Christmas Trees on government property are unconstitutional

135678

Comments

  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    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?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    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 Wilde
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    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...
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    My question is, why does the Christian right need to have these symbols displayed on public property? What exactly are they trying to say?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    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".
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    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?
    "Your" democracy? That's funny. By the way, we are not a strict democracy - so, while the majority receives the most favor, they are not allowed to "dominate."
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    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?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    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 Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    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 Wilde
  • WMA
    WMA Posts: 175
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    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".
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    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 Wilde
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    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.
    You have every right to display whatever symbols you want. The government, however, does not it seems. And here I thought you were all for limiting government expression.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    Probably that God rocks, or some such thing. Does it matter?
    Yes it does. Especially when you consider that they have every right to do just that. My question is, why does it have to involve our public (I know how much you hate that word) institutions? Seems they're trying to make a point about who's welcome and who isn't.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Funny how?
    Oh, just funny is all.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    The only people talking about domination here are those speaking of "banning" and "allowing".
    In the public sphere. I don't think anyone is talking about banning or allowing in a personal or private way.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    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?
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    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?
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    know1 wrote:
    Or why do the Pagans need to have their tree displayed on public property?
    Which tree is that? The one the Christians endorse?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    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?

Categories