The ACLU - pros and cons

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

all the alcu is asking is to keep our government secular ...

And where is that described in our constitution?

Why should only secularists get priviledged treatment?

I think the government should be neutral, and allow the people to live within its framework, including the establishment clause, which is clearly NOT violated by having a cross on the county seal if that is part of the history of the county and the people that live there.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And where is that described in our constitution?

Why should only secularists get priviledged treatment?

I think the government should be neutral, and allow the people to live within its framework, including the establishment clause, which is clearly NOT violated by having a cross on the county seal if that is part of the history of the county and the people that live there.

our constitution allows people to ask these questions and bring them to court if they choose... and it is up to the courts to rule one way or another on these issues, and to the congress to amend the constitution if they feel the issue was not resolved correctly

it's all part of the system... there is no "priviledged treatment"

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think the government should be neutral, and allow the people to live within its framework, including the establishment clause, which is clearly NOT violated by having a cross on the county seal if that is part of the history of the county and the people that live there.

So, what if the Ku Klux Klan was part of the history of the county and the people that live there; then would you also say it should be O.K. to have a little hooded figure or the Klan emblem as part of the county seal? Geez, Rian, what part of "keep religion and private interest out of politics and the government" don't you understand? It is one of the most important founding tenets for the U.S.A., to keep religion separated from the government. The county IS THE GOVERNMENT.

[Rían]

If the people of LA County actually elected people to represent them that really wanted a KKK figure on the seal, I imagine they would have put it there. If that was the case, I don't think I'd be living in that area. I think the people of LA County have more sense than to elect people who would even CONSIDER putting the KKK on there The people of our good state are not like that, in general, that's why symbols like that aren't on there.

As it is, the people elected people to represent them, and they put a tiny cross on the county seal, thinking it was an important part of the county of THE ANGELS (or actually the full name is the QUEEN OF THE ANGELS, i.e., Mary, aka Los Angeles.) And it was fine, until the ACLU bullied them into taking it out - no, worse, they bullied them into taking it out AND being fools, by putting a building on there and saying it's a mission when there's no cross on the building. It could be a Costco, as far as most people might think, unless TOLD it was a mission. IIRC, it's Mission San Gabriel, and it's a picture of the REAR of the mission (conveniently where you can't see the cross), not the lovely front with all the beautiful bells and the cross.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Geez, Rian, what part of "keep religion and private interest out of politics and the government" don't you understand? It is one of the most important founding tenets for the U.S.A., to keep religion separated from the government. The county IS THE GOVERNMENT.

Where in the constitution is your quote taken from? I disagree that it's "one of the most important founding tenets for the U.S.A., to keep religion separated from the government.", and so would most of the founding fathers, based upon things like the statue of Moses holding the 10 commandments right smack dab front and center on the Supreme Court building of this United States. What about prayer opening the Senate? What about the rights that are endowed by a "Creator" that it talks about in our Consitution? There are simply scads of references to God right in our own government, because this is not primarily a Buddhist nation, it's primarily a Christian nation - just a simple FACT, and NOT an established, state-forced religion. We came from a primarily Christian nation, but one that had a state-established religion, and THAT is what they didn't want here. It's freedom OF religion that is an important founding belief. And we have that here. We don't kill people that aren't Christians - heck, we allow them to build synagogues and mosques! In other countries, people get KILLED for not belonging to the state religion. There IS no state religion here, but it is a simple FACT that most people consider themselves to be Christians, and like to have that as part of the communities that they live in.

The separation of church and state is merely in a letter by Jefferson. It is NOT in the constitution or bill of rights. There are MANY other things in MANY other letters by MANY other founding fathers. Why not quote some of them that talk about God and the role of religion in government? You can pick your favorite, but so can I.

[Lotesse]

So, because YOU are religious, you would like to impose your religion upon the entire country? And you entirely missed the point I made when I sarcastically used the KKK as a comparing example of what you promote with your desire to impose your christianity upon the government, and everyone, irregardless of their right to be free of religious bias and imposition. And YES, it IS in the Constitution, Rian, to separate religion from the state.

I think it will be pointless to continue to try and have conversations with you when it ever comes to topics like getting religion out of government, because you have a very strong christian bias. You say " Why should only secularists get priviledged treatment? " I say "Why should only religious fundamentalists get priviledged treatment? " Because that's what you're asking for when you make this big deal about putting crosses on government property, and wax eloquent on trivialities like where Los Angeles got its name. You're asking for priviledged treatment for yourself and other christians who want crosses everywhere. That is impinging on the rest of us in this free country who wish to keep the crosses in the churches, and the government in the government.

You say potato, I say potahto, Rian, and thus it ever shall be, it seems.

[Lief Erikson]

Lotesse, in post #120, RÃ*an wrote this:
"The government is BY the people, FOR the people. If 90% of the people think a manger scene is appropriate on public property, then put one up! And if 2% want a Hannukah display, then put one up, too. And if 1% want a Kwanzaa display, then put one up, too. But if 1% don't think ANY display should be up, then I don't think they should be able to trample on the other people's wishes, since it is NOT against any law or right. I think those people are selfish bullies, in general; hiding behind the good will of the vast majority of Americans and taking advantage of their tolerance. Why should one selfish, grumpy person cancel a whole party for everyone else? Ask for a display that YOU like to be put up along with the others, or have the good grace and tolerance to let other people enjoy theirs and be quiet."

So it's apparent that she's not just asking for Christian priviledges.

[Lotesse]

No, you're right - she's asking for religious priviledges. If 90 %, 2%, or 1% of the population wants there to be NO religion in government, the same should apply, but I see a double standard here - big time. But I'm not going to argue with YOU about HER; it constitutes talking about or for someone in their absence and is silly. Rian was who I was speaking to, not you, no offense; but it's nice that you'd want to try and defend her. It makes sense that you would, since you are also a right-wing christian. Just as I'd defend the views of my like-minded mooters.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

So, because YOU are religious, you would like to impose your religion upon the entire country?

No, I do NOT want to impose my beliefs on the entire country, and I don't think that secularists should impose THEIR beliefs on the entire country, either. I think the country should reflect the people that are in it. Please get this straight - I DO NOT want to impose my religion on the entire country. And since this is what I think is right, I don't think OTHER people should impose THEIR beliefs on the entire country, either. Do you? I think communities should decide as a group how they want their tax dollars spent, and if that includes a manger scene on public property then so be it, and if it includes a menorah on public property then so be it, and if it involves an Islamic celebration at some point during the year, then so be it. And those who do NOT want to participate don't have to. And NO ONE is forced to accept Christianity or Judaism or Islam or atheism by the state. NO ONE.

And you entirely missed the point I made when I sarcastically used the KKK as a comparing example of what you promote with your desire to impose your christianity upon the government, and everyone, irregardless of their right to be free of religious bias and imposition.

I repeat again that I have NO desire to impose Christianity upon our government, and I resent secularists trying to impose secularism on the government, and I"ll continue to fight it.

You, apparently, entirely missed my point when I ably refuted the KKK argument.

What was your point that you think I missed?

And YES, it IS in the Constitution, Rian, to separate religion from the state.

Where? References, please.

I think it will be pointless to continue to try and have conversations with you when it ever comes to topics like getting religion out of government, because you have a very strong christian bias.

No, I have a PERSONAL bias, just like you do I don't adopt platforms; I adopt what I have thought about and I think is right, just like you do.

You say " Why should only secularists get priviledged treatment? " I say "Why should only religious fundamentalists get priviledged treatment? " Because that's what you're asking for when you make this big deal about putting crosses on government property, and wax eloquent on trivialities like where Los Angeles got its name. You're asking for priviledged treatment for yourself and other christians who want crosses everywhere. That is impinging on the rest of us in this free country who wish to keep the crosses in the churches, and the government in the government.

and YOU are asking for privileged treatment for secularists when you try to tell people what to do. And I said actual FACTS about Los Angeles, and Moses and the 10 commandments being on the Supreme Court of the United States of America building. It's simple fact. Do you think he should be sandblasted off?

I don't want privileged treatment for anyone. Our representative type of government should represent the people. And it just so happens that most of the people here are Christians. If I lived in an Islamic country, I wouldn't be surprised to see Islamic symbols. The difference is that if I put up a manger scene, I might get killed. Here in America, if you don't like manger scenes, you can put up whatever you want - that's your RIGHT. Or put up nothing. That's also your right.

You say potato, I say potahto, Rian, and thus it ever shall be, it seems.

We certainly have different opinions! Mine are the result of long hours of thought and research, and I hope that everyone can put as much thought into their opinions as I have. I don't hold my opinions because they're "Christian"; I hold them because I happen to think they are RIGHT, just like you do.

[HOBBIT]

You certainly have interesting arguments Rian

Why is it so important to have religious scenes on public property?

[Rían]

I don't personally think it is super important, right off hand (good question, btw, I'll have to think about that ), but I think it IS hugely important that people CAN have a voice in their government and their community, and I think it's VERY significant when that voice is being taken away (no matter WHAT the subject is - "religious" or not) by a small minority of party-poopers who are, IMO, mostly power-hungry bullies. (not you guys, though). I think these people truly need "tolerance", and it's ironic that they are probably the ones spouting off about how others need it!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

No, you're right - she's asking for religious priviledges.

No, I'm asking for a government that represents the people's wishes.

If 90 %, 2%, or 1% of the population wants there to be NO religion in government, the same should apply, but I see a double standard here - big time.

What is the double standard? You can't have both a religious display and not have a religious display. I think each community should make its own decisions.

But I'm not going to argue with YOU about HER; it constitutes talking about or for someone in their absence and is silly. Rian was who I was speaking to, not you, no offense; but it's nice that you'd want to try and defend her. It makes sense that you would, since you are also a right-wing christian. Just as I'd defend the views of my like-minded mooters.

"right-wing christian"? I thought we weren't supposed to use labels. I'd appreciate if you didn't call me by a label, please, and I"ll return the favor (you left-wing radical! joke joke!) And Lief didn't speak for me - he quoted my own words, so I'm fine with that. Perhaps you missed that part of my post, and he brought it up to your attention.

[Hasty Ent]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You can't have both a religious display and not have a religious display.

Exactly. By funding the display of a religious scene on public property the government is taking a position. This argument will never end, and agreement will never be reached because it is not possible for the government to be both secular and religious. The two opposing sides here will never coexist happily. Believers claim that religious displays aren't forcing non-believers to convert, and non-believers claim that prohibiting religious displays doesn't restrict believers from private worship. It boils down to a public vs private expression argument. I've always felt that religion is something that should be observed in private, without government interference. However, it is my belief that with the empowerment of the religious right in the US since Reagan's administration, we have slowly been moving towards a theocracy. As an atheist this terrifies me no less than a believer's feeling of being persecuted for the expression of his/her faith.

[brownjenkins]

well put hasty

in practice, it seems to be case by case... i'd rather see the government not spend money and time on things like nativity scenes on public commons (or menorahs or any other holiday symbol for that matter), but i don't think that much money or time should be spent on their removal either

what might be better is to allow any group to display something on the commons if:

a) it is paid for and maintained by that group

b) it is voted by the majority to be okay (this would stop things like the KKK, but allow the less controversial)

what does bother me is the idea that the government are repressing anything... we never have, and never will tell churches, for instance, that they can not have a nativity scene on their front yards... and 9 times out of 10, these front yards are facing these very same commons we are talking about

there seems to be a desire by the christian side to paint a picture that is much more oppressive than it really is... remember, we are debating what is done on public property and public property only

[Spock]

After careful reading I must say I totally agree with "Lief"
and with Rian

BTW, public land is just that, public and although a state or local government may have a building on it, the will of the people is supposed to be honored.

These symbols are all part of what has gone before and to arbitrarily wipe them out by law or fear is to deny when and where we came from. No one is going around arresting non-believers for not putting up displays.

[inked]

I fail to see why we have to accomodate the secularists by changing history.

The reality of history is not privileging religion, it is simply what actually happened.

To do what is being done in the name of secularism is in fact privileging secularism and changing history.

Who is actually imposing whose views on whom?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

These symbols are all part of what has gone before and to arbitrarily wipe them out by law or fear is to deny when and where we came from.

it's not "arbitrary"... these cases go to court... some win, some lose, some compromise... that is how our government works

as far as "denying where we came from"... not all americans have a christian past so your "we" is a bit inaccurate to say the least

Originally Posted by Spock

No one is going around arresting non-believers for not putting up displays.

actually, no one is going around "arresting" anyone

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

I fail to see why we have to accomodate the secularists by changing history.

the history of our country is all about accomodating differences... it it what makes us different from many european democracies who are just as christian, if not more so, that we are

and it isn't about history either, it's about the present

[Hasty Ent]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

and it isn't about history either, it's about the present

I agree. The history of this country is filled with events both glorious and repugnant. Just because something is a part of the past is not sufficient reason to honor it.

Communities choose to display religious icons on private property all the time, and no one is condemning that, but when a government agency gets involved, it validates that display by conferring government approval. This merely leads to feelings of divisiveness and disenfranchisement, instead of being a unifying and celebratory display which I assume is the intent.

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the history of our country is all about accomodating differences... it it what makes us different from many european democracies who are just as christian, if not more so, that we are

and it isn't about history either, it's about the present

newspeak, BJ.

Was California explored by Spanish conqistadores? Was the mission at Los Angelos started by Catholic priests?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Was California explored by Spanish conqistadores? Was the mission at Los Angelos started by Catholic priests?

did you read hasty's post?

I agree. The history of this country is filled with events both glorious and repugnant. Just because something is a part of the past is not sufficient reason to honor it.

if you insist on dwelling on history there is quite a lot of negatives associated with spanish conquistadores, christian missionaries and their relationship with the native populations of that area... but we don't talk about that part, do we? what "actually happened"

the ACLU forces us to re-examine history from time to time... never a bad thing