Traditional Values Defined

[Gunny]

Wasn't arguing with you at all, Gunny. We seem to be on the same page here.

My bad. Duh. :duh3: I thought someone else posted the question.

 

[musicman]

First, I could care less about historically significant religious symbols in public places

Why do you only cite historically significant ones? Do you mean to imply that a symbol which is merely religious and not also historically significant has no place in the public arena? Is historical significance the new litmus test?

with the exception of courthouses.

And why not courthouses? I guess this all comes down to my original question, MissileMan: Does the Establishment Clause of Amendment I apply to the states?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So in your opinion then, the right to free exercise of religion is absolute. You don't believe there should be any restrictions whatsoever?

You never answered Musicmans question. But you think its ok to go on asking your own questions. Why would you think we will answer yours when you dont answer "ours"?

 

[MissileMan]

Loaded question. What's your point?

The point is that the complaints that "my freedom of religion is being infringed on" are unfounded. Prayer removed from schools, religious symbols removed from public buildings, etc. may be objectionable to Christians, but they are still free to practice whatever brand of Christianity they see fit. The idea that their freedom of religion isn't complete unless they can walk into a public building and find it decorated with Christian symbols is absurd.

 

[MissileMan]

And why not courthouses? I guess this all comes down to my original question, MissileMan: Does the Establishment Clause of Amendment I apply to the states?

I've stated on several occasions that of all government buildings, courthouses MUST be neutral.

As for the establishment clause, I believe that since the ratification of the 14th amendment, it now applies to the states also.

 

[musicman]

Having said that, if the SCOTUS comes down tomorrow with a decision to strike the word "God" from all publically funded buildings in an egregious feat of judicial activism, how does that impact on your freedom of religion or free exercise thereof?

In the respect that it insinuates the federal government, in the person of the SCOTUS, in a matter which is specifically reserved for ME, the individual - and the other individuals who make up my community. Short answer: my right to representative government is being infringed. moreover, the federal judiciary is simply supplanting congress as the maker of federal law, and is attempting - by means of this perversion - to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

 

[musicman]

I've stated on several occasions that of all government buildings, courthouses MUST be neutral.

That authority, happily, does not rest with you.

As for the establishment clause, I believe that since the ratification of the 14th amendment, it now applies to the states also.

You are wrong.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The point is that the complaints that "my freedom of religion is being infringed on" are unfounded. Prayer removed from schools, religious symbols removed from public buildings, etc. may be objectionable to Christians, but they are still free to practice whatever brand of Christianity they see fit. The idea that their freedom of religion isn't complete unless they can walk into a public building and find it decorated with Christian symbols is absurd.

Not being able to thank God at a graduation ceremony certainly is limiting ones religous expression.

Or do you think that until our ability to express our Christianity is extinguished 100%, it isnt being infringed upon at all?

 

[MissileMan]

In the respect that it insinuates the federal government, in the person of the SCOTUS, in a matter which is specifically reserved for ME, the individual - and the other individuals who make up my community. Short answer: my right to representative government is being infringed. moreover, the federal judiciary is simply supplanting congress as the maker of federal law, and is attempting - by means of this perversion - to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

You didn't explain any effect on your freedom of religion, only on your right to representative government. The repeated chorus of "they're taking away my freedom of religion" is starting to ring hollow.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I've stated on several occasions that of all government buildings, courthouses MUST be neutral.

As for the establishment clause, I believe that since the ratification of the 14th amendment, it now applies to the states also.

Nope, thats extending the realm of the amendments intentions beyond what it was written for.

So, we take religion out of govt. What does that do to our system basing its foundation on the concept that our fundamental rights cannot be taken away by man or govt because they are given to us by God?

Since your secularist society would have to believe that all rights are given to us by men/govt. then those same men/govt's can take them away.

 

[musicman]

You didn't explain any effect on your freedom of religion, only on your right to representative government. The repeated chorus of "they're taking away my freedom of religion" is starting to ring hollow.

Then clean out your ears, bro. Freedom of religion is one of the foundations upon which representative government exists. I can't freely express my religion because a minority has expressed dismay at the sight of a Ten Commandments display. What - is the minority more equal than my neighbors and me? I'm represented, but they are MORE SO? The MAJORITY'S rights end at the courthouse door?

Pull out the foundation of freedom of worship, and the representative government built upon it must crumble.

 

[MissileMan]

That authority, happily, does not rest with you.

You disagree that a courthouse should be an institution of legal standards, not religious ones?

You are wrong.

It wouldn't be the first time. But consider this. As you apparently believe that the COTUS doesn't preclude a state from establishing an official religion, how can establishing that official religion be considered anything but discriminatory? And since it is inherently discriminatory, isn't it prohibited by the 14th amendment?

 

[Max Power]

Does the Establishment Clause apply to the states?

Yes, just as every other clause in the first amendment applies to the states.

 

[MissileMan]

Then clean out your ears, bro. Freedom of religion is one of the foundations upon which representative government exists. I can't freely express my religion because a minority has expressed dismay at the sight of a Ten Commandments display. What - is the minority more equal than my neighbors and me? I'm represented, but they are MORE SO? The MAJORITY'S rights end at the courthouse door?

Pull out the foundation of freedom of worship, and the representative government built upon it must crumble.

As I said before, this notion that your freedom of religion isn't complete unless you get to decorate the government buildings is ABSURD! The government doesn't just represent the majority, it represents everyone.

 

[MissileMan]

Since your secularist society would have to believe that all rights are given to us by men/govt. then those same men/govt's can take them away.

When you get a clue what secular means, come back and we'll chat.

 

[Max Power]

Escalation, for one. For another, it denies us our heritage in the name of political correctness. The argument that "you can practice in your own home if you want" is old and tired and I'm sick of it. Christianity is not something to be stuffed in a closet and pulled out when you want. It's a way of life, and when those who wish to express it aren't allowed because the place they wish to do so is publicly owned property, even if the public voted to have the expression put there, it's infringing on their rights to religious expression.

Umm, no it's not.
If I own a nightclub, and you wish to work there, but refuse to work on Saturday because it's the Sabbath, I can fire you.
Similarly, the government can fire you if you do not comply with their policies. Don't like it? WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE.
It's not infringing on your right to religious expression to deny you a government job.

If you can't put a Christian symbol on a government building because it has historical significance, what's next? Are we going to deny fire and police services to churches because giving them a government service is an endorsement of religion? Maybe they should stop getting tax breaks because that's an endorsement of religion. Where does it stop?

That's just ridiculous.

 

[Max Power]

Not to mention that they have extended that amendment so far beyond its intent it impossible not to see it.

If a govt agency puts a statue of moses with the ten commandments up, how is that a "LAW establishing a religion"?

Was any legislation passed regarding putting up a statue of Moses?
If so, then yes.

If not, then it probably shouldn't be there.

 

[musicman]

You disagree that a courthouse should be an institution of legal standards, not religious ones?

If a state's or a community's standards - legal, religious, or otherwise - do not violate anyone's Constitutional rights, they are absolutely none of the federal government's business.

It wouldn't be the first time. But consider this. As you apparently believe that the COTUS doesn't preclude a state from establishing an official religion, how can establishing that official religion be considered anything but discriminatory? And since it is inherently discriminatory, isn't it prohibited by the 14th amendment?

The authors of the XIVth didn't think so. There is no constitutional prohibition on states regarding the establishment of religion. The states themselves abandoned the practice as a matter of practicality. But, the idea that some magical incantation took place which made "Congress" and "the states" mean the same thing is liberal fantasy.

 

[musicman]

Yes, just as every other clause in the first amendment applies to the states.

You're wrong.

 

[MissileMan]

The authors of the XIVth didn't think so. There is no constitutional prohibition on states regarding the establishment of religion. The states themselves abandoned the practice as a matter of practicality. But, the idea that some magical incantation took place which made "Congress" and "the states" mean the same thing is liberal fantasy.

The 14th clearly prohibits states from engaging in discrimination.