Christmas Trees on government property are unconstitutional
Comments
-
Abookamongstthemany wrote:You have to go to school, court and use govt offices. They should represent us all or none at all.
They do not represent everyone and they never have.The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.0 -
Abookamongstthemany wrote:You have to go to school, court and use govt offices. They should represent us all or none at all.
They do represent you all, by the very logic of your democracy. The majority will be the final arbiter, correct? So it stands to reason that Christian symbols will dominate. And this does not constitute a violation so long as other symbols are not banned. Do you understand this?0 -
farfromglorified wrote:This makes no sense. It's not freedom is only one is allowed to be represented. I don't hear anyone telling you that non-Christian symbols should be banned.
Do you think schools will ever allow other religious teachings and symbols? Or do you think they will reject such requests? So because they are in minority, it's ok to deny them representation? That's not freedom.If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde0 -
Abookamongstthemany wrote:You have to go to school, court and use govt offices. They should represent us all or none at all.
exactly...
I wonder how many people woud be in support if using taxpayer money to build a monument to display a Koran in their local courthouse or government building...0 -
My question is, why does the Christian right need to have these symbols displayed on public property? What exactly are they trying to say?0
-
Abookamongstthemany wrote:You have to go to school, court and use govt offices.
And there's your violation of freedoms. The symbols at those places have absolutely nothing to do with freedom, however.They should represent us all or none at all.
You keep saying this, but it really makes no sense. You seem to be advocating for each and every position on any subject to be represented at such institutions, which really would invalidate the institution itself. The end game of your logic is the latter part of your statement above -- "none at all".0 -
farfromglorified wrote:They do represent you all, by the very logic of your democracy. The majority will be the final arbiter, correct? So it stands to reason that Christian symbols will dominate. And this does not constitute a violation so long as other symbols are not banned. Do you understand this?0
-
RainDog wrote:My question is, why does the Christian right need to have these symbols displayed on public property?
I'm not part of the "Christian right", but I need them to have the right to display those symbols or I won't be able to claim that I have a right to display symbols.What exactly are they trying to say?
Probably that God rocks, or some such thing. Does it matter?0 -
farfromglorified wrote:They do represent you all, by the very logic of your democracy. The majority will be the final arbiter, correct? So it stands to reason that Christian symbols will dominate. And this does not constitute a violation so long as other symbols are not banned. Do you understand this?
And you know as well as I do that they would be met with fierce resistance. That's why it's best to leave them all out the way we are doing now. Go ahead and pretend all day that such tolerence exists. But I know it doesn't. There is freedom of religion not just freedom of religion for the majority.If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde0 -
farfromglorified wrote:And there's your violation of freedoms. The symbols at those places have absolutely nothing to do with freedom, however.
You keep saying this, but it really makes no sense. You seem to be advocating for each and every position on any subject to be represented at such institutions, which really would invalidate the institution itself. The end game of your logic is the latter part of your statement above -- "none at all".
And of course every position can't be represented, thats' why we go with none.If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde0 -
farfromglorified wrote:Freedom of religion has nothing to do with "what's in your face", unless it's the government telling you that you have no right to practice, represent, or celebrate your own religious choices.
It works the other way also. The government telling you to practice, represent, or celebrate a certain religion.
The government representing a certain religion in tax payer funded building isn't being neutral.
Justice Hugo Black: Everson v. Board of Education (1947):The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
I don't really see anything too crazy in that interpretation.
Basically, the government can't force you to be a part of a religion, force you to pay for any religion, prevent you from being a part of a certain religion, promote a religion etc.0 -
RainDog wrote:"Your" democracy? That's funny.
Funny how?By the way, we are not a strict democracy - so, while the majority receives the most favor, they are not allowed to "dominate."
The only people talking about domination here are those speaking of "banning" and "allowing".0 -
farfromglorified wrote:Probably that God rocks, or some such thing. Does it matter?
Why do they need to say their god rocks in a public building? It is a public building not their own.If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde0 -
farfromglorified wrote:I'm not part of the "Christian right", but I need them to have the right to display those symbols or I won't be able to claim that I have a right to display symbols.farfromglorified wrote:Probably that God rocks, or some such thing. Does it matter?0
-
farfromglorified wrote:Funny how?farfromglorified wrote:The only people talking about domination here are those speaking of "banning" and "allowing".0
-
Abookamongstthemany wrote:And you know as well as I do that they would be met with fierce resistance.
Fiece resistance?? Where's the "fierce resistance" against Muhammed being in the Suprement Court? Where's the "fierce resistance" against public celebrations of Ramadan? Where's the "fiece resistance" against menorahs in public places? The only fierce resistance I see is that against Christian symbols.That's why it's best to leave them all out the way we are doing now.
The best way to religious freedom is to ban religious expression in public spaces? Gotcha.Go ahead and pretend all day that such tolerence exists. But I know it doesn't. There is freedom of religion not just freedom of religion for the majority.
First, the logic you and many of your counterparts subscribe to deem that the only rights a person have are based on majority choice. So I fail to see the consistency here.
Secondly, I don't understand why you keep equating "freedom" with what these people see others doing? Do your posts violate my freedom, just because I don't share your perspective? Do my posts violate yours?0 -
RainDog wrote:My question is, why does the Christian right need to have these symbols displayed on public property? What exactly are they trying to say?
Or why do the Pagans need to have their tree displayed on public property?The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.0 -
Abookamongstthemany wrote:Why do they need to say their god rocks in a public building?
Beats me. Insecurity, probably. I don't really care.It is a public building not their own.
Exactly!! So if they're not free to do what they want, on what grounds can I be free to do what I want?0 -
Abookamongstthemany wrote:And of course every position can't be represented, thats' why we go with none.
Then why not just tear down the building and get it over with?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help