- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 23,281
- Reaction score
- 18,289
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
I did not intend to suggest that the rule was "neat" or "easy." The borders for this kind of thing are undoubtedly fuzzy, which is one reason why they keep cropping up in the courts. But that is the general principle: If it seems to be establishing a state religion rather than displaying a historical element, it's problematic. Thus, some but not all 10 Commandment displays do in fact get removed from public spaces.Far from wrapping up the distinction in a neat rule....
What else is new? We could say the same for freedom of expression, for segregation, obscenity ("I know it when I see it"), for all sorts of issues. The complexity in implementation, however, does not prove that the underlying principles are excessively complicated.The Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence is as unclear and difficult as it gets.
It's in the nature of how that public area had been used as a "public forum" for years, and the cross was planted right next to a menorah set up by another group of citizens. Sorry, I forgot to mention that particular exception.And I wonder how you would fit Capitol Square Review Board into your rule about the Establishment Clause question turning on "part of a larger display," "primarily for historical ends," etc. The Court held that crosses the KKK was allowed to erect on public land across from the Ohio state capitol did not violate the Establishment Clause, and yet they were neither part of a larger display nor displayed primarily for historical purposes. Tell us how that squares with McCreary County.
At any rate, like I said: It's all about the context. In that case, the context of that space was sufficient to make it clear that the cross was not set up by the state as an attempt to command citizens to follow a religion.
You're missing the point. Atheists are not "killjoys" because they don't want a state-sanctioned religion shoved down their throats. Nor do such ad hominems help your cause.Ah, what wit! Adultery has traditionally been a crime in most states....
Then this case should give you absolutely no cause for concern.My concern is the right of Americans to celebrate and promote traditional American culture and values in the face of harassment by America-loathing atheists who ironically call themselves "liberal."
If you want to promote "traditional values" (whatever the hell that means), no one is stopping you. Just do it on private property, or in a space that is set up as a public forum. Problem solved.
Please, spare us the ad hominem attacks.What they really are is today Puritans--self-righteous, close-minded prigs who want to boss around everyone they think is less morally enlightened than they are.
Uh, no. In this case, and in many other cases, it's freedom of expression. Just look at... Capital Square.Right idea, wrong freedom. It's not the freedom of speech that overly strict interpretations of the Establishment Clause threatens, but the right to free exercise of religion.
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIf a fire breaks out in the kitchen at First Baptist as the ladies in the flock are busily preparing for the church bake sale, shouldn't the city fire department just let it burn? After all a municipal government is only a creature of the state where it's located. And if the Establishment Clause means strict separation of church and state, we can't have the state government helping a church, can we?
The "separation of church and state" does not mean "the state shall provide no services whatsoever to any religious entity." Absolutely nothing in my argument lends itself to such wild misinterpretations.