[Mefustae]

Funny, the people you want to criticize say pretty much the same thing about athiests etc. And for proof they point to forcing of boyscouts off of military bases etc.

Edit: Wait a minute... didn't I get this off HLP like a week ago?

[Kazan]

Funny, the people you want to criticize say pretty much the same thing about athiests etc. And for proof they point to forcing of boyscouts off of military bases etc.

yes, they do attempt to say the same thing - however established case law weighs against them 100% without question.

The Boy Scouts of America explicitly require members to affirm belief in god, and they descriminate against homosexuals.  Thereby they establish themselves as a sectarian group.

The government gives them money


Shall we apply the Lemons test?

Fail 1 - Almost passes critereon 1, there is a legitimate secular purpose to promoting the boyscouts, but since they descriminate against people not of their religious group and they descriminate against homosexuals based upon religion that outweighs any secular purpose
Fail 2 - Advances religion by funding a sectarian group
Fail 3 - Entangles government in religion by funding a sectarian group



(Re Mefustae: yes, i posted it)

[Zuljin]

Found a NY times article on it. Ofcourse you have to be registered to actually read it since it's in the archives now

From what I recall, the statue is located in Memphis. Alton Williams is the name of the guy thats responsible for it. the NY times article didn't exactly paint a much better image of him than say.. Pat Robertson .

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/us/05liberty.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Can't seem to find a copy of that article anywhere else, but maybe someone here has access.

[Kazan]

oh - as for the modified statue

it's disrespectful to what the real statue of liberty stands for, and disrepectful to this countries heritage and founding - but it is their right to free speech and it is on their private property

[Goober5000]

touche aldo

It's not a touché, since it underscores my point.

yes. the pledge violates the constitution and should be restored to it's original form - which didn't have "under god" - those were added in 1954

I'd say the pledge itself violates the Constitution, as it is the state encouraging people to pledge allegiance to it.  It should be the other way around; the state should pledge allegiance to the people.  Get rid of the pledge altogether and the controversy goes away.

This level of debate, and I don't mean here but rather the "statement" presented by the picture, far from being all sophisticated and intelligent, is not worthy of a five year old. Pretentious assholes.

I agree with the basic sentiment here.  Christians (and any other religion, for that matter) should "show, don't tell".  Or, telling is fine, as long as showing takes precedence.  If you have to wear a T-shirt or put up a statue that says "I am a Christian" in order for people to know that you are, then guess what -- you're probably not.

Putting up the statue is rather arrogant; it strikes me as very much like the passage in Jeremiah where ancient Israel protested "This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD!" -- claiming themselves to be favored by God, while doing nothing to merit it.

[Nuclear1]

yes. the pledge violates the constitution and should be restored to it's original form - which didn't have "under god" - those were added in 1954

I'd say the pledge itself violates the Constitution, as it is the state encouraging people to pledge allegiance to it.  It should be the other way around; the state should pledge allegiance to the people.  Get rid of the pledge altogether and the controversy goes away.

Yeah, but that one is a whole lot more difficult to recite verbatim, isn't it?

[Kazan]

touche aldo

It's not a touché, since it underscores my point.

no, it doesn't

it's a reference to the crusades - them being a "christian behavior" involving killing muslims in the mideast in a holy war

I'd say the pledge itself violates the Constitution, as it is the state encouraging people to pledge allegiance to it.  It should be the other way around; the state should pledge allegiance to the people.  Get rid of the pledge altogether and the controversy goes away.

there is nothing in the constitution that says so, but in concept i agree with you - the state serves the people in a representative democracy with gauranteed rights (esp. for minorities) than the people serving the state

[redmenace]

Funny, the people you want to criticize say pretty much the same thing about athiests etc. And for proof they point to forcing of boyscouts off of military bases etc.

yes, they do attempt to say the same thing - however established case law weighs against them 100% without question.

The Boy Scouts of America explicitly require members to affirm belief in god, and they descriminate against homosexuals.  Thereby they establish themselves as a sectarian group.

The government gives them money

A. There is no reason they should be forced off of federal lands because they discriminate against homosexuals. Now if they violated a Title VII provision... Last I checked homosexuals are not a protected class.

B. The government doesn't give them money in the case of the military bases. Or at least I don't think they do. (If they did, I might be inclined to agree with you) They only allowed them to use public facilities IIRC.

C. 'Establishment Clause' or not, it doesn't neglect the fact that both sides of this stupid argument are claiming there is a conspiracy about. Hell, they even can claim that the conspiracy affect the courts and thus the interpretation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Both claim that the other is trying to stack the courts against them etc. (Also God is a generic term and doesn't give preference to any one religion) Ultimatly, you shouldn't claim the other have no valid compliant or argue based on your interpritation the constitution; especially when the constitution can be interpreted in as many ways as this whole argument is stupid. Unfortunatly, we will continue to see this stupid tit for tat **** that has been going on since the 50s.

[karajorma]

Bah. They've got the statue all wrong.

That cross should be on fire!

[redmenace]

touche aldo

It's not a touché, since it underscores my point.

no, it doesn't

it's a reference to the crusades - them being a "christian behavior" involving killing muslims in the mideast in a holy war

I'd say the pledge itself violates the Constitution, as it is the state encouraging people to pledge allegiance to it.  It should be the other way around; the state should pledge allegiance to the people.  Get rid of the pledge altogether and the controversy goes away.

there is nothing in the constitution that says so, but in concept i agree with you - the state serves the people in a representative democracy with gauranteed rights (esp. for minorities) than the people serving the state

The Crusades were not as one sided and some think.

Karajorma, umm I hope that was a joke.

[Kazan]

A. There is no reason they should be forced off of federal lands because they discriminate against homosexuals. Now if they violated a Title VII provision... Last I checked homosexuals are not a protected class.

you ignored the other part - they descriminate on the basis of religion to.  Which makes giving money to them, or contributions in kind, violate the lemon test.

If they would simply renounce requiring their members to be religious, and stopped descriminating, I would have no problem with them.

Gays may not be listed in Title VII, but supporting a group that descriminates against gays fails to pass the lemon test and the Equal Protection Clause dictates gays be treated like any other citizen

B. The government doesn't give them money in the case of the military bases. Or at least I don't think they do. (If they did, I might be inclined to agree with you) They only allowed them to use public facilities IIRC.

The Pentagon gives them $2m/year for the jamboree, allowing them to use government facilities free-of-charge is a contribution-in-kind

(Also God is a generic term and doesn't give preference to any one religion)

false, read up on your case law

it gives preference to religion over non-religion ("it forwards religion" and thus violates The Lemon Test)

 

Ultimatly, you shouldn't claim the other have no valid compliant or argue based on your interpritation the constitution;

I don't have to claim that don't have a valid complaint - i can demonstrate such by citation of clearly established case law

especially when the constitution can be interpreted in as many ways as this whole argument is stupid. Unfortunatly, we will continue to see this stupid tit for tat **** that has been going on since the 50s.

no, the constitute is quite clear on the subject of the seperation, only peolpe who fail to acknowledge it are those who have an agenda of mixing religion and government - they simply IGNORE it and play semantic games

[Kazan]

The Crusades were not as one sided and some think.

i never said they were, however the christians did start them


oh.. and karajorma's point stands - the church that erected this are bigots if you investigate them

they're anti-non-christian, anti-gay, anti-anyone-not-them bigots

[karajorma]

Karajorma, umm I hope that was a joke.

Why should it be? If the point of art is to provoke thought then I see no reason why someone else shouldn't parody that statue and make it reflect the attitude of the vocal minority of the Christian Right

[redmenace]

A. There is no reason they should be forced off of federal lands because they discriminate against homosexuals. Now if they violated a Title VII provision... Last I checked homosexuals are not a protected class.

you ignored the other part - they descriminate on the basis of religion to.  Which makes giving money to them, or contributions in kind, violate the lemon test.

If they would simply renounce requiring their members to be religious, and stopped descriminating, I would have no problem with them.

Gays may not be listed in Title VII, but supporting a group that descriminates against gays fails to pass the lemon test and the Equal Protection Clause dictates gays be treated like any other citizen
Do they say they discriminate based on religion? Or is it a matter of safty.

B. The government doesn't give them money in the case of the military bases. Or at least I don't think they do. (If they did, I might be inclined to agree with you) They only allowed them to use public facilities IIRC.

The Pentagon gives them $2m/year for the jamboree, allowing them to use government facilities free-of-charge is a contribution-in-kind
Has any other organization wishing to use military facilities been revoked?

(Also God is a generic term and doesn't give preference to any one religion)

false, read up on your case law
it gives preference to religion over non-religion ("it forwards religion" and thus violates The Lemon Test)
Case law that can be determined to be erroneous, flawed, biased and can be ultimatly overturned.
 

Ultimatly, you shouldn't claim the other have no valid compliant or argue based on your interpritation the constitution;

I don't have to claim that don't have a valid complaint - i can demonstrate such by citation of clearly established case law
Case law that can be determined to be erroneous, flawed, biased and can ultimatly be overturned. Or even up to the interpretation of another judge.

especially when the constitution can be interpreted in as many ways as this whole argument is stupid. Unfortunatly, we will continue to see this stupid tit for tat **** that has been going on since the 50s.

no, the constitute is quite clear on the subject of the seperation, only peolpe who fail to acknowledge it are those who have an agenda of mixing religion and government - they simply IGNORE it and play semantic games
Not really, those few words can be read many different ways. You choose to interpret it in a way that suits your underlying
philosophical beliefs and so do the people you want to criticize. A clear clause would be the use of go a little more in depth.

The crusades started with a speech made by the pope at the time. This doesn't mean that the cause is the 100% blame of the christians, or even mostly. It is not that simple.

[Colonol Dekker]

Longest quote ever...........Why are we arguing about someones point of view anyway?

[redmenace]

Karajorma, umm I hope that was a joke.

Why should it be? If the point of art is to provoke thought then I see no reason why someone else shouldn't parody that statue and make it reflect the attitude of the vocal minority of the Christian Right

Ok, fine. It is just that most people in the US cringe at that sort of thing because of the antics of the KKK. It is a very tough historical issue that no really likes to talk about it unless they think they are the master race.

[redmenace]

Longest quote ever...........Why are we arguing about someones point of view anyway?

Because I would like to make the point that you shouldn't marginalize someone else's point of view with the same exact means that they are using and then act like you are superior.

[Colonol Dekker]

I agree,  i just cant be arsed to comment more though

[Kazan]

Do they say they discriminate based on religion? Or is it a matter of safty.

YES, that's pretty well established - they REQUIRE members to affirm a belief in God (any god) - that is exclusionary to non-diety based spiritualities AND to atheists and agnostics

thereby funding them fails the lemon test

Has any other organization wishing to use military facilities been revoked?

yes

Case law that can be determined to be erroneous, flawed, biased and can be ultimatly overturned.

"can" and "Will" are two COMPLETELY different things.  The only type of judge that would overturn Lemon is an activist more interested in theocracy than democracy as there is NO constitutional basis to override Lemon

Not really, those few words can be read many different ways. You choose to interpret it in a way that suits your underlying philosophical beliefs and so do the people you want to criticize. A clear clause would be the use of go a little more in depth.

No, i interpret them the way the FOUNDING FATHERS EXPLAINED THEM in every single shred of supporting documentation in existance on the subject - and in context.


assert all you want "the case law may be flawed!!!!" but you're grasping at straws and YOU KNOW IT.  There is NO REASONABLE WAY to say that asking christians to keep government and religion seperate, and them failing to do so, is oppressing them. 

There is NO REASONABLE WAY to say that asking christians to follow the constitution and keep government and religion seperate and forcing them to comply is opressing them - they're not prevented from engaging in their beliefs.  The government isn't discouraging them from believing, it's just refusing to encourage them.

There is no reasonable argument in existance to claim that christians are the persecuted in the united states, and a preponderance of evidence supporting that christians are the persecutors

The crusades started with a speech made by the pope at the time. This doesn't mean that the cause is the 100% blame of the christians, or even mostly. It is not that simple.

contrary to your assertions - it is that simple

the christians started it.

[Kazan]

Because I would like to make the point that you shouldn't marginalize someone else's point of view with the same exact means that they are using and then act like you are superior.

I'm going to make the point that you're being disingenious in claiming that I am doing so

I am demanding that the governemnt comply with it's own constitution and remain neutral on religion - neither encouraging or discouraging it
They are demanding that th government ignore it's own constitution and continue to promot their religion - violating the rights of everyone not of their religion

if you don't see the difference then you are being obtuse

spare me your straw man arguments