Rain God is offensive to Christian

[Katzndogz]

If the statue was an old historical statue of Christ, would you feel the same?

Yes.

Maybe a better example would be a famous statue of a woman kneeling praying to Christ. Would that be ok?

Yes.

In either case, if I let something that miniscule bother me, that is on my vehicle but represents my states choice in what to put on a license plate...I would pay to change it if that option was available.

Personally, I would LOVE to have the Rain God statue on my car. Hell, I'd love to have it on my wall on canvas. I think it's beautiful.

If the statue was of Jesus or a woman praying to Jesus, the question would never come up. It would never be allowed to raise the question in the first place. We don't allow depictions of Christ in state documents and a state issued license plate is a state document.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, it's not.

Establishment of a religion is not a reference to a religion. They aren't the same things.

Incorrect.

The state’s reference to religion can indeed be an Establishment Clause violation, if that reference is absent a secular purpose, if the state’s motivation was to promote religion, and if the reference manifest an excessive entanglement between church and state.

It’s incumbent upon law and policy makers to understand the law, and to enact laws and policies in accordance with the law.

 

[Dot Com]

No, it's not.

Establishment of a religion is not a reference to a religion. They aren't the same things.

Incorrect.

The state’s reference to religion can indeed be an Establishment Clause violation, if that reference is absent a secular purpose, if the state’s motivation was to promote religion, and if the reference manifest an excessive entanglement between church and state.

It’s incumbent upon law and policy makers to understand the law, and to enact laws and policies in accordance with the law.

...but, but I thought koshergrl was "always correct"?

 

[tinydancer]

If the statue was an old historical statue of Christ, would you feel the same?

Yes.

Maybe a better example would be a famous statue of a woman kneeling praying to Christ. Would that be ok?

Yes.

In either case, if I let something that miniscule bother me, that is on my vehicle but represents my states choice in what to put on a license plate...I would pay to change it if that option was available.

Personally, I would LOVE to have the Rain God statue on my car. Hell, I'd love to have it on my wall on canvas. I think it's beautiful.

I as a Christian have no problem with another faith being able to embrace their religion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

^ that

You are insane as well if you liked his post.

It proves now that Liberals have no leg to stand on when they speak of "tolerance".

 

[Dot Com]

I as a Christian have no problem with another faith being able to embrace their religion.

aren't you Native American as well? That might mean that a recusal is in order relating to the OP might'nt it?

 

[tinydancer]

^ that

You are insane as well if you liked his post.

It proves now that Liberals have no leg to stand on when they speak of "tolerance".

Holy toledo it has to be the deep woods off that's stoning me out.

We can neg deano? I'm so used to Lakhota and others that have turned off their shit so I don't look anymore.

If I can't put them into a negative whats the point of reading their posts.

He's going down now.

 

[Dot Com]

stop being a thug tinyd

 

[koshergrl]

No, it's not.

Establishment of a religion is not a reference to a religion. They aren't the same things.

Incorrect.

The state’s reference to religion can indeed be an Establishment Clause violation, if that reference is absent a secular purpose, if the state’s motivation was to promote religion, and if the reference manifest an excessive entanglement between church and state.

It’s incumbent upon law and policy makers to understand the law, and to enact laws and policies in accordance with the law.

How does one determine the "state's motivation"?

The state is not allowed to fund/establish a particular religion.

It may reference God or Allah or the Creator all it wants. As long as it doesn't tell you you have to worship that God too, or make churches and set them up along the highway, then fine you for not joining up.

 

[tinydancer]

stop being a thug tinyd

I couldn't do it. I'm too much of a sweetheart.

BTW I'm not First Nations but I've worked with many over water up here (major water conservationist since the early 70's) and waaaaaay wayyyyyyyyyyyyy back a good friend of mine who ran a trading post called the Beaverhead hired me as the anglo chick to die for that could make bear claw necklaces.

I was pretty good too. I met souls you couldn't believe. But that's for another day.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, it's not.

Establishment of a religion is not a reference to a religion. They aren't the same things.

Incorrect.

The state’s reference to religion can indeed be an Establishment Clause violation, if that reference is absent a secular purpose, if the state’s motivation was to promote religion, and if the reference manifest an excessive entanglement between church and state.

It’s incumbent upon law and policy makers to understand the law, and to enact laws and policies in accordance with the law.

How does one determine the "state's motivation"?

The state is not allowed to fund/establish a particular religion.

It may reference God or Allah or the Creator all it wants. As long as it doesn't tell you you have to worship that God too, or make churches and set them up along the highway, then fine you for not joining up.

That’s explained in County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989):

2. When viewed in its overall context, the creche display violates the Establishment Clause. The creche angel's words endorse a patently Christian message: Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ. Moreover, in contrast to Lynch, nothing in the creche's setting detracts from that message. Although the government may acknowledge Christmas as a cultural phenomenon, it may not observe it as a Christian holy day by suggesting that people praise God for the birth of Jesus. Pp. 598-602.

(c) The Constitution mandates that the government remain secular, rather than affiliating itself with religious beliefs or institutions, precisely in order to avoid discriminating against citizens on the basis of their religious faiths. Thus, the claim that prohibiting government from celebrating Christmas as a religious holiday discriminates against Christians [p575] in favor of nonadherents must fail, since it contradicts the fundamental premise of the Establishment Clause itself. In contrast, confining the government's own Christmas celebration to the holiday's secular aspects does not favor the religious beliefs of non-Christians over those of Christians, but simply permits the government to acknowledge the holiday without expressing an impermissible allegiance to Christian beliefs. Pp. 610-613.

Consequently government may not reference god or other deities “all it wants” absent a secular purpose, and absent other religious or non-religious symbols.

As long as it doesn't tell you you have to worship that God too, or make churches and set them up along the highway, then fine you for not joining up.

Establishment Clause jurisprudence addresses more than just government ‘forcing religion on people’:

[T]his Court's decisions disclose two principles limiting the government's ability to recognize and accommodate religion: it may not coerce anyone to support or participate in any religion or its exercise; and it may not, in the guise of avoiding hostility or callous indifference, give direct benefits to a religion in such a degree that it, in fact, establishes a state religion or tends to do so. In other words, the government may not place its weight behind an obvious effort to proselytize on behalf of a particular religion.

Referencing religion in purely a cultural or social context is permissible, referring religion solely as religion is not. ‘In God We Trust,’ for example, has been determined by the courts Constitutional because it’s a cultural, not religious, reference; where teaching creationism in public schools violates the Constitution, as it clearly promotes religion absent a secular purpose. See: Edwards v. Aguillard (1987).



Link to County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989):

County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...

This is what you get when you draw an indelible line around the concept that states cannot promote religion. This is, essentially, a slam dunk case for the guy under current law. The sensible thing to do is allow states to have religious symbols in public as long as they are not actually trying to make people join that religion.

(My bold)

Worse & worse. The rulings from the SC are that the state cannot establish a religion - any religion.

You can have religious symbols in public, but the state is not allowed to establish or favor any particular creed. This is what the periodic battles over the 10 Commandments in courts & public schools, creches around Christmas, etc. are about.

States should not get involved in which religions get privileged by showing up on public land. It's bad enough that the state has to certify which religions are bona fide tax-exempt agencies, because they are non-profit & carry out useful works - education, healthcare, old age homes, etc.

Adding another layer to the body of law enforcement wouldn't help anything - & would just make the states' task of not interfering in religous institutions that much more difficult.

The archer image in the OK plate isn't a priest or shaman. There is no depiction of a god, there's nothing overtly identifiable (unlike the crucifix, vaguely Franciscan robe, the posing of the interlaced hands, the attitude of genuflection in Quantam's posted image) with a specific religious orientation. In fact, the only real association with religion @ all in the OK image is the title of the statue it's based on.

You really don't know what you are talking about, do you?

There are people that file a lawsuit if a city puts up a Christmas tree in the town square. Christmas trees are not religious symbols, yet they offend some people that think they are.

You can blather all day long about how this particular image isn't something, it does not change the fact that, under current law, states cannot even put their state motto on a license plate and force people who have an objection to it to display it. This is a slam dunk case for the plaintiff, and OK will lose.

Wooley v. Maynard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Come back when you want to deal with the point I actually am actually making here, I refuse to let you tie me up in endless arguments about what the image actually is, or is not, in your ignorant and useless opinion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Allowing symbols =/= establishing.

I agree, but the courts do not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i'd get one of those plates if I lived there.

The point here is that you have to pay more to not get one.

 

[koshergrl]

Allowing symbols =/= establishing.

I agree, but the courts do not.

The courts are wrong. Won't be the first time, and doesn't mean we have to pretend it's right.

 

[Dot Com]

Allowing symbols =/= establishing.

I agree, but the courts do not.

The courts are wrong. Won't be the first time, and doesn't mean we have to pretend it's right.

have you been consulting USMB's resident rw lawyer- Katzndogs for legal opinions again?

 

[bodecea]

This is what you get when you draw an indelible line around the concept that states cannot promote religion. This is, essentially, a slam dunk case for the guy under current law. The sensible thing to do is allow states to have religious symbols in public as long as they are not actually trying to make people join that religion.

(My bold)

Worse & worse. The rulings from the SC are that the state cannot establish a religion - any religion.

You can have religious symbols in public, but the state is not allowed to establish or favor any particular creed. This is what the periodic battles over the 10 Commandments in courts & public schools, creches around Christmas, etc. are about.

States should not get involved in which religions get privileged by showing up on public land. It's bad enough that the state has to certify which religions are bona fide tax-exempt agencies, because they are non-profit & carry out useful works - education, healthcare, old age homes, etc.

Adding another layer to the body of law enforcement wouldn't help anything - & would just make the states' task of not interfering in religous institutions that much more difficult.

The archer image in the OK plate isn't a priest or shaman. There is no depiction of a god, there's nothing overtly identifiable (unlike the crucifix, vaguely Franciscan robe, the posing of the interlaced hands, the attitude of genuflection in Quantam's posted image) with a specific religious orientation. In fact, the only real association with religion @ all in the OK image is the title of the statue it's based on.

You really don't know what you are talking about, do you?

There are people that file a lawsuit if a city puts up a Christmas tree in the town square. Christmas trees are not religious symbols, yet they offend some people that think they are.

You can blather all day long about how this particular image isn't something, it does not change the fact that, under current law, states cannot even put their state motto on a license plate and force people who have an objection to it to display it. This is a slam dunk case for the plaintiff, and OK will lose.

Wooley v. Maynard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Come back when you want to deal with the point I actually am actually making here, I refuse to let you tie me up in endless arguments about what the image actually is, or is not, in your ignorant and useless opinion.

I'd like to see examples of that. I know that it happens when towns pay to display crèches....but Christmas Trees? Show us.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

(My bold)

Worse & worse. The rulings from the SC are that the state cannot establish a religion - any religion.

You can have religious symbols in public, but the state is not allowed to establish or favor any particular creed. This is what the periodic battles over the 10 Commandments in courts & public schools, creches around Christmas, etc. are about.

States should not get involved in which religions get privileged by showing up on public land. It's bad enough that the state has to certify which religions are bona fide tax-exempt agencies, because they are non-profit & carry out useful works - education, healthcare, old age homes, etc.

Adding another layer to the body of law enforcement wouldn't help anything - & would just make the states' task of not interfering in religous institutions that much more difficult.

The archer image in the OK plate isn't a priest or shaman. There is no depiction of a god, there's nothing overtly identifiable (unlike the crucifix, vaguely Franciscan robe, the posing of the interlaced hands, the attitude of genuflection in Quantam's posted image) with a specific religious orientation. In fact, the only real association with religion @ all in the OK image is the title of the statue it's based on.

You really don't know what you are talking about, do you?

There are people that file a lawsuit if a city puts up a Christmas tree in the town square. Christmas trees are not religious symbols, yet they offend some people that think they are.

You can blather all day long about how this particular image isn't something, it does not change the fact that, under current law, states cannot even put their state motto on a license plate and force people who have an objection to it to display it. This is a slam dunk case for the plaintiff, and OK will lose.

Wooley v. Maynard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Come back when you want to deal with the point I actually am actually making here, I refuse to let you tie me up in endless arguments about what the image actually is, or is not, in your ignorant and useless opinion.

I'd like to see examples of that. I know that it happens when towns pay to display crèches....but Christmas Trees? Show us.

What are you going to do now?

Seattle's airport removes Christmas trees to avoid lawsuit from rabbi - USATODAY.com

 

[koshergrl]

I agree, but the courts do not.

The courts are wrong. Won't be the first time, and doesn't mean we have to pretend it's right.

have you been consulting USMB's resident rw lawyer- Katzndogs for legal opinions again?

No, my sister is a judge. But I didn't need to consult anyone to know that the courts can be, and frequently are, wrong.

 

[Dot Com]

so you're going on a hunch. a rw hunch at that. Thats why we love you thumpers kg