I’m trying to understand your issue here, Sloth, because I like for things to be broken down to their most Fundamental…
Is your issue that Governments and Institutions, especially Congress, concern themselves with “minor” issues, while ignoring those of greater importance? And that we as Citizens “allow” it to happen at greater loss of liberties?
Again…if that’s the case, I don’t think ANYONE would argue with you!
I pull my HAIR out when I think of the money and time spent on “steroid investigations” while something like Social Security is facing insolvency in a few years.
The problem is be VERY careful about what is a “minor” issue and what is a “major” one. I personally don’t want to go into a Courthouse having to bypass Hari Krishnas, Monks and Statues of Buddha and pictures of Grand Ayatollahs and the Nordic God of Fertility.
If this is NOT your argument, could you please break it down more?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So this isn’t a constitutional issue? It’s an issue of “modern sensibilities?”
Which one is it?[/quote]
Why is everything one or the other these days?
It’s not particularly about modern sensibilities, but it is a modern issue, especially since it is happening now.
It also happens to be a constitutional issue.
Why are you throwing around little buzz slogans like “modern sensibilities”?
Settle down and consider the real issues at hand and your arguments will make a lot more sense. For example, you said that personally you think some of the things being considered are too minor… or not meaningful enough.
The issue is that not all people view the issue the same way as you. That doesn’t make them right, or you wrong, but it does mean digging has to be done to find the underlying principles involved to resolve the situation.
Theoretically, this is what courts do when laws are in question, though whoever loses gets to complain about so-called judicial legislation…
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’m trying to understand your issue here, Sloth, because I like for things to be broken down to their most Fundamental…
…
The problem is be VERY careful about what is a “minor” issue and what is a “major” one. I personally don’t want to go into a Courthouse having to bypass Hari Krishnas, Monks and Statues of Buddha and pictures of Grand Ayatollahs and the Nordic God of Fertility.
If this is NOT your argument, could you please break it down more?
Mufasa[/quote]
Heh, if you don’t want to see those kind of things, don’t ever visit the Supreme Court. After all, it depicts sculptures of Mohammad holding the Koran, Moses and the Tablets, famous historical pagans, Pagan gods and goddesses…
That’s my point, art in itself is not government establishing religion.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So this isn’t a constitutional issue? It’s an issue of “modern sensibilities?”
Which one is it?
Why is everything one or the other these days?
It’s not particularly about modern sensibilities, but it is a modern issue, especially since it is happening now.
It also happens to be a constitutional issue.
Why are you throwing around little buzz slogans like “modern sensibilities”?
Settle down and consider the real issues at hand and your arguments will make a lot more sense. For example, you said that personally you think some of the things being considered are too minor… or not meaningful enough.
The issue is that not all people view the issue the same way as you. That doesn’t make them right, or you wrong, but it does mean digging has to be done to find the underlying principles involved to resolve the situation.
Theoretically, this is what courts do when laws are in question, though whoever loses gets to complain about so-called judicial legislation…[/quote]
Sorry, I don’t understand what you’re trying to argue here. I’m challenging the notion that establishment clause was meant to censor pieces of art found in government buildings simply because they contain a religious figure. Which is why I question that the establishment clause was ever supposed to be used in such a way.
I recall nothing the founders said or did which would indicate this. Certainly the deists amongst them didn’t want any religion established by the state, but to argue that this piece of art rises to such is paranoia.
I think those who actually wrote the constitution would be left scratching their head over this case.
Anyways, anyone want to comment on how the ACLU uses the establishment clause in this case, but then also uses it to punish the Boy Scouts?
Settle down and consider the real issues at hand and your arguments will make a lot more sense. [/quote]
I’m lost as to why you’d feel the need to ask me to settle down? I don’t believe I’ve said anything that would make me seem…unsettled. I was under the impression that my arguments were resonably devoid of emotionalism. I haven’t called anyone an idiot or a Nazi, for example.
You know full well you sound fairly emotional when you start frothing about “modern sensibilities” and putting up ridiculous this or that choices.
Anyway, I don’t know that having some art qualifies as a violation of the establishment clause. It certainly would not seem to represent promoting a certain religion.
However, I am guessing that if all courthouses and other government buildings all “happened” to promote the same Christian viewpoint that perhaps it could be argued that collectively it might.
As for the Boy Scouts, I’m not actually aware of what the issue is or why it is the fault of the ACLU if they choose to bring suits that clarify the law. After all, it isn’t the ACLU that brings decisions, though they do seem to focus on issues that may increase what they see as civil liberties.
“Private citizens or private businesses are fully entitled to commemorate holidays with religious displays; but when an agency of government erects displays that symbolize Christian and/or other religions, it is,in effect, endorsing the particular religions.”
“In two ACLU cases decided in 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that a nativity scene displayed inside
a Pennsylvania county courthouse violated the Establishment Clause, but
that a Hanukkah menorah displayed outside another government building in
the state was acceptable because the “context” of the display was secular in that it included other, non-religious symbols.”
" The latter ruling echoed the court’s acceptance in a 1984 case, of religious
displays on public property as long as secular symbols like Santa Claus and his reindeer are part of the display and its overall intent is secular.
“The ACLU disagrees with these decisions. We believe that the
place for religious displays, as with religious events and practices, is
in the private sector – the home, the religious day school, or each person’s place of worship.”
“Moreover,spirituality is undermined and religious symbols are trivialized when they are secularized in order to
permit government endorsement”.
ACLU
It really is a question of a) how one chooses to interpret the Establishment Clause and b) how serious one thinks a violation of the Clause has occurred.
(The Boy Scouts have become an ACLU “Whipping Boy”, but I think sloth is referring to the Balboa Park, San Diego Decision):
" In 2003, U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones ruled that the Boy Scouts of America is a religious organization. Their presence in Balboa Park was considered a violation of the separation of church and state".
“Because the Scouts believe in God, said Judge Jones, there is “overwhelming and uncontradicted evidence” that the Scouts have received preferential treatment in being able to lease Balboa Park”.
Under terms of the new settlement, San Diego must request Judge Jones to cancel the Boy Scouts’ lease on Balboa Park. The city will also pay the ACLU nearly $1 million in court costs and attorney fees. (Which will, most likely, help finance further attacks against the Boy Scouts).
Now that the City of San Diego has given up on the Boy Scouts of America, a nearly 90-year relationship has come to an end.
[quote]Mufasa wrote: ACLU vs. The Boy Scouts of America
(The Boy Scouts have become an ACLU “Whipping Boy”, but I think sloth is referring to the Balboa Park, San Diego Decision):
" In 2003, U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones ruled that the Boy Scouts of America is a religious organization. Their presence in Balboa Park was considered a violation of the separation of church and state".[/quote]
Thanks for the info. I never knew they were considered a “religious organization”.
If they are then that would certainly have implications within the current interpretation of the establishment clause.
Sniff sniff.
Isn’t this just saying that they should not receive preferential treatment?
One problem, the Boy Scouts didn’t use the park to establish religion. In fact, the Boy Scouts could not discriminate against who used the park. After all, Gay pride organizations were given open access to the park.
That’s right, there was no litmus test regarding religion or sexuality, when it came to having access. How, if an establishment of the “Boy Scout Religion” was taking place, was this possible?
Because, it wasn’t taking place. In fact, the only rights lost were the Boy Scouts’. Now, because of religious beliefs they hold, which weren’t forced upon the public, the scouts are denied their lease…Um, hello this group was just denied equal treatment simply because of it’s religious beliefs, not because it changed the park to “Religious and Hetero folk only!”
The Boy Scout’s history with the park stems from their war efforts during WW2 for crying out loud. Not to mention the millions they’ve put into maintaining and building up the park. That’s right, maintenance and development provided, cost free to the taxpayer. Good job ACLU…
So, a hugely beneficial service to the taxpayer, that didn’t restrict access to the park based on religious or sexual orientation, is discriminated against because of religiously inspired beliefs within it’s own organization. Scary stuff.
Perhaps the Government should clarify exactly what religious beliefs will be permitted by the state for the purposes of being rewarded the funds and land leases.
Ah, the government as a tool to reward proper thinking. “We’ll reward you, if you change your religious beliefs.”
You know full well you sound fairly emotional when you start frothing about “modern sensibilities” and putting up ridiculous this or that choices.
[/quote]
I “sound” emotional? I’m “frothing?” I’ll have to check my computer desk for your video/audio bugging devices.
My language (in text), as far as I’m concerned, has been rather mild. Of course, I’m not a Vulcan, totally devoid of emotion, but I’m at a lost as to how you perceive my responses in this thread as “frothing.”
Frankly, I think your attempt to tag me with over-emotionalism is an attempt to attack me. You know, as a means to discredit my input on this. It’s a shame, really.
What has to be realized is that with the exception of allowing openly gay leaders and Scouts, the Boy Scouts either a) comply with whatever changes the ACLU demands and/or b)public entities acquiesce by pulling funding, not allowing employee contributions, pulling units and leases, etc.
The problem with this is that very important Constitutional questions never really get debated.
To dovetail on a point Sloth made regarding the Constitution versus “modern sensibilities” - the entire point of a written constitution is to put some rights above modern sensibilities, above the whim of the public at a given time. Were it a different way, the Constitution would compel the Supreme Court to create church-state law as common law, divining it as they go along, based on what they feel.
If our society changes, no problem, there is a branch of government to reflect that change. If that change occurs via the judiciary, the law hasn’t changed, only the men have - and then, of course, you then have a rule of men, rather than rule of law.
The idea that the Constitution is “progressive” or an agent of change, of course, is the opposite of why you write a constitution down and call it a constitution.
Secondly, I think BB’s point is right on the money: the law is a mess, especially as it comes to religious displays. The Supreme Court’s distinctions as to what can be put up and what can’t are unsatisfying - after all, if you are “offended” by religious iconography in a public building, are you offended only by an isolated Christian painting, but if the there is a Christian symbol next to a Jewish symbol, suddenly you don’t feel offended anymore? Flimsy.
The artificial distinction is flatly explained as one of political convenience - the modern court wants to be “progressive” and get religious iconography out of public places, but they don’t want to be the court that requires taking a jackhammer to the inconography in the Supreme Court building. They want to eat their cake and have it too, and they have made an enormous mess.
I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state, but I am also a firm believer that the legal injury must be legitimate. Like BB said, it might be a matter of degree without much precision, but if it has always been ok to have religious iconography in the Supreme Court building, then it makes sense such iconography in other public places does not rise to the level of a legitimate injury under the First Amendment.
If the government truly infringes on my ability to practice my religion or interferes with religion - via support or mandating my support - then I’ll be the first in line to stand against it. In the case of the Jesus painting in the Louisiana courtroom, I don’t like it, and were I the next judge in that courtroom I would take it down, but in the context of the First Amendment, there isn’t a principled distinction between it and the artwork in the Supreme Court building.
Or, for that matter, displays of Indian religion in the public sphere or the use of Greek deities (i.e., statue of Hephaestus at a regional Federal Reserve bank). There is a fear that people are reading the First Amendment to say “the majority religion can’t do all this stuff, but others can” - which isn’t a distinction the First Amendment recognizes and is nothing more than religious prejudice.
In short, I don’t like the Jesus painting in the courtroom, but do I think it violates a First Amendment right to not have it in there? Probably not.
Just for the sake of accuracy, the image in Mufasa’s first post, isn’t the print in question. For anyone interested, I’ve provided it within this post.
The verses depicted in the print are:
Matthew 7:2, “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”
And, from John 7:24:
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
One problem, the Boy Scouts didn’t use the park to establish religion. In fact, the Boy Scouts could not discriminate against who used the park. After all, Gay pride organizations were given open access to the park. [/quote]
I’m not sure anybody said they did. Why are you always arguing strange points that nobody has suggested?
[quote]The Boy Scout’s history with the park stems from their war efforts during WW2 for crying out loud. Not to mention the millions they’ve put into maintaining and building up the park. That’s right, maintenance and development provided, cost free to the taxpayer. Good job ACLU…
So, a hugely beneficial service to the taxpayer, that didn’t restrict access to the park based on religious or sexual orientation, is discriminated against because of religiously inspired beliefs within it’s own organization. Scary stuff.
Perhaps the Government should clarify exactly what religious beliefs will be permitted by the state for the purposes of being rewarded the funds and land leases.[/quote]
Perhaps the land leases should have absolutely nothing to do with religious beliefs?
How hard is that to understand? Apparently, according to a statement above, they were granted benefits because of their religious nature.
I’m not even arguing for this, but that apparently under current interpretation that was a problem. Sure, you feel otherwise, and would prefer a different interpretation, and that’s fine, but you don’t have to throw around huge mischaracterizations in order to support your viewpoint, do you?
[quote]
Ah, the government as a tool to reward proper thinking. “We’ll reward you, if you change your religious beliefs.”[/quote]
Okay, and you don’t want me to think you are frothing when you vent this type of baloney?
Look, supposedly, it’s a matter of treating everyone the same and NOT rewarding a group due to its religious beliefs.
It’s hard to take you seriously with all this spin attached.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
To dovetail on a point Sloth made regarding the Constitution versus “modern sensibilities” - the entire point of a written constitution is to put some rights above modern sensibilities, above the whim of the public at a given time. Were it a different way, the Constitution would compel the Supreme Court to create church-state law as common law, divining it as they go along, based on what they feel.
If our society changes, no problem, there is a branch of government to reflect that change. If that change occurs via the judiciary, the law hasn’t changed, only the men have - and then, of course, you then have a rule of men, rather than rule of law.
[/quote]
You and I disagree in our thinking in this area somewhat.
I find it implausible to expect the courts to refuse to hear anything new. It is their purpose, in fact, to interpret the law when it is not a trivial situation being considered.
While I am sure there is such as a thing as “modern sensibilities” I am also sure that there are many societal changes which cause laws to require interpretation.
Society, and the courts, can’t wait for legislature in order to determine how they should function.
The legislative branch is certainly capable of changing laws, and should, and certainly should if they find that the courts are bringing unwanted interpretations of existing laws because they have not enacted newer laws to clarify the situation.
I don’t believe it is a fault of the courts, per se, but that legislation or politicians like to blame the courts when they know full well they have both the power and the responsibility to modify and enact laws as required.
All that said, I’m sure at times there are in fact strange decisions.
Again, this gets pretty fuzzy at times. Was the constitution an agent of change when women were given the right to vote or when segregation was outlawed?
Change is obviously brought about by society and then it is pushed through the filter of the constitution as this change gets challenged for various reasons.
I guess I’d say that the constitution is not an agent of social change but neither is it intended to be an agent of social stasis either.
[quote]
Secondly, I think BB’s point is right on the money: the law is a mess, especially as it comes to religious displays. The Supreme Court’s distinctions as to what can be put up and what can’t are unsatisfying - after all, if you are “offended” by religious iconography in a public building, are you offended only by an isolated Christian painting, but if the there is a Christian symbol next to a Jewish symbol, suddenly you don’t feel offended anymore? Flimsy.[/quote]
I can’t argue that things aren’t messy at this time. My own belief is the more separation the better, but I’m not certain that things haven’t been complicated by decisions that are somewhat at odds with each other.
I must reiterate, this is the perfect situation for a legislative clarification… if and when the legislature feels it is something worthy of being tackled.
The system is working exactly as it was designed. Messes and confusion are a part of life and maybe eventually someone will get energized to clear things up.
This is an interesting area. Do we or do we not recognize that systematic and widespread promotion of one particular religion may constitute a de-facto creation of a state favored religion?
I’m not saying it is or isn’t. I can certainly see the argument that “as long as it just happens” but without an explicit law, then it is okay, because the constitution is referring to official measures.
However, time and again, in various countries, courts have looked at aggregate issues when it comes to rights, in order to ensure protection of rights.
You and I disagree in our thinking in this area somewhat.
I find it implausible to expect the courts to refuse to hear anything new. It is their purpose, in fact, to interpret the law when it is not a trivial situation being considered.
While I am sure there is such as a thing as “modern sensibilities” I am also sure that there are many societal changes which cause laws to require interpretation.[/quote]
Yes, and that is not the same thing as inventing new laws. Society certainly changes, and the Constitution has to be applied to those changes. That is face different than saying the Constitution has changed, which is behind the “modern sensibilities” approach.
If it was ok 200 years ago to have religious art in a public place, it is ok now. The law hasn’t changed. Our sensibilities may have, no problem - but the law, as brought forth before a neutral umpire of that law, is the same as it ever was.
The idea that new “judges” get to redefine the law as it has stood in order to conform to modern attitudes finds no basis in our organization of government. The Framers could have just as easily left the question open and allowed judges a common law approach - they didn’t. That was no accident.
Of course they blame courts - just because legislatures have the power to pass a given law and choose not to doesn’t mean that a court has the right to invent new laws as it wants.
One branch of government doesn’t have the right to invade the space of another just because the other branch won’t pass a certain kind of law.
Courts can hope in their heart of hearts that a legislature passes a great and necessary law - but hope is all they can do. The court has no power and no predicate to occupy the field on the basis that “well, the legislature wasn’t doing anything about it”.
Women’s suffrage was put into the Constitution via legislative action, not by judicial decision. The legislatures were the agents of change by amending the Constitution. Learn the history.
As for segregation, the Equal Protection clause reads broadly, and segregation simply cannot produce equal protection under the laws, so that wasn’t a leap in creative judicial construction of the language.
That was an example of applying the Constitution to a particular problem.
[quote]Change is obviously brought about by society and then it is pushed through the filter of the constitution as this change gets challenged for various reasons.
I guess I’d say that the constitution is not an agent of social change but neither is it intended to be an agent of social stasis either.[/quote]
It is exactly meant as an agent of social stasis, as much as practically possible - that is the very definition of a constitution.
New situations emerge that require application of old laws, but the laws themselves are supposed to remain resistant to political whim.
There can’t be a de facto creation - either the government endorses, supports with tax money, and tells you that you can’t worship the way you want to - or it doesn’t. The fact that one religion may predominate is meaningless.
[quote]I’m not saying it is or isn’t. I can certainly see the argument that “as long as it just happens” but without an explicit law, then it is okay, because the constitution is referring to official measures.
However, time and again, in various countries, courts have looked at aggregate issues when it comes to rights, in order to ensure protection of rights.[/quote]
What other countries do with their establishment law is completely irrelevant to the question - their laws have different languages, different cultural contexts, and different histories.
I am interested in what our law says and how we practice it and have practiced it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
One branch of government doesn’t have the right to invade the space of another just because the other branch won’t pass a certain kind of law.
Courts can hope in their heart of hearts that a legislature passes a great and necessary law - but hope is all they can do. The court has no power and no predicate to occupy the field on the basis that “well, the legislature wasn’t doing anything about it”.[/quote]
At the same time, the courts exist to make a decision. Once they hear the case they almost always have to find some type of solution within the existing laws.
I do understand your point, but a lot of the claims of judicial legislation are simply bellyaching due to the nature of the decision made.
Yes, but before this event happened it was obviously “ok”. I do not like the argument that if it was “ok” then that it is “ok” now. It may or may not be ok. It may simply be that the issue was never tested because it was commonly accepted by society at the time.
[quote]
It is exactly meant as an agent of social stasis, as much as practically possible - that is the very definition of a constitution.
New situations emerge that require application of old laws, but the laws themselves are supposed to remain resistant to political whim.[/quote]
I disagree about social stasis. I may agree about other issues of stasis with respect to government and operation of the country, but not social stasis. Change is a constant and I severely doubt that the founding fathers were trying to suppress the right of the people to adapt to such change via the constitution.
[quote]
What other countries do with their establishment law is completely irrelevant to the question - their laws have different languages, different cultural contexts, and different histories.
I am interested in what our law says and how we practice it and have practiced it. [/quote]
LOL.
Look, what other countries do often has bearing. No, not that the US has to or even should look to it, but that it provides legal thinking and argument on similar issues in similar legal systems.
You might find that in countries originally colonized by the British that there are very many similarities in basic legal premises.
