I just think that the removal of 'God', crosses, menorahs, etc. from public places is itself a violation of the phrase "Let Congress not establish any religion nor prohibit the free practice thereof". Not to mention it's a violation of the First Amendment free speech clause (which is a double-edged sword in itself).

What do you think?

Further, it is also not a violation of the phrase "Let Congress not establish any religion nor prohibit the free practice thereof".  The intended meaning of this phrase was to prevent discrimination based on religion.  Having any sort of religious symbol, such as the cross, displayed in public places is an attempt to establish religion, thus violating this phrase.  Moreover, removal of these symbols in no way prohibits the practice of the religion.

-------
The only mystery in life
is why you're not doing more now
instead of waiting for later
Do you really think you'll get another chance?

---

First off, declaring it a "violation of the First Amendment free speech clause" is always used as a last resort by persons or groups to get what they want.  This is in no way a violation of free speech.  You have the right to think and believe what you want; however, you may not force it upon others around you and expect to be able to maintain that right.

---

It is not forcing my beliefs on you to put a statue of the ten commandments in front of a building. It is, however, a violation of my free exercise of my religion to take it away. Free exercise is just that...free. I choose how to exercise and express it. Statues included. "Separation of church and state' is always used as a last resort by people who are made uncomfortable by the fact that other people believe things differently than they. Here, however, is the essence of both free speech and free religion.

NO ONE IN AMERICA HAS THE RIGHT TO NEVER BE OFFENDED.

It is not a right afforded by the constitution to remain unoffended all your life. you will be offended. Get over it.

-------
You only live once...but if you work it right, once is enough.

---

Quote: from masterfultemptation at 12:03 pm on Jan. 16, 2007

---

First off, declaring it a "violation of the First Amendment free speech clause" is always used as a last resort by persons or groups to get what they want.  This is in no way a violation of free speech.  You have the right to think and believe what you want; however, you may not force it upon others around you and expect to be able to maintain that right.  

---

 

It is not forcing my beliefs on you to put a statue of the ten commandments in front of a building. It is, however, a violation of my free exercise of my religion to take it away. Free exercise is just that...free. I choose how to exercise and express it. Statues included. "Separation of church and state' is always used as a last resort by people who are made uncomfortable by the fact that other people believe things differently than they. Here, however, is the essence of both free speech and free religion.  

NO ONE IN AMERICA HAS THE RIGHT TO NEVER BE OFFENDED.  

It is not a right afforded by the constitution to remain unoffended all your life. you will be offended. Get over it.

---

Fair enough.  And right beside the statue of the 10 commandments, I will place a statue dedicated to worshiping the Devil along with a statue of Jesus with a knife through him.

Deal?

Don't you see that if everybody starts putting their religious symbols up, it will become a contest on who can support their religion the most?  All religion is trying to do with this is advertise.  If you want to see the 10 commandments that desperately, carry them around on a piece of paper with you wherever you go.

Religion can not, should not, and will not be an excuse to do as you please and will not allow you to bend rules, laws, and rights to conform with such religion.  The more you push for it, the more you will be pushed back by those who do not support your religion.  Thus, it causes tension and fighting, which is not needed and can simply be avoided.

Post edited at 9:40 am on Jan. 17, 2007 by masterfultemptation

-------
The only mystery in life
is why you're not doing more now
instead of waiting for later
Do you really think you'll get another chance?

My point is that in the Bible, it says to obey the laws of your nation. But being silent about our religion is not a law of the nation. Nor is it even hinted at in the constitution. The establishment and free exercise clauses were established to keep government from changing religion, not the other way around.

-------
You only live once...but if you work it right, once is enough.

No, being silent is not a law of the nation.  Yet, nobody is asking you to be silent.  Simply removing symbols from public view on public, government property is in no way hindering your freedom of expression.  You may continue to express yourself with your own private property, not with the property of the government and people as a whole.  To use an analogy, you can graffiti your own building all you want because it is yours, but you cannot do it to someone else's building or to public property.  The freedom of speech or expression in absolutely no way gives anyone the right to express anything on property or belonging of others.  Both you and your neighbour have equal right to public property; so either both your religions are displayed or neither are displayed because he has just as much right to express himself as you do.

This brings me back to my original statement.  You may display your religious symbols of God, Jesus, and the Bible if your neighbour can display his religious symbols of anti-God, anti-Jesus, and anti-Bible.  Again, this defeats the purpose of either person's expression, leading to tension.

You cannot argue the fact that such a situation as religion brings a lot of tension when two people have conflicting ideas.  Express yourself as blatantly as you want, but be warned, others will do the same if you chose to do so.

-------
The only mystery in life
is why you're not doing more now
instead of waiting for later
Do you really think you'll get another chance?

---

No, being silent is not a law of the nation.  Yet, nobody is asking you to be silent.  Simply removing symbols from public view on public, government property is in no way hindering your freedom of expression.  You may continue to express yourself with your own private property, not with the property of the government and people as a whole.  

---

You ignored my point. I said that the reason for the statue was that the Commandments were the basis for Western Law, which we still follow. The commandments deserve to be in front of the courthouse as much as a statue of George Washington belongs in America. It is rememberance of the origins, not a blatant preference of religion. If it was a muslim law that started our legal system, i would have no objection to a statue of something islamic in front of a courthouse.

---

To use an analogy, you can graffiti your own building all you want because it is yours, but you cannot do it to someone else's building or to public property.  The freedom of speech or expression in absolutely no way gives anyone the right to express anything on property or belonging of others.  Both you and your neighbour have equal right to public property; so either both your religions are displayed or neither are displayed because he has just as much right to express himself as you do.

---

You are wrong, sir. The first amendment does not say that you can only speak freely on your own property. It protects your expression wherever you go. People may ask you to leave their private property, because it is their property, but they cannot penalize you for saying your mind on their property. All they can do is ask you to leave, which is their prerogative. However, public property, by definition, belongs to the public. The people. Therefore, anyone may speak their mind on public property. Thats why we have protests and public assemblies. Why we have marches and people on soapboxes along the street. I am not infringing the rights of other religions, my friend. I am merely saying that the Ten Commandments belonged in front of that courthouse. And the people who removed them did so for purely selfish reasons.

-------
You only live once...but if you work it right, once is enough.

Further, demonstrations, rallies, etc. is not the same as a PERMANENT symbol.  You can in no way compare the two.  You are again ignoring the fact that there are other people in the world with opinions other than yours.  Do you honestly think that they would have done this, had a majority of the people wanted it there?  Obviously not.  So there are enough people to support this decision.  If there isn't, this is something you need to research, prove, and protest.  It does not matter how much you repeat yourself about free speech, nobody is going to listen to you if majority of the people don't agree with you; you are simply banging your head against the wall.

Accept that people's beliefs differ from yours, and they rather not have it there.  Much of modern society is moving away from classical religion.  No, not religion, CLASSICAL INTERPRETATIONS and UNDERSTANDINGS of religion (caps to emphasize and avoid mis-interpretation).  If you believe otherwise, prove it to your government and get it changed.  Until then, there is nothing you can do.

Post edited at 11:36 am on Jan. 17, 2007 by masterfultemptation

-------
The only mystery in life
is why you're not doing more now
instead of waiting for later
Do you really think you'll get another chance?

My point is this: I do not ignore that other people have different beliefs. I do, however, think no one should be allowed to silence another because of them. I have no problem with Jewish or Muslim shows of faith, they have the right to exercise there religion. But part of my religion includes sharing it.

I never said i should be the only one who is allowed to share his religion, however. I only used the commandment statue as an example because it was a modern and specific example. It was also adequate for the location.

I do not infringe anyones right to speak their mind. Even if they disagree with me. But just because i respect their right to have a different opinion doesnt mean i have to think of their beliefs as equally correct to mine.

I hope you understand. I am not trying to be argumentative.

-------
You only live once...but if you work it right, once is enough.

Just curious, though, how would you feel if right next to the cross or the ten commandments was a symbol of the devil?  Or of a god of another faith?  Would you be fine with that?

-------
The only mystery in life
is why you're not doing more now
instead of waiting for later
Do you really think you'll get another chance?

---

The first amendment does not say that you can only speak freely on your own property. It protects your expression wherever you go. People may ask you to leave their private property, because it is their property, but they cannot penalize you for saying your mind on their property.

---

That's not true. Fighting words are not protected anywhere, nor are words to incite violence. Also military personnel have their 1st ammendement rights severely restricted during wartime. And students give up virtually every right they have when they enter a public school.

---

Therefore, anyone may speak their mind on public property.

---

Wrong. Inciting violence with the intent to actually do it with the resources is not legal and you can and people have been arrested for it.

---

I am merely saying that the Ten Commandments belonged in front of that courthouse. And the people who removed them did so for purely selfish reasons.

---

Right....$50 says you'd be offended if the statue of Satan was put up in a court house.

-------
"Well this is new....and scary" - Serena on a Convent Scarab

I seriously doubt, however, that the United States was ever intended to be a "Christian nation." Referring back to the Constition, Article 6 says that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

It is interesting, is it not, that the very first amendment passed begins by saying that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- Congress shall pass no law which even respects an establishment of religion, that's a pretty strong admonishment. Making sure that citizens have a full ability to practice religion freely hardly seems the action of a religious government, or of a government which considered itself religious in nature.

It's a common fallacy that the first amendment applies only to Congress. Enter the 14th Amendment, and the concept of substantive due process -- the Bill of Rights, in its original incarnation, limited only federal actions, but the 14th amendment adds that: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of religion is a key freedom of the United States. Key case law, including Lemon v. Kurtzman and the associated Lemon Test have laid a groundwork to test associations between government and religion, as well as the acknowledgement that a state-endorsed church is little better than a religious state. Decades of case law have never reversed this position, that I am aware of.

Religious freedom is in great danger when the government allows itself to become or appear chiefly religious in nature or motivation. Putting a large stone monument of the 10 Commandments in front of the Alabama supreme court is a religiously motivated act -- it's easy enough to tell, thanks to the thinly veiled responses of those who erected and defended this religious monument.

The argument that it "represents history" holds much more water when one acknowledges the influence other religions and philosophies have had on society -- the courtroom of the Supreme Court includes a frieze of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, alongside Hammurabi, Solomon, Louis IX, Confucius, Napoleon, and even Muhammad.

This isn't to say that the government should shy away from the mere mention or touch of religion. But it should never endorse any one religion, in my mind, because doing so would threaten the religious freedom of all our citizens.

-------
Make love, not traffic.