Posted on 08/21/2003 8:33:17 AM PDT by rwfromkansas
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:37:00 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
MONTGOMERY, Ala.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
You are aware that the 11th Circuit court disagrees with you? From their ruling against Moore:
"The Supreme Court has instructed us that for First Amendment purposes religion includes non-Christian fails and those that do not profess belief in the Judeo-Christian God; indeed, it includes the lack of any faith."
So I see I'm in good company in that I'm not the only one who disagrees with the legal reasoning in this case.
Glad to see the comity. Okay, but I say Judge Moore's display - and the many dozens of similar Ten Commandment displays around the country, on legal seals and on buildings/courthouses, *and* the village naivity scenes - are LEGAL. They dont violate establishment clause.
Are you agreeing to *that*?
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?
It doesn't matter if you disagree or not, your last statement (that "Religions have been the cause of more deaths and wars then any other cause in history" ) was still incorrect. Your current statement above is equally incorrect. A lot of historical conflicts have been over ideological differences, but socialism (in fact, even just counting atheistic socialism) has killed more people that all the religious conflicts put together.
True Stalin a Socialist is responsible for 20 million deaths, but most those deaths were not do to promoting socialism, but Stalin's paraniod delusions and intolarence of anyone who didn't see things his way
Even if the bogus argument above did excuse national socialism (or perhaps more properly statism) as the root cause, it would still be irrelevant. Stalin's 20 million is exceeded by Communist China's 50 million, and there's no (rational at least) arguing that anything other than socialism resulted in those deaths.
All the deaths attributed to Hitler could be argued that they are religiously motivated, the Jews, the Gipsies (pagans)
Again, even if one were to accept such a nonsensical argument and those numbers were counted as religious prosecution, the fact would still remain that socialism killed more.
But, if you go back through history most conflicts are over religious deferences.
That's simply not true. Your subconscious hatred of religion is blinding you to simple truth. Even if you count every conflict even loosly related to religion (Spanish conquistadors, every Arab conflict, etc.) those numbers still pale in comparison to conflicts over resources, trade, politics, non-religious social ideologies, etc.).
What the total number killed throughout history no one really knows
This is irrelevant; the numbers for death by socialism are simply too high. We could even make the nonsensical assumption that EVERYONE before recorded history died because of religion, and the numbers would still be less, because of the much lower population density at that time.
how many were killed in the Crusades
Slightly less than 200,000, if you include those sold into slavery by the Mohameddans.
how many christians killed at the hands of Rome
About 20,000.
Religious motivations in history is as simple as one group believing they have some devine right, given to them by their God, over another
This is irrelevant to the fact that your statement is historically incorrect.
You have to look at the whole picture why does one group wish to eleminate another in history in most cases it boils down to religious motivation or intolarence of others that don't believe
This too is irrelevant to the fact that your statements about "death by religion" are historically incorrect. I am not arguing the merits of your opinion that religion has caused conflicts; I am merely pointing out that you are mistaken in your belief that religion has been the cause of more deaths than any other. It is simply not true.
The function of the state is to protect the rights and freedoms of all citizens - more expression is better, far better, than less. If those rights and freedoms are protected for all citizens, regardless of faith, sect, creed, or ethos, I have no problem with the Ten Commandments or nativity scenes or what-have-you. I don't insist that citizens have the right to shut down a religious expression that they don't care for, but I do insist that they be assured of an equal place and time to express themselves in a similar manner. In the public square, that is - your house should be run by your rules, as you see fit.
Hold on, now. That's an assumption that you and the courts are making. Way back when, in Post, oh, I don't know, something with three digits, I stated that the provisions of the first amendment can only be applied via the 14th amendment to the extent that it comports with the actual language thereof - "privileges and immunites", "life, liberty, or property without due process of law", "equal protection of the laws". Somewhere in there a violation must lie. Where, and how?
the First Amendment being one of those privileges and/or liberties that the 14'th mentions people shall not be deprived of by the various states...
This begins to address the question, but it still needs to be asked: Is it truly one of the "privileges" of citizens to put whatever religious decoration they want in their courthouses & other government buildings? Mathematically, that's impossible, so someone's going to be deprived of that "privilege", is that not correct?
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.
Religious expression is certainly one of those liberties, is it not? By what right does Judge Moore deny that liberty to others who seek time in the public square? And if that question sounds familiar, I think I asked it of you about 700 posts ago ;)
Mathematically, that's impossible, so someone's going to be deprived of that "privilege", is that not correct?
Could be. We could always avoid that particular can of worms by not allowing any religious displays in the first place. I'm personally inclined to go with a "best effort" standard in that sort of thing, but we could assure complete fairness by closing the door to everyone, if you like.
In other words you're telling me that atheism, according to their legal reasoning, can be a religion within the meaning of the free-exercise clause, but not within the meaning of the establishment clause? Weren't you castigating me yesterday for saying that religion can have a different meaning in one clause than in the other?
And regarding your earlier point that promotion of atheism, while you say it would not likely violate the establishment clause, might nonetheless violate the free-exercise clause, I have a couple of comments. The first is that this interpretation I'd think would tend to make the establishment clause redundant, since the promotion of any religious belief would, by that reasoning, interfere with the free exercise of other religions. Secondly, it would be difficult to make the case that promotion of atheism, in a way that doesn't involve any coercion, can seriously be considered to be interfering with people's ability to worship as they see fit. If that were the case, then similar promotion of a secular viewpoint would violate freedom of speech.
I think I ought to revisit this before it gets too far away and I forget about it. I'm not sure it's entirely accurate to say that this is merely an "assumption", either on my part or on the part of the courts. I'm not simply assuming, in the absence of any support, that the 14'th applies the establishment clause to the states - that is the law. It's sort of like objecting that I'm just assuming that a carrot is an edible orange vegetable that grows underground and has a long, tapering shape to it. That's not an assumption - that's what a carrot is, as a matter of definition. The courts are responsible, at the moment, for defining what the meaning and applications of the 14'th amendment are - it's not an assumption on their part any more than the nature of a carrot is an assumption by the folks at Webster's. Defining it is what they do. We may disagree with their definition, but that really doesn't make it an assumption, nor am I simply assuming that this is the law when I report it to you - that is, in fact, the law, by definition.
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?
By what right does Judge Moore deny that liberty to others who seek time in the public square?
and then say:
but we could assure complete fairness by closing the door to everyone, if you like.
Either people have the "privilege" of putting displays in the public square, or they don't. If they do, then "closing the door to everyone" would be just as unacceptable as closing the door to some people. Unless, of course, you wanted to argue the case on equal-protection grounds ;-)
To be protected by the 1st Amendment, it is not necessary to classify non-religion as a "religion." The prohibition on establishment of religion and restrictions on the free exercise thereof necessarily and logically ban any compulsion to worship - and therefore would protect one's right to freely worship no religion at all. That doesn't make it a "religion." It is oxymoronic to claim that the opposite of religion is religion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.