[jthomas1600]

The Facts

When the community seems to be overwhelmingly in favor of a particular religious symbol on public land should it be allowed to stand? If it was a Muslim symbol? A Jewish symbol?

[slap_j]

Are you asking with the assumption that it violates the establishment clause in some way?

[OiBoyz]

If one is allowed , all should be allowed. I do think it's a silly hill to die on.

[jthomas1600]

As I understand the situation it's a public park. I don't see having a religious symbol that doesn't dominant the park as a conflict with the separation of church and state as long as someone of a different religion is able to with in reason display a symbol of their faith. If it's coming at tax payers expense and someone has a problem with that I guess I can understand and it sounds like the people in the town would be more than willing to foot the bill. But, I'm not a political scholar, that's why I'm interested in others opinions.

[slap_j]

Courts have ruled that religious displays do not violate the establishment clause if they have a predominantly secular purpose or at least one that doesn't advocate a particular religious view (such as certain nativity scenes). It doesn't really matter how enthusiastic or popular the support is so far as the constitution is concerned.

[acrossthesirion]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Courts have ruled that religious displays do not violate the establishment clause if they have a predominantly secular purpose or at least one that doesn't advocate a particular religious view (such as certain nativity scenes). It doesn't really matter how enthusiastic or popular the support is so far as the constitution is concerned.

Which means, religious displays are fine as long as the "religious" content is removed...or at least overshadowed.

Of course this then involves the government in deciding what is and isn't "religious" and I can't think of a more explicit example of church/state entanglement than that.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by acrossthesirion

Of course this then involves the government in deciding what is and isn't "religious" and I can't think of a more explicit example of church/state entanglement than that.

It seems their task is more to determine the intentions behind the displays. Their reason for being.

[ethan_hanus]

The government has no place in preventing people from displaying their religious beliefs anywhere. The Constitution is a document of negative powers, meaning it says what the government can only do, leaving everything else up to the states. The separation of church and state can go both ways, church controlling the state(least likely) or the state controlling the church to control people(most likely). That's why the separation of church and state is in the Constitution, not because they didn't want any kind of religious display on government property. I mean, when the country was first founded, they had church services, both Jewish and Christian, at the capital every Sunday.

I think it's the sad fact of political correctness. One person is offended so we have to eliminate it everywhere it is, to make sure no one else is offended. I think some people need to grow up, if your offended, then don't look at it, or don't listen to it, or don't watch it, or have some freaken tolerance.

I promise you, if it had something to do with the Muslim religion, something like this would of never happened, cause anyone who opposed it would of been a hate monger or racists.

I would proudly stand with the guy, I'm sick of governments and progressives demeaning our religion, trying to make us the enemy.

[acrossthesirion]

Originally Posted by slap_j

It seems their task is more to determine the intentions behind the displays. Their reason for being.

Wouldn't that involve first distinguishing between "religious" and "non-religious" intentions?

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by ethan_hanus

I'm sick of governments and progressives demeaning our religion, trying to make us the enemy.

If we're not the enemy then what the heck are we doing?

Originally Posted by acrossthesirion

Wouldn't that involve first distinguishing between "religious" and "non-religious" intentions?

Not necessarily. I can think of non-religious reasons to promote religious belief. Maybe you like the shape of a religious society better than a secular one. An example might be Will Wilkinson (an atheist writer formerly working for the Cato Institute) who says he might prefer a more religious society as opposed to a more secular one because it might be preferential to libertarianism. Heh, lots of "mights" there.

[acrossthesirion]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Not necessarily. I can think of non-religious reasons to promote religious belief. Maybe you like the shape of a religious society better than a secular one. An example might be Will Wilkinson (an atheist writer formerly working for the Cato Institute) who says he might prefer a more religious society as opposed to a more secular one because it might be preferential to libertarianism. Heh, lots of "mights" there.

I guess my main point is that there is no disembodied concept of the "religious" just floating out there that is defined and obvious to every "rational" person. Religion's themselves have diverging understanding of what religion is. When the government begins to make a distinction between "religion" and "secular" it (explicitly or not) ends up making claims about what is and isn't "religious."

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by ethan_hanus

The government has no place in preventing people from displaying their religious beliefs anywhere.

And to that end, I will be displaying satanic emblems on your forehead. Don't call the police, the government has no right to intervene.

The Constitution is a document of negative powers, meaning it says what the government can only do, leaving everything else up to the states.

So it would be constitutional for Virginia to require everyone living there to convert to Islam and worship Allah?

The separation of church and state can go both ways, church controlling the state(least likely) or the state controlling the church to control people(most likely). That's why the separation of church and state is in the Constitution, not because they didn't want any kind of religious display on government property. I mean, when the country was first founded, they had church services, both Jewish and Christian, at the capital every Sunday.

They still open congress with a prayer.

But I thought the constitutional issue was settled. Religious displays are OK on public land as long as:
1) They are not supported by government effort and
2) There's equal access for all religions.

I recall several years back when that was cited for why the festivus pole had to be allowed in the city park near here where they had a cross or nativity.

I think it's the sad fact of political correctness. One person is offended so we have to eliminate it everywhere it is, to make sure no one else is offended. I think some people need to grow up, if your offended, then don't look at it, or don't listen to it, or don't watch it, or have some freaken tolerance.

I think it's a sad fact that you have to resort to hyperbole to make your position sound rational.

Have religious displays been eliminated everywhere? I must hurry down to my local church and demand they take down all their crosses and crucifixes. Similarly, my parents will need to take down several things, like the Jewish scroll on their doorway.

I promise you, if it had something to do with the Muslim religion, something like this would of never happened, cause anyone who opposed it would of been a hate monger or racists.

Is there a muslim symbol in the area in question?

But you are right. Muslims and Christians are treated differently in the US. No one is protesting churches in Oklahoma city, where a Christian terrorist killed so many.

I would proudly stand with the guy, I'm sick of governments and progressives demeaning our religion, trying to make us the enemy.

I think you demean your religion when you take such a use of hyperbole. I wonder why Jesus is never written to have demanded more stars of David on Roman buildings... oh yes, because he was busy saving souls, feeding the hungry, clothing the poor.... all that stuff.

This rhetorical piety and effort could be put to much better and, dare I say, far more Christian uses.

[acrossthesirion]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

But you are right. Muslims and Christians are treated differently in the US. No one is protesting churches in Oklahoma city, where a Christian terrorist killed so many.

I'm sorry to pick this out individually...but McVeigh did not self-identify as Christian.

Originally Posted by GetReligion.org

Well, he is an agnostic. He doesn’t believe in God, but he has told us he doesn’t not believe in God. Death is part of his adventure, as he describes it to us. And he told us that when he finds out if there is an afterlife, he will improvise, adapt and overcome just like they taught him in the Army.

I understand it's beside the point, but McVeigh is not a good example.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by acrossthesirion

I'm sorry to pick this out individually...but McVeigh did not self-identify as Christian.

I understand it's beside the point, but McVeigh is not a good example.

Fair enough, I should have fact-checked that. It was just really convenient.

The Salem Witch trials, IRA bombing campaigns, Crusades, Christian side of the Christian-Muslim fightin in Africa, anywhere the Spanish Inqusition visited, really anywhere the conquistidors were, anywhere crimes were committed in the name of "manifest destiny", etc.

Darn. The point is, I believe, just as valid but, as you point out, less succinct.

It's worth noting that I've not seen a single post on CGR complaining about the "politically correct" French banning burquas.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by acrossthesirion

I guess my main point is that there is no disembodied concept of the "religious" just floating out there that is defined and obvious to every "rational" person. Religion's themselves have diverging understanding of what religion is. When the government begins to make a distinction between "religion" and "secular" it (explicitly or not) ends up making claims about what is and isn't "religious."

That's true. I would probably even take a broader view of what religious means. Although there are plenty of symbols, rituals, customs, communities, etc. which are, for the most part, uncontroversially regarded as being religious. The Ten Commandments, for instance, or a prayer wheel. I think the court interprets the law with this in mind. Still, that doesn't mean they're somehow not responsible. Whether it represents an entanglement of church and state...I guess that depends on what "church" means too. But that word isn't used in the first amendment anyway.