13-10-2004 04:20									#61
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ned And so, we come full circle to my original point. I agree that the display of a symbol of a dead religion cannot establish religion. I would also submit that the display of Budda in the United States cannot even remotely establish Buddism.

??? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but we'll just go more with what the USSC has tended to stay in the past. The idea, at least the conservative idea, is for the federal government to avoid favoring any particular one religion over another. This is why having large displays with some religious elements has been considered constitutional, while others that focus soley on the religious content are not. The test is whether or not the display serves as an implicit statement of state bias.

It can be argued, very well in fact, based on the personal beliefs and backgrounds of the individuals attempting to put the ten commandments into the courtroom that these people do so with the explicit intention of promoting Christianity. Were there to be a statue of Buddha put up in front of the Washington DC Department of State I would indeed be very troubled and think it VERY unconstitutional if it were put up for the purpose of promoting the buddhist religion. The same would go with a gigantic statue of Zeus, or a Star of David.

But, can it really be intelligently argued that our blind Justice is put there for the advancement of paganism? It seems to be a stretch, the message Justice has is totally different than one of religion!

No matter how small the religion, the government must remain ever-vigilant in its efforts to ensure that nothing is done to give the impression that it is favoring it. In the US there is but ONE King, and that is not God but the law. By examining the history of our nation, founded and nurtured on unitarian ideals, it is easy to see that God has no place in our courts. God has no place in our schools. God has no place in our bureaucracy. Let's keep God locked up in our private lives, where he belongs.

	13-10-2004 10:17									#62
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler What would be the motivation for putting Budda on a public building?

Z, the point is that the first amendment protects the practice of religion, banning only its establishment by laws. The "motivation" of anyone in doing something religious is irrelevant. Their acts are protected conduct. The only question is whether what they did was

1) a law or ordinance;

2) established or would reasonably tend to establish;

3) religion.

Most people in these discussion simply cancel out the constitutional provision at issue and say any display by the goverment that is religious in nature or intent is a violation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Now, back to Budda. Even if there was an ordinance requiring the display of Budda in a public place, I would argue that there was no chance that that display could establish Buddism as a state religion.

Which gets me back to my original point. Is it only Christian symbols that are causing the problem?

	13-10-2004 10:18									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

SCROTUM

	13-10-2004 10:26									#64
	Got spare money?

CygnusZ, I agree that the laws cannot favor one religion over the other. But can a law permit displays by private parties on a building or in a public park so long as it does not discriminate in any way between religions?

BTW, wouldn't laws discrimating between the private practice of one religion or another fall under the "free exercise" clause or the "equal protection" clause rather than the "establishment" clause.

	13-10-2004 10:39									#65
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by MrFun I'm in favor of removing such religious symbols as the Ten Commandments from government property for two reasons: 1) Such prohibition does not interfere with one's own religious freedom. 2) The government is not suppose to endorse/support one religion over another.

Im not American, but that pretty much sums up my idea on such things.
By having such things displayed, you indirectly support it, except in many exceptions, historical and such.

	13-10-2004 11:24									#66
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned CygnusZ, I agree that the laws cannot favor one religion over the other. But can a law permit displays by private parties on a building or in a public park so long as it does not discriminate in any way between religions? BTW, wouldn't laws discrimating between the private practice of one religion or another fall under the "free exercise" clause or the "equal protection" clause rather than the "establishment" clause.

Public officals should never count as private parties, and I have a feeling you've already studied that. As for your displays question, it's difficult to give a definitive answer because it still lies largely in the realm of state law. Each state has its own regulations for what may or may not be displayed in a public area.

I'm of the opinon that no religious display of any kind should be made on public property. It's a perfect fit with the idea of laws not favoring one religion over another. The law which denies talk of any of these religious matters (including Atheism), treats them all equally. There are so many religions the only to possible treat them equally is to ignore them all equally. If the state allows a muslim display it creates implicit discrimination against all other religions in that the muslim display has gotten space by X,Y and Z religion have recieved none. If all religions are equal in the eyes of the state, then each and EVERY religion (whether they intend to use the space or not) should recieve equal space for their own displays.

	13-10-2004 11:52									#67
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker SCROTUM

	13-10-2004 11:53									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Am I the only person who really couldn't care less?

	13-10-2004 11:54									#69
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned Imran, I have had it with you. You are now on my ignore list.

	13-10-2004 17:39									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ned Intent? I think the test has to be "objective." Does it or does it not "tend" to "establish" religion.

The differences between manslaughter, second-degree murder, and first-degree murder are primarily matters of intent -- all three acts "tend" to "kill" people. If you don't believe that laws established on intent are valid, then you've got bigger problems than some nitpick with the establishment clause.

	13-10-2004 17:44									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by CygnusZ Public officals should never count as private parties, and I have a feeling you've already studied that. As for your displays question, it's difficult to give a definitive answer because it still lies largely in the realm of state law. Each state has its own regulations for what may or may not be displayed in a public area. I'm of the opinon that no religious display of any kind should be made on public property. It's a perfect fit with the idea of laws not favoring one religion over another. The law which denies talk of any of these religious matters (including Atheism), treats them all equally. There are so many religions the only to possible treat them equally is to ignore them all equally. If the state allows a muslim display it creates implicit discrimination against all other religions in that the muslim display has gotten space by X,Y and Z religion have recieved none. If all religions are equal in the eyes of the state, then each and EVERY religion (whether they intend to use the space or not) should recieve equal space for their own displays.

CygnusZ, it seems we are in agreement on the constitutionality arguments to a point. As to public officials making religious displays, I take the view that their own exercise of religion is constitutionally protected, not proscribe. The establishment clause speaks only of "laws."

	13-10-2004 17:48									#72
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by MrFun Please, tell me what to do so that he will put me on Ignore.

MrFun, I'm sorry if I annoy you. You can put me on your list if you please. But from my point of view, I would never put you on my list because you are an honorable gentleman. I really enjoy discussions when you are involved.

	13-10-2004 17:53									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by loinburger The differences between manslaughter, second-degree murder, and first-degree murder are primarily matters of intent -- all three acts "tend" to "kill" people. If you don't believe that laws established on intent are valid, then you've got bigger problems than some nitpick with the establishment clause.

I really have trouble with "intent" of the legislature aspect of this. I would find it incredible if a display of a Roman Goddess in one locale would be banned there and only there if there just happened to be a group of legislators who believed in the ancient gods.

Although this seems truly wierd, there are people on this forum who have professed a belief in these gods, at least as they respect Odin or Wotan, take your pick.

I have some Indian friends who are very devout. They do believe in these old gods even though we do not. Since the Indians are in part Aryans, these same gods trace back to a common origin. Zeus, Odin, Jupiter are all different names for the same god. I cannot remember the name of the chief Hindu god at the moment, or I would list him.

	13-10-2004 17:57									#74
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Jaguar Am I the only person who really couldn't care less?

No. It's not a very interesting Con. Law case IMO.

	13-10-2004 18:35									#75
	Get a bigger avatar today!

If it's the judge's office, fine---it's his right to put what he wants in his office.
Yet a prominent position of such commandments outside of the courtroom gives the place a religious feel to it, that I think is simply inappropriate in a secular country such as the USA. It would be promoting religion. The same would be the case if it were Muslim laws, Buddhist laws, and etc. The aforementioned Roman Goddess is exempt from this---she's not worshipped anymore, and has become a symbol of justice, and indeed an artful representation of it (if you mean the 'blind woman with the scales').

	13-10-2004 18:43									#76
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ned I cannot remember the name of the chief Hindu god at the moment, or I would list him.

Vishnu?

	13-10-2004 18:45									#77
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ned MrFun, I'm sorry if I annoy you. You can put me on your list if you please. But from my point of view, I would never put you on my list because you are an honorable gentleman. I really enjoy discussions when you are involved.

I just can't summon enough meanness in me to put you on ignore.

	13-10-2004 18:58									#78
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by PLATO Vishnu?

My hindu is quite far but I think there are 3 main ones.
Vishna Shiva and ??? Kali??
not sure about the last one...

	13-10-2004 21:23									#79
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by MrFun I just can't summon enough meanness in me to put you on ignore.

I know. You ARE a good person.

	13-10-2004 21:25									#80
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Zevico If it's the judge's office, fine---it's his right to put what he wants in his office. Yet a prominent position of such commandments outside of the courtroom gives the place a religious feel to it, that I think is simply inappropriate in a secular country such as the USA. It would be promoting religion. The same would be the case if it were Muslim laws, Buddhist laws, and etc. The aforementioned Roman Goddess is exempt from this---she's not worshipped anymore, and has become a symbol of justice, and indeed an artful representation of it (if you mean the 'blind woman with the scales').

This case is not about the Judge. It's about displays on public property placed there by private parties.

	13-10-2004 22:00									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ned Which gets me back to my original point. Is it only Christian symbols that are causing the problem?

Inasmuch as the only symbols being put up are Christian, yes.

	13-10-2004 22:01									#82
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned CygnusZ, it seems we are in agreement on the constitutionality arguments to a point. As to public officials making religious displays, I take the view that their own exercise of religion is constitutionally protected, not proscribe. The establishment clause speaks only of "laws."

Acts of government officials have the force of law, given that their posts and powers are established by law.

	13-10-2004 22:03									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ned I really have trouble with "intent" of the legislature aspect of this. I would find it incredible if a display of a Roman Goddess in one locale would be banned there and only there if there just happened to be a group of legislators who believed in the ancient gods.

Only if the legislators who believed in those gods were trying to promote those gods in some fashion by putting them up, as opposed to using them as everyone else does - symbols of various values. When someone puts them up, they aren't supposed to represent a god, but the god's mythological association.

	13-10-2004 22:15									#84
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Acts of government officials have the force of law, given that their posts and powers are established by law.

I'm unaware of any case that holds this in the First Amendment contest.

	13-10-2004 22:18									#85
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: Originally posted by Ned I really have trouble with "intent" of the legislature aspect of this. I would find it incredible if a display of a Roman Goddess in one locale would be banned there and only there if there just happened to be a group of legislators who believed in the ancient gods. Only if the legislators who believed in those gods were trying to promote those gods in some fashion by putting them up, as opposed to using them as everyone else does - symbols of various values. When someone puts them up, they aren't supposed to represent a god, but the god's mythological association.

I think you are beginning to see my point. The reaction of the people would be to view the Roman gods as decorations or some statement of values, not as religious symbols, regardless of the intent of the legislators who authorized the statues.

	13-10-2004 22:22									#86
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ned I'm unaware of any case that holds this in the First Amendment contest.

The powers of government officials are established by law (and consequently, by the legislature), therefore anything they do in their capacity as a government official is subject to any limits on Congress' (or a state government's) power. Just like Congress can't establish an agency that then proceeds to regulate speech.

	13-10-2004 22:24									#87
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Honestly, I have to agree that Ned is raising some really good arguments.

I think we have to look at two things: original intent (by the framers) and what does it mean to us today?

The framers wanted to prevent the establishment of state religion for two reasons: to protect those who don't follow the religion and to protect the religion from government. After all, For the framers, the religious upheavals of the mother country were not ancient history, but only a few generations removed. As well they saw the contortions through which Xianity was placed when the monarch or Parliament changed its mind. They'd also suffered religious persecution in Mother England for practicing a non-state faith.

As we look around the world today, we must be able to see that where a state religion remains, the same problems exist today. Look at the corruption of Islam and Judaism in the ME. See also how those how don't practice "correctly" also wind up dead, tortured, etc. Even in a Western state like Israel, the religious authorities have inordinate power over the secular.

In the U.S. religous intollerence is on the rise, and not merely from the 5% of Americans who are atheists. Christian fundimentalists in general are not terribly welcoming to those not of their faith, especially in communities where they consitute the overwhelming majority.

In the U.S., I would argue that Xianity is largely the most dangerous religion, not merely to atheists but to other Christians. I've felt this way since the early '80s, when I was a Christian. There are large communities of Muslims in the US where I could imagine the same intollerent dynamic is at work.

But we need to be even handed. I don't think we should say, "Well, the pagans aren't a threat, so we can allow their displays on public property." It's not fair to the Christians, Muslims, etc.

	13-10-2004 22:52									#88
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ned I think you are beginning to see my point. The reaction of the people would be to view the Roman gods as decorations or some statement of values, not as religious symbols, regardless of the intent of the legislators who authorized the statues.

It's not precisely a "statement" of values. A roman god simply isn't a religious symbol any more than an eagle or an olive branch is.

	13-10-2004 22:54									#89
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara But we need to be even handed. I don't think we should say, "Well, the pagans aren't a threat, so we can allow their displays on public property." It's not fair to the Christians, Muslims, etc.

The point is that there are no pagans to be a threat (in the sense of people who worship Jupiter or Zeus), and that Greek and Roman gods aren't religious symbols anymore. There's no religious connection, just a mythological one - in effect, it's a literary allusion.

	13-10-2004 22:55									#90
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

this Roy Moore ******* is just trying to get attention and pander to the ultra-religious-right-wing fools...