It is occuring to me that since we strarted this conversation on another thread, we have transitioned to a different America. A marijuana patch in the backyard became an instance of interstate commerce; private property was essentially abolished and replaced by a plutocracy; and the same monument to the Ten Commandments is or is not "legal" depending on whether allusions to religion were made during its dedication.
The latter, of course, fully obliterates the First Amendment. Religion on the public square is allowed only if it can be excused on historical grounds. This ranks somewhere with the Soviet Union if not (yet) in practice, then in legal theory.
No, I am not limiting my understanding of freedom of speech, including freedom to educate, to Christianity. We have a pluralistic society and all the rabbis and mullahs should be equally protected. The only thing that protects them now is political correctness.
Religion, of course, becomes stronger when persecuted. We are, quite possibly, living through a third Great Awakening thanks to the robbers in the Supreme Court. The point is not whether Christianity is seriously endangered by these shenanigans, but whether we have anything remotely resembling a civli society at this point. In my opinion, we do not.
Can't argue that. It is amazing how the USSC arrived at some of that. Of course, the private property decision was, for most of us the most serious. Yet that can simply be negated by the actions of each state legislature. As for the 10 Commandments, it does seem that the court recognized its place in our history and culture at least to some degree. But all of this simply points to the importance of the President's nominee, as several of those were I believe 5-4 decisions.
The latter, of course, fully obliterates the First Amendment. Religion on the public square is allowed only if it can be excused on historical grounds. This ranks somewhere with the Soviet Union if not (yet) in practice, then in legal theory.
Still there is another view. Should it be permissable to place the 10 Commandments within a courthouse for nothing more than religious observation, where do you stop? Would it be lawful for a chief judge who was a Muslim to place the Koran or some other Islamic item on display in his courthouse? Should the judge in the first example be permitted to take it further, for example, to place copies of the 10 Commandments inside the courtroom for each observer to see? Or in an extreme case, add some reading of the 10 Commandments to the jury instructions? Where do you stop?
No, I am not limiting my understanding of freedom of speech, including freedom to educate, to Christianity. We have a pluralistic society and all the rabbis and mullahs should be equally protected. The only thing that protects them now is political correctness.
What about the freedom to educate to Islam? I don't understand your last statement concerning political correctness though. Aren't they protected by the First Amendment?
Religion, of course, becomes stronger when persecuted. We are, quite possibly, living through a third Great Awakening thanks to the robbers in the Supreme Court. The point is not whether Christianity is seriously endangered by these shenanigans, but whether we have anything remotely resembling a civli society at this point. In my opinion, we do not.
I would say that Islam is being persecuted far more here in this country than is Christianity, certainly since 9/11. And I don't believe Christianity is at all endangered by the actions of the USSC. It has been hurt far more by the actions of priests who have for years preyed on children and then condemned those who would practice birth control. Christianity hurts itself far more than any outside attacks can ever do. The infighting concerning gay and lesbian unions and even leadership is far more serious than any distinction pertaining to the siting of the 10 Commandments on government property.