Replies

Ah, well, that's two different discussions, as you say. Personally, I think Lemon goes too far in trying to turn "separation" into a full-blown divorce. It's just silly for the state to contort itself into pretending that religion doesn't really exist. On the other hand, there are plenty of non-Christian citizens who are entitled to the protections of the Constitution these days - they don't deserve to have someone else's faith pushed on them, any more than you deserve to have theirs pushed on you. So, with that in mind, how should the state deal with religion and religious expression?

I dont see as that far apart really, then. I agree with what you say here.

". So, with that in mind, how should the state deal with religion and religious expression?" I see the divide in terms of coercion. The test is to see what elements of sponsorship and coercion are involved in the Governments activities vis a vis religion. I do *not* think mere expression of something that someone out there disagrees with is a valid objection... As I posted earlier, why would an atheist have any more right to be offended by this display than I am offended by them making 1st street into "Cesar Chavez Avenue" in my hometown? Ask instead what coercive elements are there to this act. I find none, and I see this 'sponsorship' of historical/cultural value, so imho should not be considered unlawful.

Also, I happen to think that when a Liberal Federal Judge makes a bad ruling, we need to stamp our feet and make a noise, because that crowd is quite deaf.

As I posted earlier, why would an atheist have any more right to be offended by this display than I am offended by them making 1st street into "Cesar Chavez Avenue" in my hometown?

Well, I think you both have a right to be offended, but neither of you have the right to impose your will on other people just because you're offended. The atheists may very well be, and probably are, offended by the display in the rotunda. That doesn't mean that they should have the power to make it go away, a sort of heckler's veto, if you will. The answer is to permit them to peacefully express their views as well, without giving someone else who might be offended by them the power to make them go away. That seems fair, doesn't it?