should* they? What practical purpose do they serve, in comparison to the message that I, as an atheistic (theoretical) American, am getting?
What purpose do Christmas trees serve? They are icons of American culture.

Are you also opposed to the Bible verse engraved on the CIA building; "And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." (John 8:32)?

[537]

What's next, the removal of churches?

[bluetrianglescott]

I am personally offended by religious displays on public property, though not in the way that some people are offended by Janet Jackson's boob--i.e., that there's something lurid about it. What I find offensive is that such displays show that Chrisitianity is the de facto state religion. Don't think so? Then how possible do you think it would be to get a monument installed on public property that reflected Buddhism, or Islam, or atheism? Can you imagine a president being elected who isn't a Christian?

My point is, either you embrace diversity or you don't. It doesn't "just so happen" that these Christian symbols are all over government buildings everywhere. It happens because Christians are the ones running things here, and they like it that way. The whole "separation of church and state" thing is a way to allow for some diversity without upsetting the applecart by pushing for real equality. There are some, however, and the Bush clique are among them, that don't even want that illusion of equality. They are the ones who are fighting so hard against the removal of such displays, like that reactionary politician in Alabama that is trying to make himself a martyr for the Christians who are supposedly being so "oppressed" by the "liberals". (Oh, puh-leeeze.)

That said, I'm pretty mixed about making this a big issue right now. At a time when the Bush Administration has embarked on a war on the world that they've said could go on for generations, that immigrants and dissidents are under scrutiny and actual legal threat here at home, I question why you'd want to stir up the hornets of the Chrisitan Right on this issue? What will you end up gaining? A symbolic victory at best, I would think, but not anything that would make a real difference in any real person's life.

**didn't realize when I posted this that there were 2 more whole pages of comments--didn't mean to come off looking like I'm interrupting the thread b/c "I've got something to say!"

[kitty]

What's next, the removal of churches?

are churches on federal land?

[kitty]

I am personally offended by religious displays on public property, though not in the way that some people are offended by Janet Jackson's boob--i.e., that there's something lurid about it. What I find offensive is that such displays show that Chrisitianity is the de facto state religion. Don't think so? Then how possible do you think it would be to get a monument installed on public property that reflected Buddhism, or Islam, or atheism? Can you imagine a president being elected who isn't a Christian?

My point is, either you embrace diversity or you don't. It doesn't "just so happen" that these Christian symbols are all over government buildings everywhere. It happens because Christians are the ones running things here, and they like it that way. The whole "separation of church and state" thing is a way to allow for some diversity without upsetting the applecart by pushing for real equality. There are some, however, and the Bush clique are among them, that don't even want that illusion of equality. They are the ones who are fighting so hard against the removal of such displays, like that reactionary politician in Alabama that is trying to make himself a martyr for the Christians who are supposedly being so "oppressed" by the "liberals". (Oh, puh-leeeze.)

That said, I'm pretty mixed about making this a big issue right now. At a time when the Bush Administration has embarked on a war on the world that they've said could go on for generations, that immigrants and dissidents are under scrutiny and actual legal threat here at home, I question why you'd want to stir up the hornets of the Chrisitan Right on this issue? What will you end up gaining? A symbolic victory at best, I would think, but not anything that would make a real difference in any real person's life.

I agree... but when would be a good time to stir up this hornet's nest? there's always something, isn't it?

[bluetrianglescott]

I agree... but when would be a good time to stir up this hornet's nest? there's always something, isn't it?

I dunno--I mean yeah, I agree--well, let me put it this way: I know this will piss people off (for different reasons) but I compare it to the confederate flag issue. I'm all for burning that rag and uprooting everything it stands for. But if you give me a choice between spending my time and mobilizing people on that issue, which is laregely sybolic, or getting down on a civil rights issue that has life and death consequences for real people today, like police brutality, I'll go with the latter.

Though I certainly don't OPPOSE people taking the other track.

[kitty]

Isn't that an arguement FOR a display of the 10 commandments?


How so?

In the eyes of the law no religion is "more important" or "more American." In the eyes of American tradition, Christianity is dominant. That is a historical fact and no law can change that.


According to the history of America, America should traditionally have been a country for whites only and where slavery is an accepted part of economy, production and export. That is a historical fact... but hey, a law changed that.


The president can say that he likes the color red. Does that mean that "America supports the color red"? The president and government has limited jurisdiction. They can't speak for us on all matters. Religion is one of them.


The president can certainly like red... but if he, in the role of president says 'We, as Americans, shall support the colour red by making the White House the Red House'... that liking of red becomes part of 'America' as an entity.

If you undermine the president's authority, by saying that he only speaks for us on some matters... where do you draw the line on what matters? How do you know that the War on Terrorism (on an international scale) isn't the vendetta of just one man? The president approaches foreign nations with his authority as a representative of America... to carry out his duty, that authority cannot be questioned... if you check out the exhibit on American Presidents in the Smithsonian, it details many of his roles, most of which involve being the representative of the people. He can't effectively carry out that role if someone decides to suddenly undermine his authority by trying to delineate where he has influence and where he does not.


If you really believe that then our positions are more similar than you may think.
I see the 10 commandments, as a whole, as relevent to Western judicial tradition.


... about six of them I see as relevant. The other four... not at all. Our judicial system is based on not killing or hurting our neighbour or whatever... if it were against the law to take our Lord's name in vain, then we would all be in jail.

What purpose do Christmas trees serve? They are icons of American culture.


Yes... I am not trying to defend or not defend Christmas trees. Frankly, for me, the jury's still out on its *religious* significance. (i.e., did Jesus hang out with a jolly old fat guy in Bethleham? when they say prayer on Christmas, do they invoke the name of Kris Kringle?)


Are you also opposed to the Bible verse engraved on the CIA building; "And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." (John 8:32)?

Yeah... I would be opposed to that too. I'm pretty much opposed to any specifically religious imagery on federal property. But, that quote is small potatoes compared to the Pledge of Allegiance, which every little child, regardless of creed, is supposed to learn, which I think involves God blessing our nation.

[kitty]

I dunno--I mean yeah, I agree--well, let me put it this way: I know this will piss people off (for different reasons) but I compare it to the confederate flag issue. I'm all for burning that rag and uprooting everything it stands for. But if you give me a choice between spending my time and mobilizing people on that issue, which is laregely sybolic, or getting down on a civil rights issue that has life and death consequences for real people today, like police brutality, I'll go with the latter.

Though I certainly don't OPPOSE people taking the other track.

Yeah, I'm in agreement there... the confederate flag should go, but there are other issues like racial profiling, etc, that are kinda more crucial to talk about right now.

[kitty]

... getting one thing straight.

my opinion is not an attack on religion. because i am atheist, agnostic, or what not has nothing to do with my belief on this issue (other than I am not Christian by belief, though I am baptized, and thus feel no particular "fuzzy feelings" whenever God is invoked). I support religion for America... I believe that for many families, it brings people together and I certainly support diversity of religions. I feel like some people are getting this confused -- I am not for 'tearing down churches'...

I simply believe strongly in a separation of church and state. Churches should thrive -- in the private sector. The state belongs firmly in the public sector. There should not be any merging of the two.

[Yeahman]

I am personally offended by religious displays on public property, though not in the way that some people are offended by Janet Jackson's boob--i.e., that there's something lurid about it. What I find offensive is that such displays show that Chrisitianity is the de facto state religion. Don't think so? Then how possible do you think it would be to get a monument installed on public property that reflected Buddhism, or Islam, or atheism?
What exacty would a monument that reflects atheism look like?
There are Chanukkah candles on public property. If there is enough interest in displaying a symbol of Buddhism or Islam, it can be done.

Can you imagine a president being elected who isn't a Christian?
Yes, I can imagine Thomas Jefferson.

My point is, either you embrace diversity or you don't. It doesn't "just so happen" that these Christian symbols are all over government buildings everywhere. It happens because Christians are the ones running things here, and they like it that way. The whole "separation of church and state" thing is a way to allow for some diversity without upsetting the applecart by pushing for real equality.
It happens for the same reason why the government uses English. It is the de facto tradition of the US. Would you want to erase the use of any language by the government? Or perhaps issue government documents in every world language?
But your position is decidedly anti-diversity. You want to wipe out all religious symbols. Even if you were for true diversity by advocating allowing any religious symbol on government property, must we have the more obscure of religions represented for the sake of evenhandedness? Can't you have equality without evenhandedness?

[SunWuKong]

no, i'm not arguing that the government will be actually expecting people to convert, but I am arguing that the reason why there is a division between church and state is because the government is supposed to be a representation of the will of all the people... and should not be influenced by the secular beliefs of some of the population.

no, actually. the purpose of the separation of church and state was never to support diversity. it was so that the government cannot control religious organisations, and religious organisations cannot control the government. again, the government has not made any laws regarding religion by the simple display of the Ten Commandments in a public park. it does not mandate the its display in a public park or in any government properties. nor has any church directed the government to engrave the Ten Commandments in a public park. having any religious themes engraved in a public park does not violate the separation of church and state.

I am personally offended by the idea that one religion is being held as 'more important' or 'more American' than any other because it is being condoned by the government, by being on government property. It's the same as the War in Iraq -- the government declares war as representative of America, so we can say 'America is going to war' or 'America supports the war'... obviously there are many Americans who oppose the war, but the government represents America in what it says and does... simply because of its position in our society and culture. Bush is our representative, even if fully half of us didn't vote for him -- his position makes him a representative of this entity called America.

Similarly, when he or 'the government' as an entity condones the placement of highly religious icons like the Ten Commandments on its property, it is saying 'we, as America, support Christianity'... and, this places an importance on Christianity over other religions...

*especially* considering that if the government condones the Ten Commandments, it supports all of them, including the ones that say 'there should only be one God', etc etc etc... which has no relevance to any Supreme Court, no federal building, no public park. I mean, I can kind of see where 'thou shalt not kill' might be relevant to the Justice department but what is being said with the government supporting the statement 'Thou shalt not have no other god before me' next to 'Thou shalt not kill'?


well, who exactly says that it is more American to support the war? certainly not Americans who oppose the war. the only people that'll think that Christianity is more American are conservative nuts. and they don't exactly need the Ten Commandments engraved on anything to have this opinion.

basically, what i'm saying is, having the Ten Commandments in a public park is inconsequential and it's only a waste of government funds to remove it.

My question I guess really boils down to, do you guys actually support separation of church and state? And not why *shouldn't* those monuments be there, but why *should* they? What practical purpose do they serve, in comparison to the message that I, as an atheistic (theoretical) American, am getting?

yes i support the separation of church and state. i think the engraving of the Ten Commandments does not violate the separation of church and state. i think it's on a public park for decorative purposes. i think it should stay there because it would be a waste of government funds to remove it. you, as an American of no matter what religion or the lack of religion, benefit by not having your tax dollars wasted.

[SunWuKong]

The whole "separation of church and state" thing is a way to allow for some diversity without upsetting the applecart by pushing for real equality.

no.

like i've said for the 3rd or 4th time, the purpose of the separation of church and state is not to mandate diversity in our society. its purpose is for the government to have no control over religious establishments, and for religious establishments to have no control over the government.

it's why the Protestants came to the New World. it's why the Anglican church was found. etc etc.

[SunWuKong]

no, i'm not arguing that the government will be actually expecting people to convert, but I am arguing that the reason why there is a division between church and state is because the government is supposed to be a representation of the will of all the people... and should not be influenced by the secular beliefs of some of the population.
Isn't that an arguement FOR a display of the 10 commandments?
How so?

i'm assuming that he thinks this is an argument for a display of the Ten Commandments because the majority of the American population is actually Christian.

[Yeahman]

According to the history of America, America should traditionally have been a country for whites only and where slavery is an accepted part of economy, production and export. That is a historical fact... but hey, a law changed that.
Laws changed the tradition of unequal treatment not unequal representation. There are still more whites in government than blacks. If the situation warrants it I would be all for the display of a non-Christian religious symbol on government property. But it is natural for Christianity to be dominant in representation.

The president can certainly like red... but if he, in the role of president says 'We, as Americans, shall support the colour red by making the White House the Red House'... that liking of red becomes part of 'America' as an entity.

If you undermine the president's authority, by saying that he only speaks for us on some matters... where do you draw the line on what matters? How do you know that the War on Terrorism (on an international scale) isn't the vendetta of just one man? The president approaches foreign nations with his authority as a representative of America... to carry out his duty, that authority cannot be questioned... if you check out the exhibit on American Presidents in the Smithsonian, it details many of his roles, most of which involve being the representative of the people. He can't effectively carry out that role if someone decides to suddenly undermine his authority by trying to delineate where he has influence and where he does not.
The president has the constitutional authority of commander-in-chief. The Ameircan people did not delegate the authority of religious establishment to the president or government. I am not undermining the president's authority. Only limiting it to the jurisdiction within which he has authority. We don't live in a monarchy. The founding fathers tried to make sure that what you think about the presidents boundless authority wouldn't happen.

... about six of them I see as relevant. The other four... not at all. Our judicial system is based on not killing or hurting our neighbour or whatever... if it were against the law to take our Lord's name in vain, then we would all be in jail.
Again, I don't see the 10 commandments as 10 individual items but a single symbol of codified law. Am I wrong in my interpretation?

Yes... I am not trying to defend or not defend Christmas trees. Frankly, for me, the jury's still out on its *religious* significance. (i.e., did Jesus hang out with a jolly old fat guy in Bethleham? when they say prayer on Christmas, do they invoke the name of Kris Kringle?)
And why isn't the jury still out on the religious significance of the statue of the 10 commandments? The original wasn't written in English nor did it come with a pedestal. I am going to argue that it can be a secular symbol just like the Christmas tree.

Yeah... I would be opposed to that too. I'm pretty much opposed to any specifically religious imagery on federal property. But, that quote is small potatoes compared to the Pledge of Allegiance, which every little child, regardless of creed, is supposed to learn, which I think involves God blessing our nation.
I am also opposed to REQUIRING children to recite the Pledge of Alligiance with the words "under God." There's nothing wrong with learning it as a peice of literature. We shouldn't secularize the writtings of Shakespeare by removing any references to religion.

[bluetrianglescott]

What exacty would a monument that reflects atheism look like?
There are Chanukkah candles on public property. If there is enough interest in displaying a symbol of Buddhism or Islam, it can be done.


Yes, I can imagine Thomas Jefferson.


It happens for the same reason why the government uses English. It is the de facto tradition of the US. Would you want to erase the use of any language by the government? Or perhaps issue government documents in every world language?
But your position is decidedly anti-diversity. You want to wipe out all religious symbols. Even if you were for true diversity by advocating allowing any religious symbol on government property, must we have the more obscure of religions represented for the sake of evenhandedness? Can't you have equality without evenhandedness?

Ok, you're attributing positions to me that I didn't put forth, and which I wouldn't put forth because I don't believe in them. I don't want to wipe out religious symbols. Nor do I want to promote them (as an atheist, that would be pretty silly of me!). My point is merely that the de facto religion of the US is Christianity. That holds for the US government and damn near everyone in it, throughout this country's history. (That Jefferson was not a Christian is news to me, but even if it's true it's also inconsequential--historically, he's in the minorty, and there's no absolutely no way a non-Christian could be elected today.) My point is that it is true that the US government being founded by Christians, with Christians in mind as the people who ought to rule.

My question, then, is less about whether or the American government's de facto Christianity should be represented but what that representation means. I didn't say that religious symbols should be banned--certainly not from private institutions or homes, in any case. And I only brought up the question of other symbols as a hypothetical case to prove my main point, that Christianity has hegemony as the (un)official ideology of the rulers of the US.

What I didn't say, but which is the main point, is that what Christian hegemony as the prevailing US ruling ideolgy means in practice is that no other religion or ideology will be allowed to take its place. Some within the ruling classes soft-peddle this ideology, "tolerate" other religions, and uphold the separation of Church and State. These people are mostly Democrats, but you've got a number of Republicans in this group too. Others, like that judge down in Alabama who was ready to chain himself to the Ten Commandments statue, are more hostile toward other religions, and openly promote Christianity as a set of principles which should be encoded as the law of the land. This group is currently on the rise and finds a lot of support in the Bush administration.

However, what neither group would tolerate would be the ascendancy of another religion or ideology in this country that threatened their hegemony. So my point is not about promoting or removing religious symbols--which are after all only symbols--it's about understanding who rules, and that there is no equality in actual fact.

[kasia]

but remember, the purpose of the separation of church and state is so that religious establishments have no influence over government and vice versa.

well, there's more than that. the purpose of separation and state is so that the government cannot *establish* a religion and thus infringe upon our first amendment rights. having the ten commandments in a *public* park, to me, would seem like the government is endorsing that religion. that will, in turn, affect how free i feel about expressing my personal religious beliefs.

[SunWuKong]

well, there's more than that. the purpose of separation and state is so that the government cannot *establish* a religion and thus infringe upon our first amendment rights. having the ten commandments in a *public* park, to me, would seem like the government is endorsing that religion. that will, in turn, affect how free i feel about expressing my personal religious beliefs.

but, the First Amendment specifically states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. no law is made by having the Ten Commandments engraved in a public park. no law mandates that the Ten Commandments be engraved in a public park. no law is made to oppose anybody's religious beliefs by the fact that the Ten Commandments are engraved in a public park. for all we know, the designer of the park just felt like putting it in and nobody opposed it.

[Yeahman]

well, there's more than that. the purpose of separation and state is so that the government cannot *establish* a religion and thus infringe upon our first amendment rights. having the ten commandments in a *public* park, to me, would seem like the government is endorsing that religion. that will, in turn, affect how free i feel about expressing my personal religious beliefs.
That's a leap in logic. How does seeing the 10 commandments prevent you from expressing your own religious beliefs? Give me a concrete example.

[kasia]

but, the First Amendment specifically states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. no law is made by having the Ten Commandments engraved in a public park. no law mandates that the Ten Commandments be engraved in a public park. for all we know, the designer of the park just felt like putting it in and nobody opposed it.

the supreme court has interpreted the first amendment to mean that the government cannot establish an official religion. having the ten commandments but not the commmandments of any other religion in that park demonstrates hostility on the part of the government towards other religions.

there are 2 parts of the 1st amendment that pertain to religion:

1) free exercise clause, and

2) establishment clause.

here, i believe we're dealing with the establishment clause because the ten commandments are engraved on government property. the impression this thus gives is that the government endorses the ten commandments and endorses the religion.

to determine whether or not this is violative of the establishment clause, we use the SEEX test.

S = whether or not it's secular

E = whether its primary effect is to advance religion

EX = whether there is excessive entanglement

you guys can try applying this test yourselves, but my analysis is this:

it isn't secular, obviously. whether it's primary effect is to advance religion is arguable, but i would lean towards yes b/c it comes directly from the bible and is a statement of moral/religious values. (contrast the ten commandments with a christmas tree.) finally, there's excessive entanglement b/c it's on govt. property.

btw, i'm Christian. and i feel that, as a Christian, we have a duty to uphold and respect the rights of others.

[kasia]

but, the First Amendment specifically states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. no law is made by having the Ten Commandments engraved in a public park. no law mandates that the Ten Commandments be engraved in a public park. no law is made to oppose anybody's religious beliefs by the fact that the Ten Commandments are engraved in a public park. for all we know, the designer of the park just felt like putting it in and nobody opposed it.

also - think about the point that you're making. do you believe that all the supreme court rulings regarding school prayers and such are violative of the first amendment?

[kasia]

That's a leap in logic. How does seeing the 10 commandments prevent you from expressing your own religious beliefs? Give me a concrete example.

in a public forum, i have the right to voice my opinion. there are little constraints to this right - so long as i'm not attacking anyone of inciting violence. say i were a taoist and wanted to go to my local park to speak to others about my religion. upon entering the park, i see a copy of the ten commandments. would i be intimidated? yes. i'd believe that the government is endorsing Christianity and that it isn't my place to speak in that park about taoism.

[kitty]

That's a leap in logic. How does seeing the 10 commandments prevent you from expressing your own religious beliefs? Give me a concrete example.

The government specifically erecting a monument that says 'thou shalt know no other god before me (God)'

[Napoleon Chynamite]

That's a leap in logic. How does seeing the 10 commandments prevent you from expressing your own religious beliefs? Give me a concrete example.

The government specifically erecting a monument that says 'thou shalt know no other god before me (God)'

This might seem like a cheap shot out of left field since I have remained on the sidelines for this entire discussion but...

I still don't see how this keeps you from expressing or practicing your own religious beliefs. It's not like the existence of such a monument makes it illegal or forbidden for you to worship whoever/whatever you want to worship or believe in.

[kasia]

This might seem like a cheap shot out of left field since I have remained on the sidelines for this entire discussion but...

I still don't see how this keeps you from expressing or practicing your own religious beliefs. It's not like the monument makes it illegal or forbidden for you to worship whoever/whatever you want to worship or believe in.

the fact that we all believe that the government has some authority and are often deferential to government institutions.

[Yeahman]

The government specifically erecting a monument that says 'thou shalt know no other god before me (God)'
Again you don't have to obey it. It's symbolic like doctor's reciting the Hippocratic Oath. They are not legally bound to the oath. They can freely act in defiance of it.

[Arex]

That's a leap in logic. How does seeing the 10 commandments prevent you from expressing your own religious beliefs? Give me a concrete example.

It's not so much that the erecting 10 commandments monument is actively preventing anyone from expressing his or her own religious beliefs. It's more that placing only the Christian monument there is done at the expense of all other religions or beliefs that arguably could have been represented by other monuments placed there instead/as well. Thus, by commissioning a Christian monument on public land, the government is essentially endorsing and thereby establishing that one religion over all others. Until the day that I can see a Buddha and a Darwin Fish or a big granite carving that reads "There Is No God," in a public park or on some government building, I will never think it's appropriate to have religious symbols on public lands.

RX

[Napoleon Chynamite]

It's not so much that the erecting 10 commandments monument is actively preventing anyone from expressing his or her own religious beliefs. It's more that placing only the Christian monument there is done at the expense of all other religions or beliefs that arguably could have been represented by other monuments placed there instead/as well. Thus, by commissioning a Christian monument on public land, the government is essentially endorsing and thereby establishing that one religion over all others. Until the day that I can see a Buddha and a Jesus Fish or a big granite carving that reads "There Is No God," in a public park or on some government building, I will never think it's appropriate to have religious symbols on public lands.

RX

But then couldn't people complain that a granite carving reading "There Is No God" favors atheists or those without religious beliefs or alliances? Such a symbol would do far from making it 'fair', since my guess is that there are far more people who believe in some sort of supernatural power or entity regardless of specific sect or denomination than the individuals who believe otherwise.

Showing Buddha and a Jesus fish together in a monument is still singling out Christianity and Buddhism. How will you satisfy fair representation of all the practiced religions in society in the name of fairness?

[bluetrianglescott]

That's a leap in logic. How does seeing the 10 commandments prevent you from expressing your own religious beliefs? Give me a concrete example.

There's a difference between how free one feels to express an opinion and actively being prevented from expressing it.

Take this war for example--I've met a lot of people who were against it but who were initially afraid to speak out because of how they would be viewed because the position being put out from on high was that we were in danger. Another disincentive that people had regarding speaking out was that there had also been veiled threats from certain sectors of government about "watching what you say". There were also very real threats on Muslim, South Asian, and Arab immigrants which today are only intensifying. All this leads to a context in which some people don't "feel free" to express themselves (and others actually AREN'T free to do so). So a lot of people who had very big questions stayed silent, and the war commenced on schedule.

In other words, encouraging people to "go along in order to get along" is different from holding a gun to someone's head, but the motivation of the rulers is the same: to prevent people from questioning their authority and judgement. Sometimes that means using the Big Lie, other times it means using the Big Stick. When the Big Lie doesn't work, governments usually turn to the Big Stick.

When a ruling class puts out its official ideology, it's not just saying, "Hey this is something up for debate, we're all equal here," it is an expression of how it wants people to think. The fact that it doesn't hold guns to everyone's head (just a few heads will do! :smile: ) doesn't change the basic fact that an official ideology is intended to be followed, and that there are consequences (though not always LEGAL ones) for stepping out of line.

[SunWuKong]

the supreme court has interpreted the first amendment to mean that the government cannot establish an official religion. having the ten commandments but not the commmandments of any other religion in that park demonstrates hostility on the part of the government towards other religions.

actually, that does not demonstrate hostility on the part of the government towards other religions. there is no law that prohibits something similar but of another religion from being engraved in a public park.

is yellowworld.org, an establishment clearly of Asian-centric interests, demonstrating hostility towards people who are not Asian?

there are 2 parts of the 1st amendment that pertain to religion:

1) free exercise clause, and

2) establishment clause.

here, i believe we're dealing with the establishment clause because the ten commandments are engraved on government property. the impression this thus gives is that the government endorses the ten commandments and endorses the religion.

to determine whether or not this is violative of the establishment clause, we use the SEEX test.

S = whether or not it's secular

E = whether its primary effect is to advance religion

EX = whether there is excessive entanglement

you guys can try applying this test yourselves, but my analysis is this:

it isn't secular, obviously. whether it's primary effect is to advance religion is arguable, but i would lean towards yes b/c it comes directly from the bible and is a statement of moral/religious values. (contrast the ten commandments with a christmas tree.) finally, there's excessive entanglement b/c it's on govt. property.

btw, i'm Christian. and i feel that, as a Christian, we have a duty to uphold and respect the rights of others.

no. i personally don't think that it's primary effect is to advance religion. i think it's primary effect is decorative in nature.

what is defined as "excessive entanglement"?

[SunWuKong]

also - think about the point that you're making. do you believe that all the supreme court rulings regarding school prayers and such are violative of the first amendment?

which particular rulings are you talking about?

[kasia]

Showing Buddha and a Jesus fish together in a monument is still singling out Christianity and Buddhism. How will you satisfy fair representation of all the practiced religions in society in the name of fairness?


easy. maintain a separation between church and state. there is a lot of room on private lands for religious expression. my house would be an example of such a place. :)

[Yeahman]

in a public forum, i have the right to voice my opinion. there are little constraints to this right - so long as i'm not attacking anyone of inciting violence. say i were a taoist and wanted to go to my local park to speak to others about my religion. upon entering the park, i see a copy of the ten commandments. would i be intimidated? yes. i'd believe that the government is endorsing Christianity and that it isn't my place to speak in that park about taoism.
It isn't your place? What is the government going to do to you if you speak about taoism in the park?

It is really hard to argue that any rights are being denied by the display of religious symbols.

[SunWuKong]

in a public forum, i have the right to voice my opinion. there are little constraints to this right - so long as i'm not attacking anyone of inciting violence. say i were a taoist and wanted to go to my local park to speak to others about my religion. upon entering the park, i see a copy of the ten commandments. would i be intimidated? yes. i'd believe that the government is endorsing Christianity and that it isn't my place to speak in that park about taoism.

here is where i'd say that it's not the government's place to make sure that our feelings aren't hurt. and that notwithstanding, i doubt i'd feel intimidated if i was placed in that situation. but that's just me.

and to be technical, Taoism isn't a religion and there is no worshipping. so actually Taoism and Christianity technically can co-exist.

[Arex]

But then couldn't people complain that a granite carving reading "There Is No God" favors atheists or those without religious beliefs or alliances? Such a symbol would do far from making it 'fair', since my guess is that there are far more people who believe in some sort of supernatural power or entity regardless of specific sect or denomination than the individuals who believe otherwise.

Buddha and Jesus Fish is still singling out Christianity and Buddhism. How will you satisfy fair representation of all the practiced religions in society in the name of fairness?

Sorry, I meant Darwin Fish (the anti-Jesus fish). My point was that unless and until the government is willing to place symbols of all types, then there really isn't room for symbols of any type for the simple reason that it's just not fair to the others. If that means never placing any, then that's cool. And I guess people's opinions may differ, but I believe that placing any one symbol is done at the expense of all the others and therefore has a tendency to at least give the appearance that the govt. is promoting one over the other.

RX

[Napoleon Chynamite]

easy. maintain a separation between church and state. there is a lot of room on private lands for religious expression. my house would be an example of such a place. :)

Personally I think true separation of church and state (in essence, complete separation of one's devotion to a certain faith and what one believes is right/wrong) is near impossible, but I guess I make the following remark in half-seriousness:

Wouldn't public areas then be overly catering to atheists and nonbelievers of any religion? :wink:

[SunWuKong]

the fact that we all believe that the government has some authority and are often deferential to government institutions.

sure. but that never stopped anyone from, for example, smoking weed or dropping acid.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

sure. but that never stopped anyone from, for example, smoking weed or dropping acid.

But still the vast majority of us still have this type of conscious or unconscious respect for governmental authority, whether it's willing or unwilling. Like say, before I decide to smoke weed with my friends tomorrow afternoon, I still stop for a second and think 'hmm, yea, I should be careful, cause it's illegal', even though I'd still do it. This is hypothetical btw. We also have a conscious or unconscious belief that the government actually represents something that is righteous or an apparatus to keep the peace and do what is necessary for the sake of the people. Cynics obviously need not apply.

[kasia]

actually, that does not demonstrate hostility on the part of the government towards other religions. there is no law that prohibits something similar but of another religion from being engraved in a public park.

yes, there is. it's called the establishment clause.

is yellowworld.org, an establishment clearly of Asian-centric interests, demonstrating hostility towards people who are not Asian?

are you comparing yellowworld to the government?

no. i personally don't think that it's primary effect is to advance religion. i think it's primary effect is decorative.

i'm sure our Christian members will appreciate that you're calling something as sacred as the 10 commandments "decorative".

what is defined as "excessive entanglement"?

well, this is an obvious case. a less obvious case - when you actually have to go through the analysis - is when, say, the government is subsidizing math textbooks for a christian school or something like that.

[Yeahman]

There's a difference between how free one feels to express an opinion and actively being prevented from expressing it.

Take this war for example--I've met a lot of people who were against it but who were initially afraid to speak out because of how they would be viewed because the position being put out from on high was that we were in danger. Another disincentive that people had regarding speaking out was that there had also been veiled threats from certain sectors of government about "watching what you say". There were also very real threats on Muslim, South Asian, and Arab immigrants which today are only intensifying. All this leads to a context in which some people don't "feel free" to express themselves (and others actually AREN'T free to do so). So a lot of people who had very big questions stayed silent, and the war commenced on schedule.

In other words, encouraging people to "go along in order to get along" is different from holding a gun to someone's head, but the motivation of the rulers is the same: to prevent people from questioning their authority and judgement. Sometimes that means using the Big Lie, other times it means using the Big Stick. When the Big Lie doesn't work, governments usually turn to the Big Stick.

When a ruling class puts out its official ideology, it's not just saying, "Hey this is something up for debate, we're all equal here," it is an expression of how it wants people to think. The fact that it doesn't hold guns to everyone's head (just a few heads will do! :smile: ) doesn't change the basic fact that an official ideology is intended to be followed, and that there are consequences (though not always LEGAL ones) for stepping out of line.
So your solution is to ban government officals from talking about war altogether?
If there are consequences to dissent, then that's is the problem not the position itself.

[SunWuKong]

easy. maintain a separation between church and state. there is a lot of room on private lands for religious expression. my house would be an example of such a place. :)

well, technically, if you have to pay property tax on your house and you use it for religious expression, doesn't that violate the separation of church and state?

[Yeahman]

i'm sure our Christian members will appreciate that you're calling something as sacred as the 10 commandments "decorative".
Fundamentalists Christians would consider the Constitution a religious document.
Objectively the 10 commandments can be decorative.

[kasia]

Personally I think true separation of church and state (in essence, complete separation of one's devotion to a certain faith and what one believes is right/wrong) is near impossible, but I guess I make the following remark in half-seriousness:

Wouldn't public areas then be overly catering to atheists and nonbelievers of any religion? :wink:

lol. good point.

[kasia]

well, technically, if you have to pay property tax on your house and you use it for religious expression, doesn't that violate the separation of church and state?

SEEX!

i'm sure the supreme court would find no excessive entanglement.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

SEEX!

i'm sure the supreme court would find no excessive entanglement.

Was that just a Freudian slip or......I dunno ^^

[Yeahman]

Sorry, I meant Darwin Fish (the anti-Jesus fish). My point was that unless and until the government is willing to place symbols of all types, then there really isn't room for symbols of any type for the simple reason that it's just not fair to the others. If that means never placing any, then that's cool. And I guess people's opinions may differ, but I believe that placing any one symbol is done at the expense of all the others and therefore has a tendency to at least give the appearance that the govt. is promoting one over the other.

RX
Again, unequal representation does not negate equal treatment. As long as all religions have equal access to erect RELEVANT religious symbols (A Darwin fish would be relevant to a federally funded institution for the research of evolution not a courthouse), it's still equality in my book even if there is unequal representation.

[SunWuKong]

yes, there is. it's called the establishment clause.

define the establishment clause for me again?

are you comparing yellowworld to the government?

yes.

i'm sure our Christian members will appreciate that you're calling something as sacred as the 10 commandments "decorative".

nope, i am calling the engraving of the 10 Commandments in a public park as decorative, not the 10 Commandments themselves.

well, this is an obvious case. a less obvious case - when you actually have to go through the analysis - is when, say, the government is subsidizing math textbooks for a christian school or something like that.

you're just giving me an example. can you define it for me?

[SunWuKong]

SEEX!

i'm sure the supreme court would find no excessive entanglement.

then why are religious establishments exempt from being taxed?

[kasia]

then why are religious establishments exempt from being taxed?

because they're not saying that only christian or buddhist organizations are exempt. all religious establishments are covered.

well, this is an obvious case. a less obvious case - when you actually have to go through the analysis - is when, say, the government is subsidizing math textbooks for a christian school or something like that.

i can't define excessive entanglement. it's just like..whether there is sufficient government participation/involvement in the religious act/event/etc.

as for a definition of the establishment clause, you can scroll back to my previous post. the test that the s.c. uses is the SEXX test (so gumby, it wasn't a freudian slip!).

if it seems that the government is singling out a religion, you balance the three factors:

1) Secular/non secular

2) Effect (primary) to advance religion

3) EXcessive entanglement

(i have more of these sexual acronyms. they really come in handy when you're studying for the bar. =p)

[Yeahman]

because they're not saying that only christian or buddhist organizations are exempt. all religious establishments are covered.
And there is no ban on non-Christian religious symbols on public poperty. There may be more Christian symbols but more Christian organizations are tax-exempt than non-Christian religious organizations. It's still equal treatment in both cases.

[Arex]

Again, unequal representation does not negate equal treatment. As long as all religions have equal access to erect relevant religious symbols, it's still equality in my book even if there is unequal representation.
But do you honestly believe that atheists or Buddhists or anyone else will have the same ability to have a monument erected in their local park or in front of their courthouse? I don't think so. That's certainly not equal treatment.

RX

[kitty]

Laws changed the tradition of unequal treatment not unequal representation. There are still more whites in government than blacks. If the situation warrants it I would be all for the display of a non-Christian religious symbol on government property. But it is natural for Christianity to be dominant in representation.


Huh? But I'm not arguing for non-Christian religious imagery on government property. I would be against any religious icon being prominently displayed by the government as a form of endorsement. I brought up slavery to counter your argument that something that was traditionally American could not (should not?) be changed by laws.


The president has the constitutional authority of commander-in-chief. The Ameircan people did not delegate the authority of religious establishment to the president or government. I am not undermining the president's authority. Only limiting it to the jurisdiction within which he has authority. We don't live in a monarchy. The founding fathers tried to make sure that what you think about the presidents boundless authority wouldn't happen.


You are kind of arguing my point here. The president is in a position of authority in which he represents the American people, particularly abroad. This is only an example of the prominent position government has in a society -- what it does become representative of America, both internationally and domestically. For example, the Michigan supreme court just legalized gay marriage -- we therefore say that the Michigan government legalized gay marriage, even though we have no idea how many Michigani-ites actually support it. When government does something, it is pretty much representing its consituency when it acts.

My argument is that the president, being in this position, should not think to represent Americans by endorsing one religion over another -- because he should not be a religious figure. But he certainly has the influence to do so... which is why that is ground he simply should not tread on. Similarly, the government *should not* by law, endorse one religion over another, but they can (and do). And it is the ramifications of these endorsements that I oppose.


Again, I don't see the 10 commandments as 10 individual items but a single symbol of codified law. Am I wrong in my interpretation?


Neither do I. Which is why, if you try to rationalize six of them by saying they represent examples of our judicial system, you must therefore say that all ten of them do... and four of them are the kinds of things that fueled the Crusades. Y'know... where the Judeo-Christians ran around maiming and killing the non-Christians?

And why isn't the jury still out on the religious significance of the statue of the 10 commandments? The original wasn't written in English nor did it come with a pedestal. I am going to argue that it can be a secular symbol just like the Christmas tree.


Last I checked, Pere Noel wasn't in the Bible. The 3 Wise Men weren't dreaming of sugar plums. Mary and Joseph didn't erect a Christmas tree in the stable. I don't think you can argue the religious significance of God's Ten Commandments, seeing its supposed origin and the text in it, which involves worshipping only God and not worshipping anything else. Again, for me other Christmas imagery, such as a tree, or Santa Claus -- I'm not sure how it ties into Christianity or any other religion so for me the jury is still out.

How do you argue that the Ten Commandments aren't religious? They pretty clearly state their references to God. And not being written originally in English pretty much hammers that point home -- it is part of the Bible which is undoubtedly of religious significance, and all of Christianity is descendent from a non-English religion.


I am also opposed to REQUIRING children to recite the Pledge of Alligiance with the words "under God." There's nothing wrong with learning it as a peice of literature. We shouldn't secularize the writtings of Shakespeare by removing any references to religion.

Sure, nothing wrong with it as a piece of literature -- but you have to be kidding me if you think kids are learning it like their learning Shakespeare. I distinctly remember the controversy last summer over the atheistic child who was forced to recite the pledge every morning, hand held over heart (and not with a book open, a pencil ready to critique sentence structure, diction and imagery, and it being part of a unit, to be studied one week over a larger course on other forms of literature). Hardly sounds like English lit class to me, but maybe Canadians do things differently.

[Yeahman]

But do you honestly believe that atheists or Buddhists or anyone else will have the same ability to have a monument erected in their local park or in front of their courthouse? I don't think so. That certainly not equal treatment.

RX
Not any atheist because 1. there aren't any universally recognizable atheist symbols and 2. atheists don't give a crap about erecting symbols of non-religiousity.
But Buddhists I can see doing that. Jews have with their Chanukkah candles. Others may have. I'm just not aware of any others.

But either way they should all have the same access if they choose to do something similar. If they do not have equal access than the problem of access should be fixed instead of banning everyone.

[kitty]

But then couldn't people complain that a granite carving reading "There Is No God" favors atheists or those without religious beliefs or alliances? Such a symbol would do far from making it 'fair', since my guess is that there are far more people who believe in some sort of supernatural power or entity regardless of specific sect or denomination than the individuals who believe otherwise.

Showing Buddha and a Jesus fish together in a monument is still singling out Christianity and Buddhism. How will you satisfy fair representation of all the practiced religions in society in the name of fairness?

that's why, IMO, as you can see throughout this thread, I have argued that government should just keep its nose out of religion entirely. Don't go one way or another on the existence of God or what (S)He wants... just stick to doing what the gov't is supposed to do -- fucking govern the public sector.

[kitty]

So your solution is to ban government officals from talking about war altogether?
If there are consequences to dissent, then that's is the problem not the position itself.

well, i don't think bluetriangle said anything like that. I would argue that talking about war is necessary 'cuz that's well within the government's realm of necessary influence.

Religion should not be something the gov't endorses or does not. Thus they should not be speaking about religion. Like seriously, they need to stop saying 'God Bless America' everytime they finish a speech.

[kitty]

well, technically, if you have to pay property tax on your house and you use it for religious expression, doesn't that violate the separation of church and state?

isn't it still private property -- it's not like the state owns your house if you pay tax. and more importantly, it's not like the state commissioned kasia to erect a giant temple to the almight deity that she worships, and then started using it as a public federal building.

[kitty]

Regarding yellowworld and the government... I guess you could use this as an example. We are a society banded together around this thing called yellowworld.org. In it, we are a community, with certain rules and certain freedoms (such as the community guidelines). We identify ourselves as a YW-er, and respect AB, kasia, SWK as sort of our presidents... (AB more so 'cuz he created YW in the first place). We defer to them as being representative of YW, and we in general support what YW stands for (or we wouldn't be here). We follow the rules, and we respect what the 'admin' have to say...

Now, if the www.yellowworld.org homepage, suddenly placed a swastika or, I dunno, a statement that says 'all n*ggers and ch*nks will burn in hell; convert to nazism or perish by my blade!!', 'cuz AB shaved his head and decided he was the second coming of Hitler, or something, we might object not because we think AB has gone psycho, but because we have come to identify ourselves as YW-ers, and we look to YW as that definition. We might think, well, our representatives have suddenly endorsed neo-nazism... I feel threatened if I were to express anti-nazism on this board, since AB has all the power, or I might feel the need to leave.

I dunno if that microcosm analogy works, but I hope it might illustrate the kind of influence that the government has over its people...

[Yeahman]

You are kind of arguing my point here. The president is in a position of authority in which he represents the American people, particularly abroad. This is only an example of the prominent position government has in a society -- what it does become representative of America, both internationally and domestically. For example, the Michigan supreme court just legalized gay marriage -- we therefore say that the Michigan government legalized gay marriage, even though we have no idea how many Michigani-ites actually support it. When government does something, it is pretty much representing its consituency when it acts.
The president represents the American people WITHIN his jurisdiction. Legal marital status is within the jurisdiction of the courts. The courts cannot say that I can't pick my nose in my own house. Nor can the president. Only positions within their jurisdictions are binding. Religious establishment is not within the jurisdiction of government. The president cannot make me practice a religion or ban me from practicing it. Whatever he says on the matter is their own personal view and is non-binding. We may not like it but it is his legal right to say whatever he feels and our right to disagree. We cannot take any legal action against the president for saying something like "I like Chrsitianity" but we can if he infringes on our freedom to practice our own religions. By your logic isn't the president establishing religion mearly by being a member of one?

Last I checked, Pere Noel wasn't in the Bible. The 3 Wise Men weren't dreaming of sugar plums. Mary and Joseph didn't erect a Christmas tree in the stable. I don't think you can argue the religious significance of God's Ten Commandments, seeing its supposed origin and the text in it, which involves worshipping only God and not worshipping anything else. Again, for me other Christmas imagery, such as a tree, or Santa Claus -- I'm not sure how it ties into Christianity or any other religion so for me the jury is still out.

How do you argue that the Ten Commandments aren't religious? They pretty clearly state their references to God. And not being written originally in English pretty much hammers that point home -- it is part of the Bible which is undoubtedly of religious significance, and all of Christianity is descendent from a non-English religion.
I can argue that the 10 commandments aren't religious just as someone can argue that Christmas trees aren't religious. If you want it to be religious it can be interpreted that way. If you want it to be secular it can be interpreted that way too. There are references to gods in Homer's Oddessey. Would you consider it a religious text?

Sure, nothing wrong with it as a piece of literature -- but you have to be kidding me if you think kids are learning it like their learning Shakespeare. I distinctly remember the controversy last summer over the atheistic child who was forced to recite the pledge every morning, hand held over heart (and not with a book open, a pencil ready to critique sentence structure, diction and imagery, and it being part of a unit, to be studied one week over a larger course on other forms of literature). Hardly sounds like English lit class to me, but maybe Canadians do things differently.
That's why I said I oppose requiring students to recite the pledge but they should be able to learn it like they learn Shakespeare or the Emancipation Proclamation even with the words "under God" in it.

[kasia]

Regarding yellowworld and the government... I guess you could use this as an example. We are a society banded together around this thing called yellowworld.org. In it, we are a community, with certain rules and certain freedoms (such as the community guidelines). We identify ourselves as a YW-er, and respect AB, kasia, SWK as sort of our presidents... (AB more so 'cuz he created YW in the first place). We defer to them as being representative of YW, and we in general support what YW stands for (or we wouldn't be here). We follow the rules, and we respect what the 'admin' have to say...

Now, if the www.yellowworld.org homepage, suddenly placed a swastika or, I dunno, a statement that says 'all n*ggers and ch*nks will burn in hell; convert to nazism or perish by my blade!!', 'cuz AB shaved his head and decided he was the second coming of Hitler, or something, we might object not because we think AB has gone psycho, but because we have come to identify ourselves as YW-ers, and we look to YW as that definition. We might think, well, our representatives have suddenly endorsed neo-nazism... I feel threatened if I were to express anti-nazism on this board, since AB has all the power, or I might feel the need to leave.

I dunno if that microcosm analogy works, but I hope it might illustrate the kind of influence that the government has over its people...

seriously, though, i don't even see how this ties into the discussion. the fact is that YW *isn't* the government and, in this context, would be more similar to a church than the government. thus, the establishment clause would never apply to us.

i'm not saying that you're endorsing this argument. i'm saying it's a waste of time for you to even respond.

[Yeahman]

isn't it still private property -- it's not like the state owns your house if you pay tax. and more importantly, it's not like the state commissioned kasia to erect a giant temple to the almight deity that she worships, and then started using it as a public federal building.
Should St. Patrick's day parades also be banned? They use public streets.

[Arex]

Should St. Patrick's day parades also be banned? They use public streets.
I'm not sure you're getting the distinction. It's one thing if the government passively and evenhandedly permits the use of public venues by private organizations for "religious" purposes (e.g., granting use of the roadways to have a Christmas or St. Patrick's Day Parade, or allowing a bible study group to use a clubhouse at a public park). It's quite another if the government's actively sponsoring a particular religion by commissioning a religious monument at a public park or govt. building.

RX

[Yeahman]

I'm not you're getting the distinction. It's one thing if the government passively and evenhandedly permits the use of public venues by private organizations for "religious" purposes (e.g., granting use of the roadways to have a Christmas or St. Patrick's Day Parade, or allowing a bible study group to use a clubhouse at a public park). It's quite another if the government actively sponsoring a particular religion by commissioning a religious monument at a public park or govt. building.

RX
So you (and the others here) are only opposed to it because it is using tax dollars? And you would not be opposed to a judge using his own money to place a statue of a the 10 commandments in a courthouse?

[SunWuKong]

because they're not saying that only christian or buddhist organizations are exempt. all religious establishments are covered.

right. so if you use your house for religious activities, regardless of what religion it is, shouldn't your house be exempt from property tax?

i can't define excessive entanglement. it's just like..whether there is sufficient government participation/involvement in the religious act/event/etc.

in that case, i don't think an engraving of the Ten Commandments in a public park is sufficient enough of government participation or involvement to qualify it as excessive entanglement.

as for a definition of the establishment clause, you can scroll back to my previous post. the test that the s.c. uses is the SEXX test (so gumby, it wasn't a freudian slip!).

ok, well in that case, i don't think it violates the establishment clause because i see it more in a decorative function than a promotion of Christianity. in following this thinking, i don't think the establishment clause prohibits the engraving of any religious themes in public parks. and i believe the Supreme Court has ruled against eradicating something that is related to a religion if that something serves a prevalent function that is not related to the promotion of a religion.

[kasia]

ok, well in that case, i don't think it violates the establishment clause because i see it more in a decorative function than a promotion of Christianity. and in following this thinking, i don't think the establishment clause prohibits the engraving of religious themes in public parks.

fair enough. but ultimately, it's not going to be what you or i think that matters. i think the supreme court has ruled that christmas trees and menorahs are permissible in public parks, but because they represent tradition rather than culture and because they balance each other out. i don't know if the same can be said about the ten commandments.

i mean, c'mon, it's like saying having karl marx's face in a public park can be decorative.

[SunWuKong]

How do you argue that the Ten Commandments aren't religious? They pretty clearly state their references to God.

of course it's religious. but the argument here is whether an engraving of it in a public park constitutes a government-sponsored promotion of Christianity. i personally don't think it is.

[SunWuKong]

isn't it still private property -- it's not like the state owns your house if you pay tax. and more importantly, it's not like the state commissioned kasia to erect a giant temple to the almight deity that she worships, and then started using it as a public federal building.

but the state is still taxing a property that is used for religious purposes, therefore exerting direct power over it.

[SunWuKong]

Regarding yellowworld and the government... I guess you could use this as an example. We are a society banded together around this thing called yellowworld.org. In it, we are a community, with certain rules and certain freedoms (such as the community guidelines). We identify ourselves as a YW-er, and respect AB, kasia, SWK as sort of our presidents... (AB more so 'cuz he created YW in the first place). We defer to them as being representative of YW, and we in general support what YW stands for (or we wouldn't be here). We follow the rules, and we respect what the 'admin' have to say...

Now, if the www.yellowworld.org homepage, suddenly placed a swastika or, I dunno, a statement that says 'all n*ggers and ch*nks will burn in hell; convert to nazism or perish by my blade!!', 'cuz AB shaved his head and decided he was the second coming of Hitler, or something, we might object not because we think AB has gone psycho, but because we have come to identify ourselves as YW-ers, and we look to YW as that definition. We might think, well, our representatives have suddenly endorsed neo-nazism... I feel threatened if I were to express anti-nazism on this board, since AB has all the power, or I might feel the need to leave.

I dunno if that microcosm analogy works, but I hope it might illustrate the kind of influence that the government has over its people...

ok.
but that is hardly analogical of engraving the Ten Commandments in a public park.

[SunWuKong]

seriously, though, i don't even see how this ties into the discussion. the fact is that YW *isn't* the government and, in this context, would be more similar to a church than the government. thus, the establishment clause would never apply to us.

i'm not saying that you're endorsing this argument. i'm saying it's a waste of time for you to even respond.

according to you: "having the ten commandments but not the commmandments of any other religion in that park demonstrates hostility on the part of the government towards other religions."

simi