thereisnospoon
Gold Member
Fine. However, in this case no one was harmed. Hence the reason why the original ruling was overturned.That is true but not accurate.The establishment clause is a federal mandate and has supremacy over "community standards".
Example...In a small town near here the government opened every town meeting with a short payer. This has been done for many many years in this town and was more traditional than secular.
A few years ago, a woman who claimed to be a worshiper of a Wiccan sect attended a council meeting and when exposed to the prayer decided to hire an attorney. She filed suit claiming the town violated ( here we go again) the "separation of Church and State".
The town had a great defense but decided to not fight it due to budgetary issues. The attorney representing the plaintiff handled the case pro bono.
Fast forward to today...The town of Great Falls, SC still opens their meeting with a prayer but keeps the prayer non denominational.
At the end of the day, we get to run our lives the way we want so as long as we bring no harm to others.
There are those who like to say things such as "federal mandate and has supremacy over "community standards", to make themselves feel better.
That's ok. The procedure by which one must lodge a complaint leaves so much lag time, the process of government intervention is really quite useless.
Once again, we're talking about liberty life and the pursuit of happiness vs a person who sees things differently in the realm of religion who has a bone to pick.
People in general are sick of complaining whining "special needs" people who at the slightest inconvenience run to the courts which then rule in favor of the lowest common denominator.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one. The masses need not suffer but for the actions or desires of a few.
We say that the establishment clause has precedence over community standards because that is a factual statement.
By reading your post: basically the communities who still adhere to their community standards do so because they haven't been challenged yet. The ones that do, fold.
A purely utilitarian view point "the needs of the many" is not carte blanche to violate someone's constitutional rights.
The "needs of the many" has been used in the past to justify things like segregation.
Again, the issue is that we are a nation of laws.
You cannot produce a single piece of evidence that connects the needs of the may to racial segregation.
That is a different issue. If you wish to argue it, I welcome you to start a thread on that subject.
No one's constitutional rights were violated here. This hullabaloo was based on a complaint by ONE person who was basically pissed off because his kid's pristine ears would be subjected to name of the Lord.
What is your goal here? Is it the total ban of religion from public view? If not, what?
Instead of digging your heels in and insisting how things should be from your point of view,how about solutions?
We must cast aside our sensitivity to annoyance.
There is a difference between inconvenience and violation of civil rights.
This case is about one person being inconvenienced.