What Conservatives Believe


Off-Topic Discussions

551 to 600 of 1,568 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

Kirth Gersen wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
pres man wrote:
Just for clarification, are you suggesting that there can not be a minaret build for secular uses?
I'm in no way suggesting that, as you're well aware.
I asked for clarification because I wished for it. I did not lie and ask for some other reason.
I'm confused. Are you pres man? If not, leave him to his own answer, and I'll give you your own: I initially provided three examples of the use of tax dollars and/or civil authority for expressly religious purposes. The fact that the minarets example was not fully detailed in a three-sentence clarification was then used by Pres Man as an attempt to ignore the ititial point entirely, claiming it was a "straw-man."

If you wanted to make a real comparison to the suggestion that was made it would have been if this muslim community wanted to spend money on Ramadan or some other muslim celebration. IF that had been your suggestion, I myself, would have said, "I don't see any problem with that."

But that wasn't what you suggested instead you made the suggestion of (a) changing the laws of the US consistution to make the practice of christianity illegal in this city. (b)To overturn court cases about the freedom expression in clothing (though it might be possible for the city to pass more strict decency laws than in other cities). And (c) [uses the suggestion for clarification from bugleyman] that the city would spend money on building a mosque. Since nobody had suggested anything remotely like those, that is why it is a straw-man. You constructed an outrageous situation and then suggest that if someone doesn't agree with it, they shouldn't agree with spending tax money on some christmas decorations.

EDIT: Frankly, as an american, I would love for towns with majority of their populations being from specific racial/ethnic/nationality to have displaces that celebrate their uniqueness. American isn't a melting pot, it is a stew, where each ingredient flavors the others but each is still unique in its own way as well. So a city that was predominantely muslim, if it had muslim holiday displays that would be great. It is like visiting a town that was settled primarily by people from Ireland having a festive St. Paddy's day parade (I'm tired of these god damn snakes on this god damn island!). I'm all for it.


ghost post


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
And not allowing the majority to have things they want would be a text book case of tyranny of the minority. Nice how that works isn't it.
Not exactly. If the majority of Dearborn, Michigan are Muslim (they are) and want to outlaw Christianity within city limits, or enforce the wearing of burkas using the city police, or use city taxes to build minarets, they don't get to. Period. No matter how much of a majority vote they have. That's how democracy works. Not "majority gets everything or it's 'tyranny of the minority'!"

But we aren't discussing all topics, just one. Whether or not the town has the right to allow a christmas tree in a town owned park. He doesn't want to pay for it, I say if the town votes it will that's ok. It does not make it Tyrany because he lost on one issue. Your example is a classic strawman, you take to an extreme a loss of every vote and the majority always walking in lock step.


bugleyman wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Not exactly. If the majority of Dearborn, Michigan are Muslim (they are) and want to outlaw Christianity within city limits, or enforce the wearing of burkas using the city police, or use city taxes to build minarets, they don't get to. Period. No matter how much of a majority vote they have. That's how democracy works. Not "majority gets everything or it's 'tyranny of the minority'!"
Exactly. The choice offered by Thurgon was an obvious (dare I say "textbook") case of a false dichotomy. ;-)

Really so the majority winning on one and only one issue can prompt calls of "tyranny of the majority" but my counter that not allowing the majority to win on one issue doesn't say that the tyrannny is actually from the minority when it doesn't allow for the majority to decide one and only one issue?

Interesting. I smell strawman.


Thurgon wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
And not allowing the majority to have things they want would be a text book case of tyranny of the minority. Nice how that works isn't it.
Not exactly. If the majority of Dearborn, Michigan are Muslim (they are) and want to outlaw Christianity within city limits, or enforce the wearing of burkas using the city police, or use city taxes to build minarets, they don't get to. Period. No matter how much of a majority vote they have. That's how democracy works. Not "majority gets everything or it's 'tyranny of the minority'!"
But we aren't discussing all topics, just one. Whether or not the town has the right to allow a christmas tree in a town owned park. He doesn't want to pay for it, I say if the town votes it will that's ok. It does not make it Tyrany because he lost on one issue. Your example is a classic strawman, you take to an extreme a loss of every vote and the majority always walking in lock step.

Unless I'm mistaken, the U.S Supreme Court has determined that a "Christmas Tree" is a secular icon and it does not violate any rules by a town having one in its park.

If that is what the discussion is about this thought has gone to trial and the tree is secular and allowed to be paid for by the city.


The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
And not allowing the majority to have things they want would be a text book case of tyranny of the minority. Nice how that works isn't it.
Not exactly. If the majority of Dearborn, Michigan are Muslim (they are) and want to outlaw Christianity within city limits, or enforce the wearing of burkas using the city police, or use city taxes to build minarets, they don't get to. Period. No matter how much of a majority vote they have. That's how democracy works. Not "majority gets everything or it's 'tyranny of the minority'!"
But we aren't discussing all topics, just one. Whether or not the town has the right to allow a christmas tree in a town owned park. He doesn't want to pay for it, I say if the town votes it will that's ok. It does not make it Tyrany because he lost on one issue. Your example is a classic strawman, you take to an extreme a loss of every vote and the majority always walking in lock step.

Unless I'm mistaken, the U.S Supreme Court has determined that a "Christmas Tree" is a secular icon and it does not violate any rules by a town having one in its park.

If that is what the discussion is about this thought has gone to trial and the tree is secular and allowed to be paid for by the city.

I find no value in the opinion of the U.S Supreme Court in a debate over legality. It has failed to uphold the law, has decided to ignore the law, and decided to create it's own too many times to be a trusted source for what is legal in the US to me. I know an extreme possition but it is what I believe and there is ample evidence to be pointed to.

But the arguement seems to have changed to be that the majority should not be able to determine whether to allow religious groups the ability to place religious items on public property. Because if they are allowed to it becomes a tyranny of the majority, I argue there is no tyranny of the majority since it is but one topic. But that not allowing the majority to control this decision on one topic to me makes a better case that the tyranny is from the minority then it does for the reverse.


Thurgon wrote:
But we aren't discussing all topics, just one. Whether or not the town has the right to allow a christmas tree in a town owned park.

The thing is, the Christmas tree is fine with me personally; I happen to agree with the Court you so despise that the tree has a secular purpose (decoration and marking the season). What MUST be prevented, to my mind, is for you to take the Christmas tree and then declare that, since "majority rules!" logic paid for the tree, it can therefore also be used to pay for building churches, or erecting giant stone Ten Commandments displays, or putting up obnoxious billboards saying things like "We Need to Talk --God," or whatever. The tree has a secular purpose. The remaining three do not. THAT is the difference between that specific issue and the others. There MUST be a clear law about how far this goes, because if you leave it up to the individual issue and a majority-rules attitude as you pretend will work, then the tree will be used as a legal precedent for the other three examples as well, unless the restrictions on those are explicitly stated up front, which is what I'm trying to do.

No matter how you care to argue it, "majority rules" should not allow you to spend my tax dollars for solely Christian-specific purposes, any more than it should for Muslim-specific ones. The thing I wish to dispure is the idea that "tyranny of the minority" somehow applies whenever the majority fails to get what it wants at the expense of the minority.


ghost post


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
But we aren't discussing all topics, just one. Whether or not the town has the right to allow a christmas tree in a town owned park.

The thing is, the Christmas tree is fine with me personally; I happen to agree with the Court you so despise that the tree has a secular purpose (decoration and marking the season). What MUST be prevented, to my mind, is for you to take the Christmas tree and then declare that, since "majority rules!" logic paid for the tree, it can therefore also be used to pay for building churches, or erecting giant stone Ten Commandments displays, or putting up obnoxious billboards saying things like "We Need to Talk --God," or whatever. The tree has a secular purpose. The remaining three do not. THAT is the difference between that specific issue and the others. There MUST be a clear law about how far this goes, because if you leave it up to the individual issue and a majority-rules attitude as you pretend will work, then the tree will be used as a legal precedent for the other three examples as well, unless the restrictions on those are explicitly stated up front, which is what I'm trying to do.

No matter how you care to argue it, "majority rules" should not allow you to spend my tax dollars for solely Christian-specific purposes, any more than it should for Muslim-specific ones.

I know you think that if something has no secular use then it is of no value but others do not agree, if they are in the majority why should they be forced to accept your stance if you are in the minority?

I am not talking about a massive expense here, I stated clearly in an earlier post the only expected expense would be a tempary use of land, nothing more. Is that really too great a cost to expect the minority to endure that the word tyranny needs to be used as a club to attack the idea?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
But we aren't discussing all topics, just one. Whether or not the town has the right to allow a christmas tree in a town owned park.

The thing is, the Christmas tree is fine with me; it has a secular purpose (decoration and marking the season). What MUST be prevented, to my mind, is for you to take the Christmas tree and then declare that, since "majority rules!" logic paid for the tree, it can also be used to pay for building churches, or erecting giant stone Ten Commandments displays, or putting up obnoxious billboards saying things like "We Need to Talk --God" or whatever. The tree has a secular purpose. The remaining three do not.

And no matter how you care to argue it, "majority rules" should not allow you to spend my tax dollars for Christian-specific purposes, any more than it should for Muslim-specific ones.

Although not all of them do have a secular purpose a good many of the Ten Commandments do have such a purpose in that our laws were strongly modeled after them and thus a monument with them COULD very well be secular. They are not automatically NOT SECULAR.

The Ten Commandment monument bit did go to trial. In fact it went to trial in at least two cases. In one it was OK and in the other it was not. The one in which it was not ok was said to be unconstitutional because it was demonstrably placed with the intent of pushing a Christian agenda. But, it was accepted as being secular (or at least not an endorsement of a religion) in the other.

Here is a link with some info:

Context is key to sorting out Commandments rulings

Quote:


The Supreme Court splintered yesterday on the issue in Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU, virtually guaranteeing further litigation. The justices said a Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds in Austin, Texas, could stay where it has been since 1961. But the Ten Commandments displays in two county courthouses in Kentucky, put up in 1999 with unabashed pro-Christian intent, had to come down.

Some interesting reading with quotes from a variety of justices.


Thurgon wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Not exactly. If the majority of Dearborn, Michigan are Muslim (they are) and want to outlaw Christianity within city limits, or enforce the wearing of burkas using the city police, or use city taxes to build minarets, they don't get to. Period. No matter how much of a majority vote they have. That's how democracy works. Not "majority gets everything or it's 'tyranny of the minority'!"
Exactly. The choice offered by Thurgon was an obvious (dare I say "textbook") case of a false dichotomy. ;-)

Really so the majority winning on one and only one issue can prompt calls of "tyranny of the majority" but my counter that not allowing the majority to win on one issue doesn't say that the tyrannny is actually from the minority when it doesn't allow for the majority to decide one and only one issue?

Interesting. I smell strawman.

Dude, you're in way over your head. Cut your losses and own up to your mistake.


bugleyman wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Not exactly. If the majority of Dearborn, Michigan are Muslim (they are) and want to outlaw Christianity within city limits, or enforce the wearing of burkas using the city police, or use city taxes to build minarets, they don't get to. Period. No matter how much of a majority vote they have. That's how democracy works. Not "majority gets everything or it's 'tyranny of the minority'!"
Exactly. The choice offered by Thurgon was an obvious (dare I say "textbook") case of a false dichotomy. ;-)

Really so the majority winning on one and only one issue can prompt calls of "tyranny of the majority" but my counter that not allowing the majority to win on one issue doesn't say that the tyrannny is actually from the minority when it doesn't allow for the majority to decide one and only one issue?

Interesting. I smell strawman.

Dude, you're in way over your head. Cut your losses and own up to your mistake.

Wow you make a strong arguement, but not for your side, for mine. Thanks.


Thurgon wrote:

1. I know you think that if something has no secular use then it is of no value but others do not agree, if they are in the majority why should they be forced to accept your stance if you are in the minority?

2. I am not talking about a massive expense here, I stated clearly in an earlier post the only expected expense would be a tempary use of land, nothing more. Is that really too great a cost to expect the minority to endure that the word tyranny needs to be used as a club to attack the idea?

1. Yes. Just because a majority might think that building churches and converting the heathen might have a secular use, doesn't make it so. Again, flip it around and assume a Muslim majority, then answer your own questions.

2. First you wanted my tax dollars to pay for it. Now you say you don't, or that it won't be a "massive expense." In a society governed by established law, how do we define a "massive expense" so that small expenses can't simply be stacked up to amount to massive ones? If you'd be willing to spend days crafting exact wording for your bill so that the $100 Christmas display you imagine can't also allow a $100 expenditure for this brick of the church you want, and then another $100 for the next one, etc. until the church is done, then have at it. It's easier and less prone to abuse to say "no tax dollars for religious purposes."

I know that you personally might indeed stop at the Christmas tree, but most people unfortunately have a "give me an inch and I'll take a mile" attitude.


ghost post


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thurgon wrote:

1. I know you think that if something has no secular use then it is of no value but others do not agree, if they are in the majority why should they be forced to accept your stance if you are in the minority?

2. I am not talking about a massive expense here, I stated clearly in an earlier post the only expected expense would be a tempary use of land, nothing more. Is that really too great a cost to expect the minority to endure that the word tyranny needs to be used as a club to attack the idea?

1. Yes. Just because a majority might think that building churches and converting the heathen might have a secular use, doesn't make it so. Again, flip it around and assume a Muslim majority, then answer your own questions.

2. First you wanted my tax dollars to pay for it. Now you say you don't, or that it won't be a "massive expense." In a society governed by established law, how do we define a "massive expense" so that small expenses can't simply be stacked up to amount to massive ones? If you'd be willing to spend days crafting exact wording for your bill so that the $100 Christmas display you imagine can't also allow a $100 expenditure for this brick of the church you want, and then another $100 for the next one, etc. until the church is done, then have at it. It's easier and less prone to abuse to say "no tax dollars for religious purposes."

I know that you personally might indeed stop at the Christmas tree, but most people unfortunately have a "give me an inch and I'll take a mile" attitude.

I imagine before groups like the ACLU were able to stop such heinous acts, these occurances ran rappant over the country. Christian communities using tax money to build churchs by the hundreds?


pres man wrote:
I imagine before groups like the ACLU were able to stop such heinous acts, these occurances ran rappant over the country. Christian communities using tax money to build churchs by the hundreds?

I prefer to rely on the Constitution, rather than the idiots in the ACLU -- and before that document existed, yes, public funds were indeed used to build churches.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
pres man wrote:
I imagine before groups like the ACLU were able to stop such heinous acts, these occurances ran rappant over the country. Christian communities using tax money to build churchs by the hundreds?
I prefer to rely on the Constitution, rather than the idiots in the ACLU -- and before that document existed, yes, public funds were indeed used to build churches.

But between the time of the constitution and the rise of such groups as the ACLU, when christians were free to run rampant using the tyranny of the majority at will without impediment from people keeping them in check through court cases, were public funds used to build churchs by the hundreds?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
pres man wrote:
I imagine before groups like the ACLU were able to stop such heinous acts, these occurances ran rappant over the country. Christian communities using tax money to build churchs by the hundreds?
I prefer to rely on the Constitution, rather than the idiots in the ACLU -- and before that document existed, yes, public funds were indeed used to build churches.

But, how is this a case of them being given an inch and taking a mile now (your current stated fear and there is a Constitution in the now) when there was no limitation on it in the form of the Constitution when it occurred?


The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:

But, how is this a case of them being given an inch and taking a mile now (your current stated fear and there is a Constitution in the now) when there was no limitation on it in the form of the Constitution when it occurred?

OK, without providing a course in constitutional law, the Establishment Clause has been ruled to prevent pres man's churches; the ACLU has nothing to do with anything -- their existence or lack thereof doesn't seem to change much one way or the other.

To answer your reasonable question, my objection to Thurgon was that he claimed (a) he didn't care what the courts had ruled, and that (b) "majority rules" is fair and valid and in no way conducive to tyranny. I do care that the courts -- and the founding fathers, for that matter -- have ruled that the constitution doesn't allow public funds for church building. I'd like to keep that ruling intact, so as not to have to deal with the inch/mile scenario that Thurgon's law (as opposed to U.S. law) would allow.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:

But, how is this a case of them being given an inch and taking a mile now (your current stated fear and there is a Constitution in the now) when there was no limitation on it in the form of the Constitution when it occurred?

OK, without providing a course in constitutional law, the Establishment Clause has been ruled to prevent pres man's churches; the ACLU has nothing to do with anything -- their existence or lack thereof doesn't seem to change much one way or the other.

To answer your reasonable question, my objection to Thurgon was that he claimed (a) he didn't care what the courts had ruled, and that (b) "majority rules" is fair and valid and in no way conducive to tyranny. I do care that the courts -- and the founding fathers, for that matter -- have ruled that the constitution doesn't allow public funds for church building. I'd like to keep that ruling intact, so as not to have to deal with the inch/mile scenario that Thurgon's law (as opposed to U.S. law) would allow.

Thanks.


The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:

But, how is this a case of them being given an inch and taking a mile now (your current stated fear and there is a Constitution in the now) when there was no limitation on it in the form of the Constitution when it occurred?

OK, without providing a course in constitutional law, the Establishment Clause has been ruled to prevent pres man's churches; the ACLU has nothing to do with anything -- their existence or lack thereof doesn't seem to change much one way or the other.

To answer your reasonable question, my objection to Thurgon was that he claimed (a) he didn't care what the courts had ruled, and that (b) "majority rules" is fair and valid and in no way conducive to tyranny. I do care that the courts -- and the founding fathers, for that matter -- have ruled that the constitution doesn't allow public funds for church building. I'd like to keep that ruling intact, so as not to have to deal with the inch/mile scenario that Thurgon's law (as opposed to U.S. law) would allow.

Thanks.

But, where is the evidence that the inch mile would come into effect rather than being limited as he said it is?


The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
But, where is the evidence that the inch mile would come into effect rather than being limited as he said it is?

Human nature. In the absence of anything to prevent it, it almost always comes into play, sooner or later.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
But, where is the evidence that the inch mile would come into effect rather than being limited as he said it is?
Human nature. In the absence of anything to prevent it, it almost always comes into play, sooner or later.

But, his (Thurgon) law would prevent it because there was a limitation. It must be temporary. That is the limitation. That is what precedent is for with respect to court cases about the Constitution. It determines the limitations.


The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
But, his (Thurgon) law would prevent it because there was a limitation. It must be temporary. That is the limitation. That is what precedent is for with respect to court cases about the Constitution. It determines the limitations.

His space is "temporary," with no set term. A century? Until the Rapture? Either might be considered "temporary." His amount of tax dollars is likewise defined as "not massive." Is $10,000,000 OK? That's pocket change compared to some expenditures.

Why open that can of worms, when the court has already gone out of its way to declare Christmas trees as "secular icons" so that we can have them? What more does he want?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
But, his (Thurgon) law would prevent it because there was a limitation. It must be temporary. That is the limitation. That is what precedent is for with respect to court cases about the Constitution. It determines the limitations.

His space is "temporary," with no set term. A century? Until the Rapture? Either might be considered "temporary." His amount of tax dollars is likewise defined as "not massive." Is $10,000,000 OK? That's pocket change compared to some expenditures.

Why open that can of worms, when the court has already gone out of its way to declare Christmas trees as "secular icons" so that we can have them? What more does he want?

Candy canes? Silver bells? Tinsel? Old fat guys in red suits? Reindeers with shiny noses? Krampus?


I have spent too long to fully edit for problems in writing so I apologize in advance.

Incoming small wall of text.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
But, his (Thurgon) law would prevent it because there was a limitation. It must be temporary. That is the limitation. That is what precedent is for with respect to court cases about the Constitution. It determines the limitations.

His space is "temporary," with no set term. A century? Until the Rapture? Either might be considered "temporary." His amount of tax dollars is likewise defined as "not massive." Is $10,000,000 OK? That's pocket change compared to some expenditures.

Why open that can of worms, when the court has already gone out of its way to declare Christmas trees as "secular icons" so that we can have them? What more does he want?

Three points

First

He responded in general terms to what I believe he considered a general question.

But, there are definitions for temporary with respect to such things as structures.

For example, temporary structures are "specifically defined by the individual applicable code, but generally taken as a structure which will be in place for less than 180 consecutive ..."

Or for another example, "structure that can be readily and completely dismantled and removed from the site between periods of actual use."

The point is that definitions can be created as needed. Just because he has not given one does not mean that it cannot be done. The definition will limit the terms of usage.

Note: The link to the first definition is broken but the second can be found here: Manitoba Hydro Glossary. These were just used as examples to show a definition can be made and are not intended to be a final determination.

Second

What more does he want?

1. There have been cases where for many years such groups as the Boy Scouts of America have used public parks for their picnics but they have lost that privelege for being a religious organization. Just an idea here.

The point is that there are many traditions such as the Scouts that have been a part of American life for a long period of time. The reason that they have lost use of"parks" as described above had nothing to do with them pushing out other people and groups but rather that individuals sought to remove it because they didn't like it.

2. "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is another possibility, but it does not involve monetary usage. I will refrain from rambling on this as it could fill a thread and then some by itself. I merely include it as a listing.

Note 1: Being a religious organization allows them to apply religious standards to choosing those who work for them without being subject to typical rules/laws. So, since they wish to have a basically mainstream Christian tradition they are not violating any laws for excluding atheists from being "pack" Leaders, etc.

Note 2: I am not arguing for (or against) this particular application but I am rather giving an example of something that is temporary: using the park for an annual picnic that will only encompass a period of time for one day. This particular example may lead to its own problems but as I said I am guessing as to what he may have had in mind.

Note 3: A further point is that I believe they may still be allowed to show up at the park and gain use of completely public areas but are not allowed to use (or are at least limited in the use of) other things such as the baseball diamonds, etc.

Note 4: More troubling applications (which I am listing and am not endorsing)that I believe might have been already nixed would include things such as rent of public buildings for "pack" meetings for the below market price of something like $1 per year. However, I think this "rental" might have just been a usage fee for a couple hours one night a week or such.

Note 5: I am not sure about court cases regarding these items. So, I don't know if decisions were court ordered, made because the governments involved thought there was a tight case against the Scouts, or simply if the local government involved did not wish to deal with court expenses.

Third

The original point being questioned by me was that they would take a mile if given an inch. But, as I stated above, applying definitions to such terms as "temporary" gives the limitations.

Further, the give an inch and take a mile can be applied to anything and everything as a reason to completely not do it. So, I do not understand why it stands out here. In every case, as mentioned above, the solution was to put specific limitations. The "tree only" limitation you are pointing out is simply that: a limitation just as any other limitation.

So, why can't the give an inch take a mile be applied to it as well?

The point, IMO, should be to determine what is acceptable rather than to limit it as much as possible for the sole purpose of ensuring that they don't take what someone somewhere might consider too much.


About this:

"Why open that can of worms, when the court has already gone out of its way to declare Christmas trees as "secular icons" so that we can have them?"

What do you mean by the court has gone out of its way? Is its decision not based upon the constitution, law, and precedents? Is that not what the court is supposed to do?

Are you saying that the court overstepped itself in making such a distinction?


Let me be clear, then, that I have no problems with alternate solutions involving clear restrictions. I do have a problem with the "eat your cake and have it, too" scenarios, where the Boy Scouts (for example) are a religious organization if they want to exclude atheists, but not religious if they want to rent public buildings for $1/year.

I'm a former boy scout, BTW, and I'd like to see them get the $1/year -- but not if that means that they would exclude kids like me on religious grounds. After all, they had no religious "litmus test" when I joined; all were welcome.


The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
Are you saying that the court overstepped itself in making such a distinction?

I believe it might have, but I also think in that particular case it was the lesser of two evils. Like the court, I, too, find Christmas trees to be generally harmless -- pleasant, even -- and would like to see them allowed. If that means overstepping authority a bit to declare them "secular icons," then so be it, unless that decision leads to the inch/mile scenario I'm so keen to avoid. Time will tell. I hope it doesn't.

The Exchange

So I found this and thought it may help to address this new issue which once again is not the issue of the thread.

Quotations

"The problems we face in America are moral problems, which cannot be solved legislatively or judicially. We need a moral code to address them. There is no better educational and moral code than the Ten Commandments." Robert Schenck, founder of the National Clergy Council, a group which promotes the display of the Commandments in government offices.
"The establishment clause [of the U.S. Constitution] prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or from 'making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community'." State Judge R. Marley Dennis Jr. of South Carolina, quoting in part the U.S. Supreme Court's 1984 ruling in Lynch v. Donnelly.

Overview

Two very important factors affecting the legality of a display of the Ten Commandments are:

The first four Commandments (or five, depending upon which version is used) are purely theological in content. They refer solely to the Jewish and Christian religions, and are often quite offensive to non-Judeo-Christians. Unless careful precautions are made, posting them in schools, government offices, etc. will violate the principle of separation of church and state mandated by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

The remaining six or five Commandments are moral and ethical rules governing behavior, which are partly accepted by secularists and followers of other religions.
The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, has been interpreted by the courts as guaranteeing that:

individuals have freedom of religious expression;
the government and its agencies will not:
recognize one religious faith as more valid than any other;
promote religion above secularism.
promote secularism above religion.

These principles are continuously in a state of creative tension:

Many Americans feel that part of their personal religious expression is to pray in public schools, have the Ten Commandments posted in their courts, government offices, public schools, etc. They feel that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, and remains one to the present time. Religious plaques posted in government buildings are simply one expression of this heritage. The right to display the Ten Commandments has become a topic of high priority to many conservative Christians groups. Some believe that a religious plaque placed in public schools is constitutional, if private funding is used to cover all costs.

Most non-Christians, particularly secularists, are opposed to the display of the Ten Commandments by the government. They feel that freedom of religion also includes freedom from the dominant religion.

Others feel that a wall of separation must be maintained between religion and the government and its agencies. They view this factor as outweighing any religious considerations that they might have. They object to all religious displays in public buildings.
Courts at various levels, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have ruled that the posting of isolated religious texts and symbols in any public buildings is unconstitutional. The reason given by the courts is that governments and public schools must remain neutral on religion. i.e. when the government or a school advocates (or appears to advocate):

a specific religion, or
religion in general as preferable to a secular lifestyle, or
a secular lifestyle in preference a religious lifestyle,
then they are violating the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Whether the costs of mounting the Ten Commandments is born by the government, school board or some private group appears to be immaterial. The Ten Commandments are permitted in certain special circumstances, as in some multi-faith, multi-national displays of ancient secular and religious laws.

The House of Representatives passed an "Ten Commandments Defense Act Amendment" to a juvenile crime bill in 1999-JUN. If it had been signed into law, this act would have allowed the display of the Ten commandments in any government facility, including public schools -- at least it would until it was declared unconstitutional by the courts. The law appears to fail all three criteria which have been proposed to test the constitutionality of laws with a religious content. Those representatives who voted in favor of the amendment violated their oath of office, which included a promise to uphold the U.S. Constitution.


Again, I pretty much agree with the courts. If the display of the Commandments is decorative or symbolic in nature, and not egregiously "in your face," I personally see no cause for objection. If, on the other hand, they are posted in such a way as to dominate the courthouse, or so as to imply that they (and not U.S. law) are the sole source of law there, then someone took a mile when they were given the inch. Coming up with a way to distinguish between the two is tricky, and I foresee a few more cases before it gets cleared up.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:

But, how is this a case of them being given an inch and taking a mile now (your current stated fear and there is a Constitution in the now) when there was no limitation on it in the form of the Constitution when it occurred?

OK, without providing a course in constitutional law, the Establishment Clause has been ruled to prevent pres man's churches; the ACLU has nothing to do with anything -- their existence or lack thereof doesn't seem to change much one way or the other.

To answer your reasonable question, my objection to Thurgon was that he claimed (a) he didn't care what the courts had ruled, and that (b) "majority rules" is fair and valid and in no way conducive to tyranny. I do care that the courts -- and the founding fathers, for that matter -- have ruled that the constitution doesn't allow public funds for church building. I'd like to keep that ruling intact, so as not to have to deal with the inch/mile scenario that Thurgon's law (as opposed to U.S. law) would allow.

Dude, I admire that you're still trying, but people who don't want to understand...won't. Have fun, though.


bugleyman wrote:
Dude, I admire that you're still trying, but people who don't want to understand...won't. Have fun, though.

I disagree with your assessment; tTfBtE seems like he genuinely enjoys the discussion. Pres man understands fully well, but just enjoys arguing for the sake of arguing.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

Let me be clear, then, that I have no problems with alternate solutions involving clear restrictions. I do have a problem with the "eat your cake and have it, too" scenarios, where the Boy Scouts (for example) are a religious organization if they want to exclude atheists, but not religious if they want to rent public buildings for $1/year.

I'm a former boy scout, BTW, and I'd like to see them get the $1/year -- but not if that means that they would exclude kids like me on religious grounds. After all, they had no religious "litmus test" when I joined; all were welcome.

I was not referring to the exclusion of kids. I was referring to the exclusion of the counselors.


The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
I was not referring to the exclusion of kids. I was referring to the exclusion of the counselors.

Dunno. My mother was a pretty good den mother, in retrospect -- we learned a lot about knot tying and plant identification and such -- but she was a Catholic in name who probably didn't attend services often enough to avoid an "atheist" label from them. Why hurt the scouts by excluding people like her? Does her attendance card at church in any way affect her abilities as a scout counselor? On the flip side, I had a Webelos instructor who used the meetings as an excuse to play amateur pastor. We learned zero scouting from him -- but you don't see me lobbying to prevent Christians from serving as counselors, because it was his personal attitude, not his faith, that made him a bad counselor.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
I was not referring to the exclusion of kids. I was referring to the exclusion of the counselors.
Dunno. My mom was a pretty good den mother, in retrospect -- but was a Catholic in name who didn't attend services often enough to avoid an "atheist" label from them. Why hurt the scouts by excluding people like her? Does her attendance card at church in any way affect her abilities as a scout counselor?

But, did she claim to be atheist while being a den mother?

If not (your description appears to paint the Catholic Church as painting her as atheist rather than her claiming it), they would not exclude her.

So, I'm not sure where you are coing from with this.

The Exchange

The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
I was not referring to the exclusion of kids. I was referring to the exclusion of the counselors.
Dunno. My mom was a pretty good den mother, in retrospect -- but was a Catholic in name who didn't attend services often enough to avoid an "atheist" label from them. Why hurt the scouts by excluding people like her? Does her attendance card at church in any way affect her abilities as a scout counselor?

But, did she claim to be atheist while being a den mother?

If not (your description appears to paint the Catholic Church as painting her as atheist rather than her claiming it), they would not exclude her.

So, I'm not sure where you are coing from with this.

Confuses me a bit too, but then I must have missed the primary post.


The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
So, I'm not sure where you are coming from with this.

Let me ask this, then: what would be your motivation in excluding good counselors, just because they're atheists? It hurts the scouts unnecessarily, by eliminating potentially good resources. Do you hate and/or fear atheists so much that you'd be willing to hurt the scouts, simply to exclude them?

The Exchange

Part and parcel of the scouts in both their oath and in their practice is doing your duty. You do your duty to your community, family, your country and your G~d. Having a councilor who does not agree with the scout oath, and does not believe in the oath itself is not consistent with what is being taught. I am sure she was a good councilor and may be fine for another organization. But the scout are religious and as such the members should be as well.


Crimson Jester wrote:
But the scout are religious and as such the members should be as well.

Duty is not a strictly religious concept. So what about the cub scouts is explicitly religious, other than a single word in the oath? The BSA web page says "The BSA provides a program for young people that builds character, trains them in the responsibilities of participating citizenship, and develops personal fitness." In what way is Christianity implicit in that? Or is it your (incorrect) opinion that only Christians have character? Or maybe fitness?

Or is it just that Christians feel all threatened if there are atheists around, and can't deal with it, or feel the need to exclude them? If the latter, then they shouldn't get the discount rate for building space, in my opinion. If you'd intentionally hurt what you claim as your own organization through sheer bigotry, then you ought to pay full price.

I was proud to be a cub scout, when there was no religious litmus test. If you want to add one, in my opinion they wouldn't be cub scouts anymore; they'd be Jesus scouts.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Or is it just that Christians feel all threatened if there are atheists around, and can't deal with it, or feel the need to exclude them? If the latter, then they shouldn't get the discount rate for building space, in my opinion. If you'd intentionally hurt what you claim as your own organization through sheer bigotry, then you ought to pay full price.

The No-Prize goes to Kirth.

The BSA has the right, as a private institution, to declare itself a religious organization and exclude nontheists or whatever. But in exercising that right it should jolly well expect 100% of the sweetheart deals it's been cut by government bodies to evaporate. Choices have consequences. The state's not to fund any church's youth outreach program.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
pres man wrote:
I imagine before groups like the ACLU were able to stop such heinous acts, these occurances ran rappant over the country. Christian communities using tax money to build churchs by the hundreds?
I prefer to rely on the Constitution, rather than the idiots in the ACLU -- and before that document existed, yes, public funds were indeed used to build churches.

Nothing in the federal constitution stops local communities from spending money on building churches. However most state ones do.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thurgon wrote:

1. I know you think that if something has no secular use then it is of no value but others do not agree, if they are in the majority why should they be forced to accept your stance if you are in the minority?

2. I am not talking about a massive expense here, I stated clearly in an earlier post the only expected expense would be a tempary use of land, nothing more. Is that really too great a cost to expect the minority to endure that the word tyranny needs to be used as a club to attack the idea?

1. Yes. Just because a majority might think that building churches and converting the heathen might have a secular use, doesn't make it so. Again, flip it around and assume a Muslim majority, then answer your own questions.

A strawman, you think since one religious topic shouldn't be allowed none should. You found one issue that allows you to attack it and thus beat the whole topic. I think if you only allow for secular beliefs to influence your vote and require all others to do the same you are behaving no better then those who think everything should be based on their religious beliefs. I say this because it is requiring others to think your way or it reduces the value of their vote.

Kirth Gersen wrote:


2. First you wanted my tax dollars to pay for it. Now you say you don't, or that it won't be a "massive expense." In a society governed by established law, how do we define a "massive expense" so that small expenses can't simply be stacked up to amount to massive ones? If you'd be willing to spend days crafting exact wording for your bill so that the $100 Christmas display you imagine can't also allow a $100 expenditure for this brick of the church you want, and then another $100 for the next one, etc. until the church is done, then have at it. It's easier and less prone to abuse to say "no tax dollars for religious purposes."

I know that you personally might indeed stop at the Christmas tree, but most people unfortunately have a "give me an inch and I'll take a mile" attitude.

But jumping to building churchs from allowing a display on public land is a huge jump, a setup of a strawman arguement. My first post about allowing the display did include the only expense to the town would be the temprary use of land others to counter it pointed out that they did not want to spend tax money on my religious beliefs. Sure they are giving up some public land for a short time and you can call that spending public money in a very board way so that is how I responded.


Kirth Gersen wrote:


To answer your reasonable question, my objection to Thurgon was that he claimed (a) he didn't care what the courts had ruled, and that (b) "majority rules" is fair and valid and in no way conducive to tyranny. I do care that the courts -- and the founding fathers, for that matter -- have ruled that the constitution doesn't allow public funds for church building. I'd like to keep that ruling intact, so as not to have to deal with the inch/mile scenario that Thurgon's law (as opposed to U.S. law) would allow.

I think allowing "majority rule" on small issues like the tempary use of public land does not lead to tyranny. I think allowing the courts to make law does lead to tyranny of the courts.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
I know there is the Divine, in all his aspects. An Athiest believes there isn't.
I've got to say that this one bugs me a bit, unless I'm misreading it. You appear to assert that you "know" your position is true, whereas those who disagree with you merely "believe" so? My understanding was that, in a Christian sense, omniscience was reserved for God, not His followers.

Yeah, that was me being snarky. Sorry, just get amused at Buggly's "It's not that I don't believe there's a god(s), it's that I disbelieve them."

Truthfully though Kirth, I do know there is the Divine. I see his handiwork in every day, from the accident that was 10' either way from killing Donna and I, to the beauty of the sunrise, to the weirdness that is my family's healing, I see Him in everything.

Justice League wrote:
Aquaman: It's faith, Hawkgirl. You're not supposed to understand it. You just have it.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Atomic Bombadil wrote:
Hey! Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?

That spell was the craziest spell in 2e.

Spoiler:
Since AC and cover is a function of the defender, we had solipsism cast, and 'created' a floating armour plated VW bus (this was the party with my hippy psionicist) and drove through chunks of dragon mountain big enough for the 'bus' to drive through.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Again, I pretty much agree with the courts. If the display of the Commandments is decorative or symbolic in nature, and not egregiously "in your face," I personally see no cause for objection. If, on the other hand, they are posted in such a way as to dominate the courthouse, or so as to imply that they (and not U.S. law) are the sole source of law there, then someone took a mile when they were given the inch. Coming up with a way to distinguish between the two is tricky, and I foresee a few more cases before it gets cleared up.

Figured this one would be the best to reply to.

Right now the courts are so frakked up on religion vs secular that it's not even amusing.

From Bench Memos:
Allah yes, God no
Menorah ok, nativity, not so much
just as a pair of examples. Whether you agree or disagree with displaying religious icons at a (religious) holiday display, you have to admit this is schitzophrenic at best.

It is my understanding (maybe more anti-federalist than federalist) the goal of the State vs. Federal government was to allow more flexability in the state law than in the Federal. So yes, Michigan could declare itself 'Dearbournistan' as long as they didn't send wolverines down to Ohio to ignite their underwear. The theory being that anyone who didn't like Dearbournistan could move to Ohio.

Of course that ship sailed in the 1860's...

And as people are wont to forget, we're a Republic not a Democracy at the federal level. That was specifically put in place to protect the minority, but not to let the minority run roughshod over the Majority with that 'protection'.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Matthew Morris wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Again, I pretty much agree with the courts. If the display of the Commandments is decorative or symbolic in nature, and not egregiously "in your face," I personally see no cause for objection. If, on the other hand, they are posted in such a way as to dominate the courthouse, or so as to imply that they (and not U.S. law) are the sole source of law there, then someone took a mile when they were given the inch. Coming up with a way to distinguish between the two is tricky, and I foresee a few more cases before it gets cleared up.

Figured this one would be the best to reply to.

Right now the courts are so frakked up on religion vs secular that it's not even amusing.

From Bench Memos:
Allah yes, God no
Menorah ok, nativity, not so much
just as a pair of examples. Whether you agree or disagree with displaying religious icons at a (religious) holiday display, you have to admit this is schitzophrenic at best.

It is my understanding (maybe more anti-federalist than federalist) the goal of the State vs. Federal government was to allow more flexability in the state law than in the Federal. So yes, Michigan could declare itself 'Dearbournistan' as long as they didn't send wolverines down to Ohio to ignite their underwear. The theory being that anyone who didn't like Dearbournistan could move to Ohio.

Of course that ship sailed in the 1860's...

And as people are wont to forget, we're a Republic not a Democracy at the federal level. That was specifically put in place to protect the minority, but not to let the minority run roughshod over the Majority with that 'protection'.

Not that Bench Memos is in any way, shape or form politically biased, right? Having said that, the examples given do make a nonsense of the law.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Paul Watson wrote:


Not that Bench Memos is in any way, shape or form politically biased, right? Having said that, the examples given do make a nonsense of the law.

Didn't mean to imply they weren't.

Doesn't make the examples any less valid though. Hells, I agree with you on some things too :P

551 to 600 of 1,568 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / What Conservatives Believe All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.