The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case today on whether Pleasant Grove City, Utah, violated free speech rights and the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The city allowed a national group to place a Ten Commandments display in a city park but then denied another religious group from placing its own historical display. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled that the city was free to ban all displays if it wanted to, but that once it decided to allow the Ten Commandments it had no right to bar the other display. Do you agree?
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
60 Comments
What is the problem here? If the Christian religion can have their 10 Commandments then why not allow other religions their stuff? Isn’t that what Freedom of Religion is all about?
Depends. The issue is not as simple as it seems. If the displays are wholly or in large part religious in nature, they should not be permitted at all. However, history includes the role of religious belief and practice in our culture, so in a historical display it’s not always so easy to separate out the “religion” from the history.
Once you open the door to ‘religious’ displays, however, it becomes very difficult to close that door. Gov’t cannot be seen as favoring one religous belief over another, or even religion over non-belief.
“The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled that the city was free to ban all displays if it wanted to, but that once it decided to allow the Ten Commandments it had no right to bar the other display. Do you agree?”
Yes.
“If the Christian religion can have their 10 Commandments then why not allow other religions their stuff? Isn’t that what Freedom of Religion is all about?”
Exactly.
“…so in a historical display it’s not always so easy to separate out the ‘religion’ from the history.”
Leave to a lawyer to make simple things complicated.
Yes, the city either has to display ANY and ALL religious displays that citizens want or none at all.
That’s why the government has to stay out of the religion business . . .
the ten commandments are part of Jewish culture, not oursw.
omg….I feel faint…I am actually in agreement with capn.
Government absolutely must stay out of the religion business.
Now…if we could just get religion to stay out of government business….
THe city has “freedom of choice”. Their choice: Ban them all or allow them all.
To only select one ‘religious’ display is to endorse that religion.
So you end up with an ‘in for a penny in for a pound’ scenario.
Yep. If it’s a private historical display, then why would this group have any precedence over other groups? The only limitations I could see justified would restrictions on space, in which case “first come, first served” becomes the rule.
Sorry, GMC, this one is a no-brainer.
beber
Posted November 12, 2008 at 1:43 pm | Permalink
the ten commandments are part of Jewish culture, not oursw
–
Then why is it only the Christians who get bent out of shape about the Ten Commandments being in a public display or being removed?
I haven’t seen many Rabbis or Jewish people protesting about this matter.
“Now…if we could just get religion to stay out of government business….”
_
*CLAPS WILDLY FOR RAPTOR*
Christians take the brunt of the descrimination for example: they are not allowed to say a prayer when they want to or carry a Bible in thier back pack at school for fear that it might offend someone. For several years now society has pushed so hard to make sure they are not making anyone else “feel uncomfortable” or convicted that we have almost encouraged other religious beleifs. I do think that because of what our country stands for we should have the freedome to practice any religion we want to openly and withough shame or worry of offending someone. I mean, God forbid we say a prayer in public, but yet worldly views are shoved down our throats every time we turn on the TV or walk down the street. I just think that we should all have equal freedom to worship what and how we choose to do so (baring human sacrifice of course..lol)and I think that it’s pretty silly that a couple of stone pillars could offend anyone. Devil horns and ghost hunter shows don’t bother me beause I don’t worship them. To me, if you don’t worship God, then the ten comandements are just a couple of worthless peices of stone and nothing more..why does it bother you so much unless of course you feel convicted…
Government absolutely must stay out of the religion business.
Yup. No argument there.
Unfortunately, the lines between what is “religion” and what is not are not as clear as it would seem.
Ok, a bit of misinformation there, hoochy.
First, you are more than welcome to say a prayer whenever you want or carry around a Bible in your backpack at school. In high school there was a prayer circle at the flagpole almost every day. I also saw students pray openly before lunch together. What’s not allowed is being in a position where you hold a position of power and lead a prayer in a public school: i.e., a teacher or principal leading a prayer during class time. However, teachers are welcome to lead prayers in after or before school groups. This setup prevents students from being uncomfortable if they are forced to sit through a prayer against their beliefs. If a Hindu teacher lead a prayer to Ganesha during English class, wouldn’t you throw a fit?
Second, nobody is arguing about the stone pillars offending anyone. The issue here is the government allowing one religious display, and not another. Religious discrimination, if you will. Just like it shouldn’t matter if the ten commandments offend an angry teenage atheist, it also should not matter if a Vishnu sculpture offends a Christian.
All or nothing, I think that sounds reasonable. Of course, this does open the door to displays that are only meant to offend or ridicule (FSM, for example). As long as it’s not obscene, that’s freedom of speech.
i wonder if hoochy knows what hoochy means?
well, I guess you could be a nude whore in a carnival, and still believe in God.
Sorry.
beber, I wondered how to reconcile the nic and the post.
I have eaten lunch with my son when he was in school and would frequently see a child pray before he ate. Never once did I see one shot or anything else for doing that.
I have alse seen the flagpole prayer thing – they didn’t get gunned down either.
Methinks hoochy has been hitting the hooch a bit early this morning.
Well said Tahine_Tara. I have never known of any Christian not being able to pray or carry a Bible in school.
What I find ironic is that these Christians are always yelling ‘prosecution of discrimination’ of their religion but they don’t seem to care if it is anyone else’s religion that gets discriminated against.
Case in point – the Evangelical Christians want prayer in school but I don’t hear them demanding that a Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Catholic or any other religion’s prayer be included – just theirs.
That is the problem – either have them all of have none!
correction: have them all or have none!
I find little to be offended about with the ten commandments. The problem is the wording: Thou shalt not . . . That gives it a religious overtone, regardless of meaning. As such, displaying it, or any other religious symbol, statue, oracle, etc., is something the government should avoid at all costs.
Now the FSM, with recipes, is another story altogether.
Yes I agree.
Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
I used to very strongly ENCOURAGE prayer in my classes … every time I gave a chemistry exam!
kia – to a large extent we have to have BOTH. In order for a person to be able to practice HIS religion he must be protected from having to follow the dictates of someone else’s religion.
Yes I agree.
Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
Since the First Amendment only restrains the government, Freedom OF religion = freedom FROM religion. It is literally impossible to have one without the other.
Hooch,
The problem is that historically the cross has been used as a bludgeon far too often. I remember how hard homeowner’s associations fought to keep “those dirty jews” from buying homes in their neighborhoods. I’ve seen kids beaten up at school because they weren’t christian, or even the “right kind” of christian. I’ve seen swastikas painted on synagogues. I’ve known children who were beaten for not saying prayers. I’ve even seen Hindus chased out of stores for being Muslim(?)! I find it laughable that you christians are screaming discrimination after victimizing any and all other religious beliefs for centuries. Hey, what’s good for the goose….
“Christians take the brunt of the descrimination ”
Will I get arrested this year when I attend Midnight Mass Christmas Eve?
I don’t disagree with you. I am my belief belongs in the public square as much as anyone else’s.
I understood what GMC meant by separation of history and religion, Utah history is one of the religion that was the building block of the state. The two are hard to separate, therefore a symbol of their religion is a symbol of their history. I have pointed out there is a image of Moses on the Supreme court building. As our laws were shaped and impacted by the ten Commandments. As was Old English Common law which is a main foundation of our laws.
A image of this states history would include “John Brown” and his image would be one of holding a Bible.
As he claimed it was God and the Bible that caused him to take his actions. Here is also a little history of the public display of the ten commandments. Most were donated by the Order Of the Eagle and it was a publicity stunt by the Movie studio that was releasing the Movie “The Ten Commandment” with Charlton Hesston.
A image of this states history would include “John Brown” and his image would be one of holding a Bible.
As is shown in the painting in the State capitol. As it should be.
The Supreme Court also has the Code of Hammarabi.
Ya know, this is one of those issues, y’all, where I suspect there is broad agreement. Gov’t, as much as possible, should be religion neutral, neither promoting nor condemning any religion, nor religion over non-religion, nor non-religion over religion.
However, in a religious nation (and we are) and a largely Christian nation (which we are, Christian being broadly defined to include both Catholics and the various Protestant denominations), it is difficult if not impossible to entirely separate religion from our public institutions. Our public institutions reflect our mostly common faith – what is often referred to as “civil religion.” The use of religious symbolism on our money, and, as noted above, religious symbols on our public buildings (the supreme Court building noted above) are but a few examples. Many of those symbols were commonly accepted in a less litigous (is that the right spelling?)age, and now, for good or bad, are part of our common heritage.
No one (at least, no one remotely in the mainstream of political/social thought) wants to impose any religous faith on others. But deciding just where the hard / fast lines are is not as easy as it would sometimes seem.
The use of religious symbolism on our money
I more or less agree with what you’re saying, but that’s a poor example, as addition of religious symbolism on our currency is something that was promoted for a century by those who insisted upon official acknowledgment of a deity. The same with the changing of our national motto from “E pluribus unum” (out of many, one) to the exclusionary “In God we trust.”
The trick, ultimately, is to look to the context.
Perhaps the mainstream never favored such cheap gestures, but absent vocal opposition it does happen.
Shoot them in the head, wait, that was my advice for terrorists – works for atheists as well.
Shoot them in the head, wait, that was my advice for terrorists – works for atheists as well.
A charming sentiment, Reggie.
How it’s going? Seriously, I’m asking.
Any lasting issues from the incident? Apparently you can type, anyway.
Glad to see you’re still kickin’ Regular!
“No one (at least, no one remotely in the mainstream of political/social thought) wants to impose any religous faith on others.”
Well, it would be virtually impossible to impose FAITH on anyone. But MANY Christians DO attempt to impose certain dictates of their faith on others through legislation, intimidation, etc.
Christians do their own hitting back you know. Recently, some artists wanted to construct an astronomical circle in Sedgwick county park. There was no religious component to the art at all. BUT some Christians complained that it was “Pagan” and so the art was not allowed.
Done with your histrionics and nic switching following the election there Jimmuh?
“works for atheists as well.”
Back where I grew up they said that about Catholics, Jews, and blacks. I guess you would fit right in.
#
Rage
Posted November 12, 2008 at 5:49 pm | Permalink
Shoot them in the head, wait, that was my advice for terrorists – works for atheists as well.
A charming sentiment, Reggie.
How it’s going? Seriously, I’m asking.
Any lasting issues from the incident? Apparently you can type, anyway.
—————
Still have loss of vision in my right eye and general weakness. Will take some time, doing physical and occupational therapy to regain muscle strength and coordination.
” religious symbolism on our money”
Like the New World Order?
Still have loss of vision in my right eye and general weakness. Will take some time, doing physical and occupational therapy to regain muscle strength and coordination.
That’s good, I guess. Could be worse.
*************************
While I don’t normally participate such silliness, regarding JimJohnson, people, click this link:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Wichita+eagle+%22We+blog%22+siht&num=100&hl=en&safe=off&filter=0
Now: pull up each WEBlog page, and text-search “siht” (using F3 key). I think you’ll find it enlightening.
Rage, I see that both JimJohnson and MaxGrobnik use that spelling of that word, and flood the blog with inane posts when they appear, inflame at every opportunity. Oh, and JimJohnson appeared about the time Max disappeared. Did I miss anything?
Not a thing, Linda!
Hey, McCluer–
What’s with the “JimJohnson” nic?
Did you think we weren’t going to notice?
The dude is too easily amused . . .
Whatever. I think Occam’s razor is getting dull.
regardless of the detractors who think I’m posting as someone else, I don’t.
I can barely read the screen with patchwork spots of light and dark making its way through. Not posting much, because I’m just too weak to do so right now and too easy tired.
Glad there is some amusement for the conspiracy kiddies.
Regular-
Hope youi have a 100% recovery.
Oh BS!
Sheesh, if you’re going to lie, at least learn to lie well, McCluer.
Or better yet, stick with your promise to leave the WEBlog forever . . .
LJ–
How many times does this guy have to lie before you conclude that he’s a damned liar?
Recovery? From what?
Pathological mendacity?
littlejohn,
Since you seem to believe what multi-nic’d Regular posts, find the proof to his (false) claim that the Sierra Club “screwed” the New Orleans levees.
Capn, cosmos, if it’s BS, it comes with the promise of much fewer posts. I hardly imagine you would regard that as a bad thing.
I would also point that there is a difference between being skeptical of a liar and presuming that the person is some sort of icon of lying, who can never, ever tell the truth. In this instance, what exactly would be his motivation?
Are you afraid his comments will suddenly gain new credibility out of some sense of misplaced sympathy? I kinda doubt that.
I see no harm in acknowledging our common humanity–that’s rather off-message for the most obnoxious righties, in case you haven’t noticed.
I have previously stated, repeatedly, how silly, reckless and futile all the mutual accusations of “nic-switching” are. My view hasn’t changed.
And as I noted upthread, Occam’s razor could use a little sharpening.
Thank you Rage, sometimes you bring out the best in me.
You’re welcome.
Rage,
Considering Regular’s past obnoxious behavior, multiple nics, and numerous lies on this blog, the proverb, “a liar is not believed even if he tells the truth” seems more appropriate than Occams razor.
“cosmos_originally” shares –
“Considering Regular’s past obnoxious behavior, multiple nics, and numerous lies on this blog, the proverb, “a liar is not believed even if he tells the truth” seems more appropriate than Occams razor.”
Yup.
And I’ll admit I was a bit skeptical of “Regular’s” post that morning.
I mean, if it had happened to me the last thing I would do is post on WE Blog my symptoms. I’d call 9-1-1!
I refrained at the time to snark back, “Yeah ‘Regular,’ you’ve always been blind on the right!”
It occurred to me that poor ol’ pathetic “Regular” might be so desperate for some kind of human contact, his contributions to this forum are the closest thing he’s got to significance in the world. Sad, really.
Bottom line for me: A stroke isn’t a laughing matter (unless it’s a really, really good joke. Or, for some CONs when it came to discussing “Chas,” when you have nothing else to say.)
I really don’t care about the on-going nym debates about who may or may not be a sock-puppet for this poster or another. I’m not particularly thrilled that “boxlock” or “MaxGrobnik” and “Regular” might be one and the same, or not. Or that “Econ101″ had a real name in the real world but showed up as “Franklin” or “JimJohnson” or whomever. I even go so far as assuming “Nathan” and “Nathaniel” might be different people. (Okay, maybe not that far.)
Anyway…
Occam isn’t as appropriate as Aesop.
Seperation of Church and State, all or none. That is the Constitutional Law. Read Admendment 1 too the U.S. Constitution. The State or Governement can not pick and choose any religion by bias. It must remain neutral. http://www.MiamiCountyOpinion.com Herbert West 3rd.
“HerbertWestIII” –
Should we be referring to you as Sheriff West now?
cosmos_originally
Posted November 12, 2008 at 7:45 pm | Permalink
littlejohn,
Since you seem to believe what multi-nic’d Regular posts, find the proof to his (false) claim that the Sierra Club “screwed” the New Orleans levees.
****************************************
Find it yourself. It wasn;t my claim, I don;t own it, and I don;t give a damn. Since you don’t believe REgular’s posts, find proof he was lying about the stroke. Please use outside, peer reviewed sources.
CapnAmerica
Posted November 12, 2008 at 7:25 pm | Permalink
LJ–
How many times does this guy have to lie before you conclude that he’s a damned liar?
Recovery? From what?
Pathological mendacity?
*******************************************
I have called out Regular more than once. For his attitude, for his treatment of people, and his apparent falsehoods. I have also seen him needlessly attacked because he gave an unpopular opinion. I have seen more than one liar, or more properly, deflector of the truth on this blog. ANd certainly more than one person with a bad attitude and a general proclivity towards mistreatment of those they disagree with. I have no proof he is lying. REgardless of his past behavior, I will take him at his word. My choice. One that doesn;t harm me in the least. Big deal.
#
littlejohn
Posted November 13, 2008 at 7:43 am | Permalink
cosmos_originally
Posted November 12, 2008 at 7:45 pm | Permalink
littlejohn,
Since you seem to believe what multi-nic’d Regular posts, find the proof to his (false) claim that the Sierra Club “screwed” the New Orleans levees.
****************************************
Find it yourself. It wasn;t my claim, I don;t own it, and I don;t give a damn. Since you don’t believe REgular’s posts, find proof he was lying about the stroke. Please use outside, peer reviewed sources.
—————–
Or they can come with me on Friday and participate in my physical and occupational health therapy sessions.
As far as strokes go, it was a relatively minor , but not to me, it knocked my hat in the dirt and will take me a while to recover fully. Plus, I;m in that high risk stage right now for even a more damaging stroke.
Strokes suck…