No clemency for cross! War Memorial Cross must go!

just for the record, not one of JungleJake's examples infringed on any person's right to practice their religion. At most, a couple of those examples prohibited some person from practicing their religion on other people who have not consented. To me, that sounds like protecting the rights of everyone involved.

Once again, our Constitution proves its value in protecting the rights of all people - not just the majority in the room at the time.

Ya' see, another place where some people just don't get it is that there is no right for you to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre but you can stand on the sidewalk and yell anything you want. Or, you can go home and yell "Fire!" until you are blue in the face. You can preach on a sidewalk as long as you don't obstruct the passage of pedestrians - you know why? Because the pedestrians can walk away. In a classroom, courtroom, public meeting, etc. people have to be there - they aren't free to leave.

Now, here's an idea: Let people preach in schools as long as nobody is prohibited from leaving as soon as the preaching starts. Then, you'll just have the Christians there and they won't mind because they'll be there by choice. But, that kinda defeats the purpose of the preaching, I guess...

Read a bible in school during class? Sure. As long as nobody else is obligated to read the assigned text, either. So, if Suzy starts reading her bible then Johnny gets to read a comic book if he wants. Sounds fair - just not very educational but, who cares about education, right?

You just cannot prove any discrimination against Christianity or any other religion no matter how many anecdotes you want to quote. What you can prove, we can all prove, is that Christians don't get special treatment just because they are in the majority. That means, our country is working as it was designed.

Were y'all in the back of the room reading the bible instead of paying attention in your history/social studies/ civics classes? You kinda missed an important lesson about what makes the USA such a great country.

hehe I just can't figure it out. I try to be as nice as I can, yet still people throw these poorly vieled insults my direction because I don't agree with them. For that matter, I've been giggling a lot in text chats or posts...Must be in a good mood or something.

I would like to point out that I severly limited my examples to those limited to the US where the law decided the matter. Sadly, many, many more have worse endings, where, like Ed, the people give in to the "official" without ever consulting the law (it's not just the red states, it's a federal law decided upon by the Supreme Court). The school example I posted was an 8 year old girl who wanted to sing a sone about God in a forum where people could leave, if they found her song about God far, far too offensive.

If you want examples of persecution, you're going to have to define that term. If, by persecution, you mean what Christians go through in North Korea or Sudan, then no, we aren't persecuted here in this country. If, however, you mean persecuted in that hypocritical people make extremely biggoted statements against us simply for believeing Jesus is the Christ, or that we, as a group, are being singled out by the law for our believe in Christ, or more accurately for being the majority, then yes, we are being persecuted and I have examples.

EDIT: r comes after the o in "or". AFTER!

[edit on 8-16-2005 by junglejake]

Yeah Heaven forbid the kids do a Christmas play and have a Baby Jesus in it!

Thats one.

Al pretty much said it all.

Ed, the neighborhood kids (or the classroom) can get together and have a baby Jesus play on private property, on your property, at church, on provate school property, just not on government property.

Freedom of religion doesn't mean that you can run roughshod over the laws of the land and practice your religion anywhere and anytime you want.

Nudists are free to go nude, but only on private or designated property. People are free to drive but only if they have a license. Citizens have the right to vote, but only if they register. Any 2 opposite-sex people can get married, but only if they have a license. That's how it works here. You're free to practice your religion, but only on private property or privately on government property.

If you don't like it, don't blame the liberals, change the Constitution!

[edit on 16-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

So does that include public officials? Are they not permitted to practice a religion? If they do, then it will impact their decisions they make in their governmental position. I mean, if government land is off limits to God, wouldn't that mean we could only elect athiests or people who call themselves a member of a religion, but do not practice it?

Originally posted by junglejake
So does that include public officials? Are they not permitted to practice a religion? If they do, then it will impact their decisions they make in their governmental position. I mean, if government land is off limits to God, wouldn't that mean we could only elect athiests or people who call themselves a member of a religion, but do not practice it?

Boy, you're really reaching for it aren't you? Nobody said that anyone is 'not permitted to practice a religion'. Government land is off limits to making laws respecting an establishment of religion. That's all. That doesn't mean that religious people may not go on government property or be elected to governmental positions, it just means that they may not establish a particular religion associated with the government.

In other words, you may not (legally) hold a prayer meeting or a Wiccan Service or an Islamic prayer group on government property, unless you hold meetings for ALL religions. You may not (legally) erect a Star of David, a statue of the Hindu God Ganesha or the 10 Commandments on government property, unless you erect a symbol for ALL religions.

In most cases, the government, instead of choosing to try to cover all the bases for ALL religions, has chosen the simpler way out and just removed whatever religious artifacts were there. Especially seeing that atheism doesn't have a symbol that I know of.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

BH, You got yourself there buddy
Since most Govenor homes as well as the White House which is the residency of the President is public / goverment land, the general rule that maintains the separation of church and state would also apply to these residences. Thus our goverment officials who are housed by our goverment during their terms should not be able to celebrate religious holidays such as Christmas, Easter Hannaka (spelling?) etc.
Heck, the rule also prohibit them from praying as in saying their prayer at night or before a meal.

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
BH, You got yourself there buddy

No... as I've said several times, anyone can freely exercise their religion on government property (as in schools) as long as there is not an entanglement between the institutions of religion and government. Putting up a cross at a public school signifies an entanglement between the school and religion.

Therefore, the family of the governor praying in their home or celebrating Christmas complete with manger and baby Jesus is fine. It's not a governmentally sanctioned event. It's a family. It's their home.

I'm actually not sure if the Governor could legally hold a prayer meeting with members of the public in his home since it is government property, (and at this point, I don't give a crap!) but his family certainly can practice their religion in their home, because it's not a government-sponsored event. It's dinner.

Maybe 'government property' isn't the right phrase. I'm sure there's a differentiation between an official's home and a school. One is private, the other is not.

I honestly don't see what's so hard to understand about this. Or are you just being pests?

[edit on 16-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

Being a pest
I myself believe that religion is a personal / family issue but when the goverment steps in and outlaws the practice or symbols of religion is what raises my hackles.
This whole Political Correctness thing that has beengoing on and on in the US where the goverment could almost be said to be attacking religion by creating various laws is to me non-constitutional.
If you take alook at the various threads and post that I have here you will see where I stand on this issue.
I was just being the bug in your ear

So how is having a Governer who is a practicing Christian, and open about it, better than a war memorial in the shape of a cross?

You also lost me in this leap in explanations:

That doesn't mean that religious people may not go on government property or be elected to governmental positions, it just means that they may not establish a particular religion associated with the government.

In other words, you may not (legally) hold a prayer meeting or a Wiccan Service or an Islamic prayer group on government property, unless you hold meetings for ALL religions.

If, as you said, the law is that no religion may be established by the government, putting a memorial up isn't an establishment of a religion. Holding a prayer group at your home while you're a governer isn't establishing a national religion.

Originally posted by junglejake
You also lost me in this leap in explanations:

I also am not your educator. Here. Read.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
I myself believe that religion is a personal / family issue but when the goverment steps in and outlaws the practice or symbols of religion is what raises my hackles.

The government did not "step in and outlaw" symbols of religion. It has always (since the first amendment) been against the law. It's just that the law was ignored. As I said earlier, it would be fine to have a cross up there if all other religions were represented. But instead of putting up some 100 symbols, the government chooses to take the cross down.

I don't really care. I think a cross is pretty. But I'm not religious, so I'm not offended that my religion isn't represented, too.

But how would you religious folks feel if there was a Ganesha Statue, a Bronzed Koran and a Star of David in our courtrooms? And that's all.

I have been answering your questions for 2 days. I expect an answer to that question.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But how would you religious folks feel if there was a Ganesha Statue, a Bronzed Koran and a Star of David in our courtrooms? And that's all.

Pretty disappointed in my country for ostracizing the majority even more than it already has, and a little shocked that the Star of David was allowed in there. After all, people seem to be as bothered with the Jews as they are Christians.

I know what the law now states, and I'm sure the founding fathers, as they wrote out the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, intended for it to be that way. That's why they never put up any kind of religious monument and never opened any government meetings with a prayer. That's also why it wasn't until 198 that the ACLU managed to convince the Supreme Court that that was how it was supposed to be interpreted. So for 17 years now, it has been deemed illegal to have a religious monument on government property. I still don't see the connection between freedom of religion and freedom from religious monuments on government property.

As to public prayer in government facilities to open government sessions, your link disagrees with you:

The practice of opening legislative sessions with prayers by paid chaplains was upheld in Marsh v. Chambers

Oh, jake, for Christ's sake! It's not 'my link', it's just a legal website. Many first amendment cases have been tried and the results have been different. This discussion we're having takes place all over - especially in the legal world. I'm tired of arguing this point. I have tried to explain where the law stands on the case of the cross in the original post.

Like I said, I think it's pretty. I think it's a petty thing for atheists to sue to have it removed. But you just gotta deal with it or change the Constitution. It's not imposing on your beliefs or your right to practice your religion.

You said you'd be disappointed if the other symbols (but not the cross) were displayed. Then can't you understand how people of other religions might feel to have just the cross displayed?

You know what..... Go right ahead! I have absolutely no problem whasoever with that. Heck they could but up a Golden Calf for all I care.

I didn't mean it was your link as in you possesed the site, content or anything, I simply meant the link you had referenced in your previous post. I'm sorry my choice of words upset you so much.

I don't think a reference to religion should be a litmus test for what goes on government property. It's almost as outrageous as Dick Durbin putting forward the idea that a Supreme Court Justice cannot practice a religion. How do cities decide what monuments go up? I honestly don't know, but I don't think religion should have a role in that decision.

You had mentioned something earlier that just now kinda clicked. So far as you and I know, athiesm doesn't have a symbol representing it. So, because we won't allow religious symbols on our government land, only a lack of symbol, would that not mean we're endorsing athiesm as the national religion along the same grounds?

Finally, I'd like to say this. I have a general idea where the law stands on this issue. I was suprised to read that opening prayers before legislative session is legal, but generally I'm familiar with the restrictions put on religions. The law is fine and dandy, and makes it clear what the country does and doesn't allow. However, it does not explain why. What I've been looking for in this conversation isn't confirmation of the law, but rather your reasoning for agreeing with the law. I'm assuming you agree due to your arguement so far, but it is an assumption on my part. If you don't agree that the idea is a good one, then sorry for wasting your time, I'll back off. However, if you do, I am very curious as to your reasoning why. As I stated earlier, I do not understand the jump from an establishment of a national religion to putting a cross up in a park.

Originally posted by junglejake
I'm assuming you agree due to your arguement so far, but it is an assumption on my part.

I agree that religion should be kept out of government. They are 2 separate things.
I agree that morality should not be legislated.
I agree that putting up a monument to one religion on public property shows preference to that religion over the others, and therefore (according to the Constitution) should not be allowed.
I agree that there should be NO sanctioned religious activity in public schools.
I agree that Creation (or ID) should not be taught in public schools.

I don't even celebrate Christmas. In fact, I don't think schools should celebrate Christmas. It's a religious holiday. I think it's hypocritical to keep religion out of schools and then have a Christmas play, even if it is secular symbols only. Christ-mas. If it wasn't for Christ's birth, there'd be no such day. IMO, they're using the religious stuff they want (Christmas! Ooohh! Party!) and disregarding the ones they don't want.

I disagree with atheists who sue to have a religious monument removed. I think it's petty and if they're not religious, what are they worried about?

I am a Constitutionalist, though, and even though I disagree, the petty atheists have the right. I'm big, big, big on rights.

My reasoning for agreeing to keep religion out of government is that religion does not apply to me. I don't want religion linked to my government any more than I want sex or Hollywood or family linked to my government. (just to pick a few abstract ideas to make an analogy)

Our government is for ALL the people. Now some people are religious, some people have sex, some people live the Hollywood lifestyle and some people have families. But ALL people of this country live under the government. It applies to us all. If you link the government to a personal preferencial lifestyle (religion, sex, Hollywood, family), then the government no longer applies to us all.

That is the simplist way I can explain why I agree with keeping them separate.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I agree that Creation (or ID) should not be taught in public schools.

By that you are supporting a religion. If evolution theory can be taught, why not ID?

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I agree that Creation (or ID) should not be taught in public schools.

By that you are supporting a religion. If evolution theory can be taught, why not ID?

What? A religion? What do you mean? Evolution is a scientific theory.

Originally posted by Benevolent HereticWhat? A religion? What do you mean? Evolution is a scientific theory.

Keep kidding yourself with that one....


Otherwise adaptation would be taught, not evolution.

Evolution = No God (paste your preferred here) or Creator needed.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
My reasoning for agreeing to keep religion out of government is that religion does not apply to me. I don't want religion linked to my government any more than I want sex or Hollywood or family linked to my government. (just to pick a few abstract ideas to make an analogy)

Our government is for ALL the people. Now some people are religious, some people have sex, some people live the Hollywood lifestyle and some people have families. But ALL people of this country live under the government. It applies to us all. If you link the government to a personal preferencial lifestyle (religion, sex, Hollywood, family), then the government no longer applies to us all.

That is the simplist way I can explain why I agree with keeping them separate.

I understand your reasoning and used to subscribe to it. Interesting that you chose Hollywood as one of your metaphors...I too want Hollywood to get out of government

However, something obviously changed my mind on the issue, and it wasn't coming to know Christ because for several years afterwards I still believed as you do.

I live in Chicago. In the last election, we had a hypocritical crackpot and an ultraliberal racial posterchild for the Democrats. Unfortunately Obama won, but the same would have been said if that other guy whose name fortunately escapes me right now won. Obama is one of my senators, one of those who are supposed to represent me in the federal government. The other is Dick Durbin. I'm sure you can guess that I agree with maybe 1% of what these guys stand for and represent (the 1% is in relation to Durbin's take on Roe V. Wade that changed as soon as he became the #2 Senate dem). This is my government, yet in my state I am not represented. Did I have the opportunity to be? Sure, if more people in the Chicago area felt as I do, Obama wouldn't have won and Durbin never would have been elected. Yet the majority of my state decided those two individuals represent them best.

Was I bummed? You bet I was, although I wasn't suprised. Did I demand impeachment or legal justice for not being represented? No, that's how the system works. The will of the majority rules. What can I do about it? I can start activly campaigning to get Durbin out come his next election and I can be sure to cast my vote against him. Though the policies that don't represent me that Mr. Durbin and Obama may make in their 6+ years in the senate is in place, I can get someone else into office who may be able to overturn that. The majority of Illinois won.

Yet, when it comes to anything religious, the minority rules. I don't have a say, you don't have a say, only a couple of lawyers and judges get to decide. You have heard, I'm sure, the Republican battle cry of activist judges. That ruling in 1989, in my opinion, was not interpreting the law, but making it. There is no reason to believe that a memorial denotes the government's sanction of one religion and condemnation of others. A monument is supposed to speak to the hearts of the people of a nation or land. Yet we are being told that that can no longer be the case because it might offend someone who's not touched by the monument. This freedom from being offended mentality our courts have these days is not only insane, it's dangerous. Did you know that cops in San Fransisco are not allowed to wear flags on their uniforms when they go out to a protest? They had special uniforms made that didn't include the flag on the shoulder because a judge decided it would be too offensive to the anti-war protesters. In another case, someone had a flag out on their front fence amidst a 9-11 memorial. It was vandalized and desicrated by anti-war protesters, and they were arrested. Judge threw the case out because the anti-war protesters were obviously offended by this display of American impearalism (my words) and the owner should have known better. What has been happening to religion is now coming to bite patriotism or national pride in the butt. The first ammendment affords the right to all individuals to be offended. We are a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. As a result, our government is the people. If the people want a war memorial in the shape of the cross, the First Ammendment gives them the right. If people are offended, tough. Wipe the icecream off your shirt, wipe your tears away and grow up. Life is hard, it isn't fair, and it's not going to be a picnic where you feel all flowery and great all the time. People, when you can say anything you want, will be upset and offended. I've been guilty of both sides of that, being offended and offending. It's my right as an American citizen. In this world we live in, I am offended by much, including government activity. Do I sue because of it? No, I get over myself. I don't demand the masses change to accomodate me, though I don't accomodate the masses either. I move on.