Why are exclusive interpretations of religion the only ones recognized?

[emilynghiem]

In Texas, a court ruled that the Ten Commandments could be kept at the State Capitol of
because of the legal history to the laws that is a historic element, not just religious.

But in another case:

Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

The judge doesn't seem to agree with the interpretation of this monument as historic in addition to religious, but religious only.

Why is this interpretation as "EXCLUDING" Wicca, or atheists or secular gentiles
the ONLY one that is recognized?

If I can interpret Jesus, God and the Bible as *including EVERYONE* including atheists
and people who don't believe in this, that or the other thing

Why doesn't THAT interpretation count?

Why can't govt and public institutions welcome ALL forms of expression and not set up some "competition" that if one is included that means the others are EXCLUDED?

I read one explanation of the law as that it cannot EXCLUDE other displays,
so it's okay to have a nativity creche as long as any other display could go up as well.

So it's not the fault of the people choosing a certain display
if others don't ask or invest in setting up their own display. The only thing discriminatory would be to allow some while excluding others.

Why can't an agreement be reached that as long as laws are inclusive
then that isn't discrimination or endorsing any one religion over another?

As it stands, if the court rules that the Ten Commandments means excluding anyone,
isn't that interpreting a religious meaning? I certainly don't believe it is exclusive and leaves out or is in conflict with other faiths. If other faiths have a conflict, isn't that THEIR interpretation they are imposing and not the fault of the Ten Commandments? I don't interpret them in any way that leaves anyone one. Secular Gentiles follow natural laws and that is explained in the Bible also. So everyone is under natural laws, and all these laws are still part of legal history.

Why this insistence on interpreting faiths to be "mutual exclusive"?
I don't see it that way, is my religious belief being discriminated against
by continuing to impose and teach only one way of interpreting these things?

???

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In Texas, a court ruled that the Ten Commandments could be kept at the State Capitol of
because of the legal history to the laws that is a historic element, not just religious.

But in another case:

Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

The judge doesn't seem to agree with the interpretation of this monument as historic in addition to religious, but religious only.

Why is this interpretation as "EXCLUDING" Wicca, or atheists or secular gentiles
the ONLY one that is recognized?

If I can interpret Jesus, God and the Bible as *including EVERYONE* including atheists
and people who don't believe in this, that or the other thing

Why doesn't THAT interpretation count?

Why can't govt and public institutions welcome ALL forms of expression and not set up some "competition" that if one is included that means the others are EXCLUDED?

I read one explanation of the law as that it cannot EXCLUDE other displays,
so it's okay to have a nativity creche as long as any other display could go up as well.

So it's not the fault of the people choosing a certain display
if others don't ask or invest in setting up their own display. The only thing discriminatory would be to allow some while excluding others.

Why can't an agreement be reached that as long as laws are inclusive
then that isn't discrimination or endorsing any one religion over another?

As it stands, if the court rules that the Ten Commandments means excluding anyone,
isn't that interpreting a religious meaning? I certainly don't believe it is exclusive and leaves out or is in conflict with other faiths. If other faiths have a conflict, isn't that THEIR interpretation they are imposing and not the fault of the Ten Commandments? I don't interpret them in any way that leaves anyone one. Secular Gentiles follow natural laws and that is explained in the Bible also. So everyone is under natural laws, and all these laws are still part of legal history.

Why this insistence on interpreting faiths to be "mutual exclusive"?
I don't see it that way, is my religious belief being discriminated against
by continuing to impose and teach only one way of interpreting these things?

???

Establishment Clause jurisprudence is concerned with context and intent when determining whether or not religious expression in government passes Constitutional muster.

How the religious expression itself is 'interpreted' is irrelevant.

With regard to the New Mexico case:

In Felix v. City of Bloomfield, (D NM, Aug. 7, 2014), in a decision described by the court as "a very close case," a New Mexico federal district court held that a 5-foot tall Ten Commandments monument on the lawn in front of the Bloomfield, New Mexico municipal building violates the Establishment Clause. The monument was constructed on city property by a former member of city council under a city council policy on the placement of monuments on the city lawn. Summarizing its 32-page decision, the court said:

a. Plaintiffs have Article III standing because they have regular, direct, and unwelcome contact with the Ten Commandments monument and therefore have suffered an “injury-in-fact”....*

b. The Ten Commandments monument is government speech ... because the ... monument is a permanent object located on government property and it is not part of a designated public forum open to all on equal terms.

c. In view of the circumstances surrounding the context, history, and purpose of the Ten Commandments monument, it is clear that the City of Bloomfield has violated the Establishment Clause because its conduct in authorizing the continued display of the monument on City property has had the primary or principal effect of endorsing religion.

Religion Clause: Ten Commandments On City Hall Lawn Violates Establishment Clause

From the ruling:

In the Tenth Circuit, courts continue to apply the three-part test set out in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) as modified by Justice O’Connor’s endorsement gloss.
See Green, 568 F.3d at 796. According to this test, the government violates the Establishment Clause if it impermissibly endorses religion by having either the primary purpose or effect of “conveying a message that religion or a particular religious belief is
favored or preferred” or if it fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion.
Id. (quoting Bauchman v. West High Sch., 132 F.3d 542 (10th Cir. 1997)).

http://www.nmcourt.fed.us/Drs-Web/view-file?unique-identifier=0006219971-0000000000

Consequently, when government seeks to engage in religious expression, in order for such expression to be Constitutional:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

The Lemon Test

In the New Mexico case, therefore, the monument lacked a secular purpose, and its principle or primary effect was to advance or promote religion to the exclusion of non Judeo-Christian faiths, or those free from faith.

Last, communities are at liberty to engage in religious expression, such as ten commandments monuments, provided they understand these expressions must comport with Establishment Clause jurisprudence, such as placing monuments in proximity to other religious and secular displays, conveying a government message of recognizing religion, not endorsing it (see, e.g., Allegheny County v. ACLU (1989)).

 

[BreezeWood]

Amendment [I.]

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.

If I can interpret Jesus, God and the Bible as *including EVERYONE* including atheists
and people who don't believe in this, that or the other thing

Why doesn't THAT interpretation count?

why should your interpretation lead to an establishment of religion any more so than the prohibition in our Constitution against the Gov't doing so being any different in regards to you - its not, the law applies to the individual, quasi gov't as being the same ... go to your church and be happy, no one is trying to stop you from your beliefs as you would be against them.

.