IN WHICH I STEAL FROM RED STATE RABBLE
BORROWED OPINIONSWednesday, May 09, 2007
Statues to Tyranny
Fundamentalist Christians complain about unfair restrictions on their freedom of religion when secularists demand that Ten Commandment monuments be removed from public property.
How do they react when minority religions ask that monuments to their faith be placed in the public square?
The Salt Lake Tribune reports that those who defend placing the Ten Commandments on public property are not so willing to defend the rights of others to do the same thing.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has ruled that Pleasant Grove and Duchesne parks are public forums and that followers of the Summum faith have a right to display their Seven Aphorisms next to the Ten Commandments.
City attorneys will go to court to argue that "in the 121 years since the French gave the United States the Statue of Liberty, nobody has demanded a competing statue supporting tyranny. So nobody should be able to demand that competing structures be erected next to monuments of the Ten Commandments."
Those city attorneys may have missed the point. All those Ten Commandment monuments are the competing statues supporting tyranny. And they're all over the place.
How do they react when minority religions ask that monuments to their faith be placed in the public square?
The Salt Lake Tribune reports that those who defend placing the Ten Commandments on public property are not so willing to defend the rights of others to do the same thing.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has ruled that Pleasant Grove and Duchesne parks are public forums and that followers of the Summum faith have a right to display their Seven Aphorisms next to the Ten Commandments.
City attorneys will go to court to argue that "in the 121 years since the French gave the United States the Statue of Liberty, nobody has demanded a competing statue supporting tyranny. So nobody should be able to demand that competing structures be erected next to monuments of the Ten Commandments."
Those city attorneys may have missed the point. All those Ten Commandment monuments are the competing statues supporting tyranny. And they're all over the place.
Vaughn Tolle said:
The city attorneys did miss the point. The Statue of Liberty has nothing to do with any religion, organized or otherwise. The analogy fails.
As I learned in high school American History the Pilgrims came to the "new world" in search of religious freedom. What I didn't learn in this class, but later in college, is that once here, they didn't allow religious freedom for anyone who didn't believe as they did. Roger Williams then founded Rhode Island where all were free to practice their religion. There were ambiguous references to this in high school, but it was never made clear why it was necessary that Rhode Island be founded as a separate colony for this purpose. Similarly, we learned that Pennsylvania was founded for the purpose, among others, of allowing Quakers to settle. No mention was made of why members of the Society of Friends weren't allowed to settle in Massachusetts.
To try to "cut to the chase", as Linda urges. The proponents of certain religious denominations fail to see that "freedom of religion" by necessity entails "freedom from religion". The so-called anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment makes no sense without this proposition being realized. Thus, for those who wish to have a monument to the Ten Commandments on public property, others have the right to be free from this. The allowance of other religions to have their monuments coexisting with the Ten Commandments on public property is a compromise. The other resolution of this problem is to not allow any religious monuments on any public property (which is what I favor, BTW). Either allows the government to be "religiously neutral", which is the current stand of SCOTUS on the issue.
As I learned in high school American History the Pilgrims came to the "new world" in search of religious freedom. What I didn't learn in this class, but later in college, is that once here, they didn't allow religious freedom for anyone who didn't believe as they did. Roger Williams then founded Rhode Island where all were free to practice their religion. There were ambiguous references to this in high school, but it was never made clear why it was necessary that Rhode Island be founded as a separate colony for this purpose. Similarly, we learned that Pennsylvania was founded for the purpose, among others, of allowing Quakers to settle. No mention was made of why members of the Society of Friends weren't allowed to settle in Massachusetts.
To try to "cut to the chase", as Linda urges. The proponents of certain religious denominations fail to see that "freedom of religion" by necessity entails "freedom from religion". The so-called anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment makes no sense without this proposition being realized. Thus, for those who wish to have a monument to the Ten Commandments on public property, others have the right to be free from this. The allowance of other religions to have their monuments coexisting with the Ten Commandments on public property is a compromise. The other resolution of this problem is to not allow any religious monuments on any public property (which is what I favor, BTW). Either allows the government to be "religiously neutral", which is the current stand of SCOTUS on the issue.
lindainks55 said:
Vaughn, Do you think the current SCOTUS (since the two newest bush appointees) are still on the side of neutral? Has any decision to test this come before the new court?
The only way to protect your own freedom is to vigilantly protect the freedoms of everyone -- especually the smallest of minorities. And, this administrtion has gone farther than any for a long time in putting our personal freedoms in jeopardy.
I, too, would like to see government and religion as separated as possible. If we expect Christianity to be protected against all odds what allows us to believe we are any different than the Taliban?
The only way to protect your own freedom is to vigilantly protect the freedoms of everyone -- especually the smallest of minorities. And, this administrtion has gone farther than any for a long time in putting our personal freedoms in jeopardy.
I, too, would like to see government and religion as separated as possible. If we expect Christianity to be protected against all odds what allows us to believe we are any different than the Taliban?
lindainks55 said:
Could I have a do over on that last post for corrections? Guess if the fat cat icon doesn't identify me the misspellings and grammatical errors will! Not that I am smart enough to be anyone but me anyway!
Vaughn Tolle said:
Linda, to the best of my knowledge there hasn't been a case on this before the Court this term. I try not to predict anything SCOTUS or any other appellate court does, but I suspect the test will remain the same, with jursiprudential gymnastics occurring to fit the test.
Tracy Phillips said:
I demand that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (religion) gets equal placement, air time, etc.!
Loading....