Ten Commandments Controversy Moves West

[musicman]

matts:

"Okay, so the popularity of a religion makes it practically the official religion".

No, it doesn't. Remember, matts, "words mean things". I've tried to stay within the spirit of this thread, and address government expenditure on a local level. Frankly, this works in your favor. I'm not even going to ask you to defend government support of offensive material on a FEDERAL level (such as NEA sponsorship of Nelson Serranto's "Piss Christ" - a photograph of a crucifix immersed in a jar of urine, Robert Mapplethorpe's, "The Perfect Moment", a photographic exhibit which featured child pornography and a self-portrait of the Aids-ridden "artist" himself, with a bullwhip protruding from his anus, and funding for PBS - that nonstop infomercial for the DNC). Our founding fathers kept the federal government out of the "establishment of an official religion" business - not because they sought to exclude religion from public life(read any amount of Madison, Washington, or Franklin's thoughts on THAT matter) - but, because they judged - rightly - that this was a matter for communities to decide. It is the entire basis for our system of government. The government that governs least, governs best. The federal level has specific, limited powers and responsibilities. After that, power, by constitutional design, devolves - to the states, and, ultimately, to the community.

But, you don't give a shit what the community wants; no secular humanist does. Statues of Roman and Greek gods are a matter of complete indifference to secular humanists - mere quaint oddities. But, then, they don't raise the disquieting - and therefore offensive - specter of an objective, unchanging morality which exists outside yourself. It's a little hard to promote your "strawberry fields - nothing is real" philosophy when all around you are blatant signs that the community thinks you a reprobate and a fool. Screw them! They need to stop bringing you down - even if you are only one secular humanist in a town of 65,000 Christians. "Help! Protect me! My sensibilities are being offended by a judgemental majority!"

You don't seek to remove religion from the public arena - you seek to replace it with one of your own.

 

[mattskramer]

I've tried to stay within the spirit of this thread, and address government expenditure on a local level.

If the government, even the local government spends one cent on religious material, it is spending too much.

Frankly, this works in your favor. I'm not even going to ask you to defend government support of offensive material on a FEDERAL level (such as NEA sponsorship of Nelson Serranto's "Piss Christ" - a photograph of a crucifix immersed in a jar of urine, Robert Mapplethorpe's, "The Perfect Moment", a photographic exhibit which featured child pornography and a self-portrait of the Aids-ridden "artist" himself, with a bullwhip protruding from his anus, and funding for PBS - that nonstop infomercial for the DNC).

I will answer your question with you having asked it. I am opposed to such funding. I think that the NEA should not exist. I think that PBS should not exist. I oppose any and all government of the arts.

Our founding fathers kept the federal government out of the "establishment of an official religion" business - not because they sought to exclude religion from public life (read any amount of Madison, Washington, or Franklin's thoughts on THAT matter) - but, because they judged - rightly - that this was a matter for communities to decide. It is the entire basis for our system of government. The government that governs least, governs best. The federal level has specific, limited powers and responsibilities. After that, power, by constitutional design, devolves - to the states, and, ultimately, to the community.

After that, power, by constitutional design, devolves - to the states, and, ultimately, to the individual.Talk is cheap. When the government accepts one religious art work over another religious art work it is, almost by definition, playing favorites. I'll ask you a question. If I create a statue of Satan or Buddha, should the government accept such statues as donations?

But, you don't give a shit what the community wants; no secular humanist does.

No, I don't. When it comes to supporting one religion over another I don't care want the community wants. If particular members of a community want to display the "10 Commandments" they can pull their resources, buy land, hire an artist to crate a statue of the "10 Commandments" and put it on the land that they own. They should be allowed to call on government to force me to contribute to the things that they want.

Statues of Roman and Greek gods are a matter of complete indifference to secular humanists - mere quaint oddities. But, then, they don't raise the disquieting - and therefore offensive - specter of an objective, unchanging morality which exists outside yourself.

What a convoluted sentence. First of all, I speak for myself and nobody else. I don't speak for secular humanists. Secondly, your assumes that there is a morality outside myself. This has yet to be proven.

It's a little hard to promote your "strawberry fields - nothing is real" philosophy when all around you are blatant signs that the community thinks you a reprobate and a fool. Screw them! They need to stop bringing you down - even if you are only one secular humanist in a town of 65,000 Christians. "Help! Protect me! My sensibilities are being offended by a judgemental majority!"

Popular opinion has been wrong before.

You don't seek to remove religion from the public arena - you seek to replace it with one of your own.

No, I do not. I want any and all religion removed from any and all tax support. I do not seek to replace it with my own religion. I seek to communicate my own religions views, or non-religious view, without help from your tax money. This is how it should be.

 

[musicman]

matts:

"If the government, even the local government, spends one cent on religious material, it is spending too much... When the government accepts one religious art work over another...it is playing favorites".

Nowhere in the constitution does it say "Communities shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion". All our founding fathers did was take the federal government out of the equation.

"If I create a Satan or Buddha, should the government accept such statues as donations?"

What you're really asking is, "Should a duly elected local government, which serves at the pleasure of it's community, be COMPELLED to accept such a donation in the name of some artificial notion of fairness?" The answer is, "no".

"I think the NEA should not exist. I think that PBS should not exist."

We are in complete agreement.

"What a convoluted sentence."

What's convoluted about it? Read the damn thing. Your assertion that no provable morality exists outside the self is what is convoluted. If a junkie undertakes to slit your throat, so that he may have your money for his next fix, who are you to say he's wrong? By what arrogance do you declare that your life is more important than his immediate needs? Are you asking him to acknowledge that right and wrong exist outside himself? Prove it!

"I do not seek to replace it with my own religion."

Religion is the means through which we understand that which is transcendant; that which exists outside ourselves, in the eternal, spiritual realm. Liberal socialist secular humanists, having subtracted objective morality from that equation, find transcendance in a specific political agenda - what Hillary Clinton has called, "The politics of meaning". So, when you listen to the latest pearls of wisdom that have fallen from the lips of Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, Gerrge Soros, Rosie O'Donnel, or John Kerry, what you're hearing is good old, down-home, fire-and-brimstone preaching. It's just preaching from a different realm. Whether you know it or not, matts, YOU'RE preaching a religion - and it's not a very tolerant one, either. It demands the obliteration of all others.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

If the government, even the local government spends one cent on religious material, it is spending too much.

Then the government should stop spending money on Christmas decorations in the White House.

Can you please tell me how on earth our Congressmen (of both parties) are getting away with the BLATANT spending of our tax dollars for CHRISTMAS decorations? Not to mention - according to you - the BLATANT disregard of our Constitution as well because they are OBVIOUSLY mixing religion with government. Christmas is a RELIGIOUS holiday you know! And the White House can't get any more government-y. Plus you must know the White House is spending a huge bundle of $money$ every year on such "ILLEGAL" frivolity.

How come the ACLU hasn't begun a LAWSUIT against the White House? Since this OBVIOUS illegality is so widely apparent to the whole country, it appears that the ACLU is actually being complicitous or at least approving of this OBVIOUS ILLEGAL matter by not legally challenging the existence of Christmas decorations at the White House.

Can you give me a logical answer to both questions? And please don't tell me that the Congressmen don't know the law or say that the ACLU doesn't have the financial wherewithal to start such a lawsuit.

 

[Moi]

Then the government should stop spending money on Christmas decorations in the White House.

Can you please tell me how on earth our Congressmen (of both parties) are getting away with the BLATANT spending of our tax dollars for CHRISTMAS decorations? Not to mention - according to you - the BLATANT disregard of our Constitution as well because they are OBVIOUSLY mixing religion with government. Christmas is a RELIGIOUS holiday you know! And the White House can't get any more government-y. Plus you must know the White House is spending a huge bundle of $money$ every year on such "ILLEGAL" frivolity.

How come the ACLU hasn't begun a LAWSUIT against the White House? Since this OBVIOUS illegality is so widely apparent to the whole country, it appears that the ACLU is actually being complicitous or at least approving of this OBVIOUS ILLEGAL matter by not legally challenging the existence of Christmas decorations at the White House.

Can you give me a logical answer to both questions? And please don't tell me that the Congressmen don't know the law or say that the ACLU doesn't have the financial wherewithal to start such a lawsuit.

Actually, I believe that White House decorations have nothing to do with congress but the President's staff. As the President's "residence", his religous decoration can be displayed out of the view of the public.

However, be that as it may, there have been many cases in which the public has sought judicial relief on "public" displays for holidays...the court has been quite ready to attack such cases. Secular decorations like snowmen, christmas trees, etc. are usually allowed- religious ones such as a creche are not. The alternative is to includde all religious symbols in a display...menorah, creche, whatever so as to be inclusive and not directly representing only one.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Actually, I believe that White House decorations have nothing to do with congress but the President's staff. As the President's "residence", his religous decoration can be displayed out of the view of the public.

However, be that as it may, there have been many cases in which the public has sought judicial relief on "public" displays for holidays...the court has been quite ready to attack such cases. Secular decorations like snowmen, christmas trees, etc. are usually allowed- religious ones such as a creche are not. The alternative is to includde all religious symbols in a display...menorah, creche, whatever so as to be inclusive and not directly representing only one.

Please don't avoid this argument by pleading "judicial relief" or "secular decorations". The reason I am mentioning our Congressmen is that they are the ones who make our laws, know our laws. They know the Constitution. They also attend White House functions. Are you telling me that for years and years our Congressmen have been participating in and/or observing unlawful activity in the nearby White House, a government-funded institution?

The Christmas decorations at the White House are placed in the public areas for all to see. We are not talking about the private quarters of the President. These are public areas of the White House that are used for State functions, parties, and whatnot. All of which, I might add, are paid for by the taxes that we citizens pay out of our paychecks.

Again, why is the ACLU not complaining about such illegal religious decorations right there in the nation's capitol? Or are they just too busy running around attacking Christmas and other forms of "illegal religion" in the weaker communities?

 

[Moi]

Please don't avoid this argument by pleading "judicial relief" or "secular decorations". The reason I am mentioning our Congressmen is that they are the ones who make our laws, know our laws. They know the Constitution. They also attend White House functions. Are you telling me that for years and years our Congressmen have been participating in and/or observing unlawful activity in the nearby White House, a government-funded institution?

The Christmas decorations at the White House are placed in the public areas for all to see. We are not talking about the private quarters of the President. These are public areas of the White House that are used for State functions, parties, and whatnot. All of which, I might add, are paid for by the taxes that we citizens pay out of our paychecks.

Again, why is the ACLU not complaining about such illegal religious decorations right there in the nation's capitol? Or are they just too busy running around attacking Christmas and other forms of "illegal religion" in the weaker communities?

I have avoided nothing. Congress doesn't control the white house decorations and certainly need not make laws pertaining to them for the "law" is quite clear. It was written decades ago and starts with the phrase "we the people".

Oh, but perhaps you are unaware of the court's jurisdiction (and thus relevance) and do not know how to read a court decision- if that's the case, I shall elaborate for you: the court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of laws. As such it has determined in many cases that secular displays of holiday decorations are allowed on public property and by public funds. Christmas trees and such are secular holiday decorations. Also, the courts have determined that if a display pays homage to more than one religion (therefore not professing just one) they are also allowed on a limited basis.

It's as simple as that.

 

[mattskramer]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say "Communities shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion". All our founding fathers did was take the federal government out of the equation.

True but I would go one or two steps further and apply it at the state level too.

What you're really asking is, "Should a duly elected local government, which serves at the pleasure of it's community, be COMPELLED to accept such a donation in the name of some artificial notion of fairness?" The answer is, "no".

We disagree. I think that the duly elected local government should be compelled to refuse any and all donated items that have the slightest hint of denoting religion (or accept all such items).

Your assertion that no provable morality exists outside the self is what is convoluted. If a junkie undertakes to slit your throat, so that he may have your money for his next fix, who are you to say he's wrong? By what arrogance do you declare that your life is more important than his immediate needs? Are you asking him to acknowledge that right and wrong exist outside himself? Prove it!

People establish their own perspective on moral issues. Some attempt to use logic. Some people rely on religious books. Some apply sociopolitical philosophy. Other people use different things. My moral philosophy can be summed up in two sentences: In general, people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others. Government should do little more than punish those who commit fraud and violence. Therefore, it would be wrong for him to slit my throat. I take my moral views from an individualistic moderately Libertarian philosophy. You may take yours from a roughly 2000 year-old book. In either case, per your example, we reach the same conclusion that it would be wrong for him to slit my throat.

Religion is the means through which we understand that which is transcendant; that which exists outside ourselves, in the eternal, spiritual realm.

You assume that such exists.

Liberal socialist secular humanists, having subtracted objective morality from that equation, find transcendance in a specific political agenda - what Hillary Clinton has called, "The politics of meaning". So, when you listen to the latest pearls of wisdom that have fallen from the lips of Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, Gerrge Soros, Rosie O'Donnel, or John Kerry, what you're hearing is good old, down-home, fire-and-brimstone preaching. It's just preaching from a different realm. Whether you know it or not, matts, YOU'RE preaching a religion - and it's not a very tolerant one, either. It demands the obliteration of all others.

I don't speak for secular humanists or Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy or Michael Moore. I speak for myself. Secular humanists and I might agree on some things and disagree on other things. John Kerry and I might agree on some things and disagree on other things. There is no objective morality - merely popular moral views, considered to be universal, that people have established for themselves from various sources and different means. I also listened to some "pearls of wisdom" from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and George Bush. Yes. People preach. I preach. You preach. If I am preaching a religion I am not calling on government to subsidize my preaching. On the other hand, by virtue of your support for the government's acceptance and maintenance of the "10 Commandments" via my tax money, you are calling on the government to subsidize your preaching. My "religion" is very tolerant and fair. You are free to believe that God exists. You are free to tell people that God exists. You are free to build a religious statue on your property. You are not free to demand that government use my tax money to support your religious expression - and neither am I.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I have avoided nothing. Congress doesn't control the white house decorations and certainly need not make laws pertaining to them for the "law" is quite clear. It was written decades ago and starts with the phrase "we the people".

Oh, but perhaps you are unaware of the court's jurisdiction (and thus relevance) and do not know how to read a court decision- if that's the case, I shall elaborate for you: the court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of laws. As such it has determined in many cases that secular displays of holiday decorations are allowed on public property and by public funds. Christmas trees and such are secular holiday decorations. Also, the courts have determined that if a display pays homage to more than one religion (therefore not professing just one) they are also allowed on a limited basis.

It's as simple as that.

No, it's not that simple. And you are avoiding the main questions.

Congress ultimately controls the purse strings that provide the funds for the White House decorations. It is their responsibility to cut the funds if the funds are going towards something illegal like religious decorations in the White House, a government building. Right?

And again I ask: Why hasn't the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the White House?

I am perfectly aware of the court's jurisdiction and per our Constitution it does not have the right to prohibit Christian or other religious expressions in the public square as long as nobody is being forced to believe in them. Are you being forced to believe in Christianity because there's a Nativity Scene in the public square? I think not.

And why is it the court allows some displays and not others? Why should the courts allow only a "limited" display? Either you have freedom of expression or you don't. Seems like the courts are all for allowing freedom of expression for pornography in the public arena. Why don't the courts allow for the freedom of expression of religion in the public arena as well? Or are the courts perhaps biased?

Secularism is a belief system just like religion is. Secularists are atheists who don't believe in God. I believe that the enforcement of secularism in the public square to the exclusion of anything else is just the same as enforcing Christianity in the public square to the exclusion of anything else.
Both are bad.

 

[Moi]

Seems like the courts are all for allowing freedom of expression for pornography in the public arena. Why don't the courts allow for the freedom of expression of religion in the public arena as well? Or are the courts perhaps biased?

I've answered your other questions, but simply because you don't understand or agree you say I didn't. Well, I'm not going to keep hitting my head on a brick wall.

However, I will answer this one. The reason is, again very simply, because there is no law prohibiting the government from establishing or endorsing pornography.

There is a law prohibiting the establishment of religion.

 

[musicman]

matts:

"True but I would go one or two steps further and apply it at the state level too...I think that the duly elected government should be compelled to refuse any and all donated items..."

I think I'm beginning to understand why you and I have been working at such cross-purposes. I've apparently been laboring under the misimpression that you're trying to explain the law as it exists, rather than the way you'd like it to be. If this is the case, I certainly apologize. Disagree with you though I might, I acknowledge your right to your own opinion, by all means.

"There is no objective morality - merely popular moral views..."

Ah, but as you're fond of pointing out, popular opinion is not always right! Absent the existence of objective morality, by what right do you deem your life more important than some poor, downtrodden junkie's need for a fix? Sounds like the tyranny of the majority to me. Aren't you being a bit "judgemental"? Why should the government jump in and make a call on a matter which is so clearly relativistic? Because the community desires it? This is a cut-and-dried case of the community trying to force it's "morals" down the throat of a poor little guy whose only sin - since we've established that there is no objective morality - is that his way of thinking differs from that of the majority. Ease up on the guy, matts! He's got rights, too. Just because "popularly held moral views" hold that murder is, somehow, "wrong", is no reason to get all shitty with him.

Finally, I've been trying like hell to point out one of secular humanism's most unsavory characteristics - it's rabid intolerance. It's proponents absolutely cannot countenance the sight, the sound, or the very existence of Christianity. It's as if Christianity, with it's adherence to an immutable truth which exists outside ourselves, produces a sound unbearable to their ears. You'll never see a Christian "theocracy". It couldn't exist; it is a contradiction in terms. But, a secular humanist tyranny is something you can watch unfolding before your very eyes.

 

[mattskramer]

Ah, but as you're fond of pointing out, popular opinion is not always right! Absent the existence of objective morality, by what right do you deem your life more important than some poor, downtrodden junkie's need for a fix?

There is no objective morality. Based on my belief in individualistic Libertarianism, people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others. Your turn. By what right do you deem your life to be more important than some poor, downtrodden junkie's need for a fix? Don't say that it is due to an absolute objective morality. That would result in a cyclical argument. It would be like saying that murder is wrong because murder is wrong.

Finally, I've been trying like hell to point out one of secular humanism's most unsavory characteristics - it's rabid intolerance. It's proponents absolutely cannot countenance the sight, the sound, or the very existence of Christianity. It's as if Christianity, with it's adherence to an immutable truth which exists outside ourselves, produces a sound unbearable to their ears. You'll never see a Christian "theocracy". It couldn't exist; it is a contradiction in terms. But, a secular humanist tyranny is something you can watch unfolding before your very eyes.

That may be. I don't speak for secular humanists. I speak for myself and I think that there should be no government support in any way shape or form that recognizes religion. I don't single out Christianity. My view applies to Islam, Judaism, and all other beliefs in the alleged supreme being(s).

 

[Moi]

Ah, but as you're fond of pointing out, popular opinion is not always right! Absent the existence of objective morality, by what right do you deem your life more important than some poor, downtrodden junkie's need for a fix?

I don't happen to be religious but I do believe there is morality exclusive of religion. It's a simple cost/benefit analysis. The cost of most immoral acts is anarchy therefore society is better off with limited exhibitions of it. Don't need to believe in a deity to see that.

As far as your question, what makes my life more important than a junkie's? Simple- action. Whereas they act for their own satisfaction and contribute nothing the the endurance of the earth or humans, I act to perpetuate the human race, this country and my family.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I've answered your other questions, but simply because you don't understand or agree you say I didn't. Well, I'm not going to keep hitting my head on a brick wall.

However, I will answer this one. The reason is, again very simply, because there is no law prohibiting the government from establishing or endorsing pornography.

There is a law prohibiting the establishment of religion.

Sorry if you're getting a headache. But I just love it how the liberal argument falls apart when you look at their two-faced approach to things.

Yes, I agree about the establishment of religion clause IF a religion is actually being established by the government. But none is. As I asked you before, how is putting a Nativity scene in the public square "establishing religion"? Are you REQUIRED by the government to believe in Christianity just because some Christians place a Christian-oriented statue in a public place? Flip-flop it: Is a Christian required to believe in paganism when the government only allows greek god statues?

When you prohibit a Christian from expressing in the public square you are stepping on the First Amendment. The public square is for the public - that means Christians, Jews, Secularists, Hindus, Muslims, you name it, NOT just Secularists. Also, it seems that if one can express pornographic art in the public square or other government funded venues, one should also be able to express religious decorative art as well. Some of those Christmas decorations are pretty artful.

I still am wondering why Congress is allowing the White House to break the law by "establishing religion" as you say people do by putting out their religious decorations in a public place. Celebrating Christmas in the White House, for Christ's sake!

I also am still wondering why the ACLU doesn't sue the White House for those "illegal religious establishment practices" that you say are against the Constitution of the United States. Maybe the ACLU lawyers are afraid they might not get a holiday invitation if they did. :baby:

 

[DKSuddeth]

Sorry if you're getting a headache. But I just love it how the liberal argument falls apart when you look at their two-faced approach to things.

:rotflmao:

You really should study and watch more of the board before you go spouting off about who's a liberal and who's not. You make yourself look rather ignorant calling Moi's arguments 'two-faced' and liberal.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

:rotflmao:

You really should study and watch more of the board before you go spouting off about who's a liberal and who's not. You make yourself look rather ignorant calling Moi's arguments 'two-faced' and liberal.

Well, I just took my cue from Moi's argument, not to mention the Euro name.

 

[Moi]

Sorry if you're getting a headache. But I just love it how the liberal argument falls apart when you look at their two-faced approach to things.

Yes, I agree about the establishment of religion clause IF a religion is actually being established by the government. But none is. As I asked you before, how is putting a Nativity scene in the public square "establishing religion"? Are you REQUIRED by the government to believe in Christianity just because some Christians place a Christian-oriented statue in a public place? Flip-flop it: Is a Christian required to believe in paganism when the government only allows greek god statues?

When you prohibit a Christian from expressing in the public square you are stepping on the First Amendment. The public square is for the public - that means Christians, Jews, Secularists, Hindus, Muslims, you name it, NOT just Secularists. Also, it seems that if one can express pornographic art in the public square or other government funded venues, one should also be able to express religious decorative art as well. Some of those Christmas decorations are pretty artful.

I still am wondering why Congress is allowing the White House to break the law by "establishing religion" as you say people do by putting out their religious decorations in a public place. Celebrating Christmas in the White House, for Christ's sake!

I also am still wondering why the ACLU doesn't sue the White House for those "illegal religious establishment practices" that you say are against the Constitution of the United States. Maybe the ACLU lawyers are afraid they might not get a holiday invitation if they did. :baby:

You should read more...I am NO liberal. Ask DK, I'm sure he'll vouch for me.

I am what's commonly called a strict constructionist. There are laws in this country that transcend liberal/conservative political viewpoints. They are more important to me than the point of electing people. My argument hasn't fallen apart. If for no other reason than you have apparently decided that my viewpoint is liberal and that I am anti-christian. I am neither.

Nor have you shed any light on the situation with your awkward and ill-targeted questions. If you want to know why people believe that it (the topic at hand, a statue of the 10 commandments on public property) violates the constitutional prohibition of establishing a religion that's another question. One, I'm afraid, which has been debated by greater minds than ours and is still being debated today. Suffice it to say that there are different interpretations that people can make and they are free to try and persuade people they are correct in theirs.

If, however, you really only want to know why the ACLU isn't suing the White House, ask them. Perhaps you will give them an idea to try

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You should read more...I am NO liberal. Ask DK, I'm sure he'll vouch for me.

I am what's commonly called a strict constructionist. There are laws in this country that transcend liberal/conservative political viewpoints. They are more important to me than the point of electing people. My argument hasn't fallen apart. If for no other reason than you have apparently decided that my viewpoint is liberal and that I am anti-christian. I am neither.

Nor have you shed any light on the situation with your awkward and ill-targeted questions. If you want to know why people believe that it (the topic at hand, a statue of the 10 commandments on public property) violates the constitutional prohibition of establishing a religion that's another question. One, I'm afraid, which has been debated by greater minds than ours and is still being debated today. Suffice it to say that there are different interpretations that people can make and they are free to try and persuade people they are correct in theirs.

If, however, you really only want to know why the ACLU isn't suing the White House, ask them. Perhaps you will give them an idea to try

Whether it be a 10 Commandments statue or White House Christmas decorations, the principle is still the same.

If you are a "strict constructionist" how do you read the First Amendment? Or more to the point, how do you define "establishment"? And what about freedom of speech or is that just reserved for the press and the pornographers?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Activist judges IMHO are changing the meaning of the Constitution by twisting it into new law.

My argument was also pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left. Sorry if I mistook you for a Liberal.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Whether it be a 10 Commandments statue or White House Christmas decorations, the principle is still the same.

would that, or does that, apply if someone wanted to put a buddha statue or zen symbols in front of the courthouse or city building?

If you are a "strict constructionist" how do you read the First Amendment? Or more to the point, how do you define "establishment"? And what about freedom of speech or is that just reserved for the press and the pornographers?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Activist judges IMHO are changing the meaning of the Constitution by twisting it into new law.

I'm not going to disagree with you about how judicial activism from both sides are either misconstruing the first or intentionally rewriting it, but I'll tell you that as far as a 'constitutional' view goes, the first was written to keep the government from forcing a populace to a certain viewpoint, thereby maintaining religion to a purely personal position. It's the church, and the religious right wing, that keeps trying to force everyone to a belief in christianity.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

would that, or does that, apply if someone wanted to put a buddha statue or zen symbols in front of the courthouse or city building?

Of course.

I'm not going to disagree with you about how judicial activism from both sides are either misconstruing the first or intentionally rewriting it, but I'll tell you that as far as a 'constitutional' view goes, the first was written to keep the government from forcing a populace to a certain viewpoint, thereby maintaining religion to a purely personal position. It's the church, and the religious right wing, that keeps trying to force everyone to a belief in christianity.

Christians are certainly not trying to FORCE you to a belief in Christianity. Neither is our government. What are Secularists afraid of? People having the right to express their Christian beliefs? People voting on certain ideas according to their Christian beliefs? Majority rule as per our Constitution?