As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

I can has private donation to public park?

2»

Posts

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009
    Qingu wrote: »
    SCOTUS has many times ruled that the Ten Commandments and other bullshit like that is historically important apart from religion. That's how they have gotten around the establishment clause. I don't like it either, but it's precedent.

    I'm curious as to what guidelines y'all would suggest for governments deciding on what monuments to put up in their spaces.
    • No swear words
    • No references to deities
    • No references to Hitler or Osama bin Laden

    I mean, any guidelines are going to be completely arbitrary. So honestly, I feel like we might as well let our society progress naturally. As it becomes more progressive, less people will want to put up dumb-assed religious monuments, and the situation will right itself.

    It's not arbitrary, it's in our Constitution

    it being a "guideline" that government establishment or preference of religion is not allowed

    Medopine on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Qingu wrote: »
    I'm curious as to what guidelines y'all would suggest for governments deciding on what monuments to put up in their spaces.

    Does it improve the area, contribute to the furthering of our society, or denote some aspect of history worth acknowledging.

    Though if I were actually making a law based on it that would be far more broad. Like the Landmarks law which was recently struck down under horrifically idiotic pretenses. I'm actually interested in getting a monument erected in the city and am going to try to figure out just how the hell one goes about doing so. The new one they're going to build dedicated to Daniel Burnham at the entrance to Museum Campus, in Burnham Park, should be interesting as well. Given the firms that are involved in the design competition, anyway.

    moniker on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The NY Times article doesn't mention it, but the Reuters article does: apparently, the city has guidelines written up for monuments, that include a requirement that the monuments be related to the history of the city, or be donated by a group with longstanding community ties. So, the ruling makes more sense from that perspective.

    However, I'm still not seeing how the Ten Commandments thing doesn't run into the Establishment Clause if they're going to accept some religious monuments but not others. It's de facto endorsement if you're only allowed to put up monuments for religions that were around when the city was established.
    or it could be construed as a statue of general applicability that incidentally affects some religious expression

    because it means that religions with no historical ties to the community are categorically denied the ability to place a monument but it also means ANY monument with no historical ties is categorically denied the same thing


    really though the rule should be no religious monuments

    then we get into the whole discussion, is the ten commandments monument a religious one or a historical one....
    The first words on the goddamn thing are "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; Do not have any other gods before me." If we're going to say that's historical, then a monument to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that says that he created man from a meatball must be historic, too.

    Thanatos on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    It's not arbitrary, it's in our Constitution

    it being a "guideline" that government establishment or preference of religion is not allowed
    The Constitution was written at a time when the word "religion" largely meant "Christianity." Humanists like Jefferson, of course realized that there were many religions on equal footing with Christianity. But many people used the term as in: "We have to teach those Injuns some Christianity." The concept of religions, plural, was only just starting to emerge.

    In addition, the context of the Constitution's clause, when it was written, was that Europe was embroiled in civil wars based on Christian sectarianism.

    I don't think the Constitution foresaw the current situation, completely malleable boundaries between ideologies called "religion," ideologies called "cults, and ideologies called "secular."

    And besides—let's take the Constitution as is. What is the legal litmus test for a "religion"?

    Qingu on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The NY Times article doesn't mention it, but the Reuters article does: apparently, the city has guidelines written up for monuments, that include a requirement that the monuments be related to the history of the city, or be donated by a group with longstanding community ties. So, the ruling makes more sense from that perspective.

    However, I'm still not seeing how the Ten Commandments thing doesn't run into the Establishment Clause if they're going to accept some religious monuments but not others. It's de facto endorsement if you're only allowed to put up monuments for religions that were around when the city was established.
    or it could be construed as a statue of general applicability that incidentally affects some religious expression

    because it means that religions with no historical ties to the community are categorically denied the ability to place a monument but it also means ANY monument with no historical ties is categorically denied the same thing


    really though the rule should be no religious monuments

    then we get into the whole discussion, is the ten commandments monument a religious one or a historical one....
    The first words on the goddamn thing are "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; Do not have any other gods before me." If we're going to say that's historical, then a monument to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that says that he created man from a meatball must be historic, too.
    Or they could just build a monument to some random Native American god because Indians were important to the history of the city from the beginning.

    Couscous on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Qingu wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    It's not arbitrary, it's in our Constitution

    it being a "guideline" that government establishment or preference of religion is not allowed
    The Constitution was written at a time when the word "religion" largely meant "Christianity." Humanists like Jefferson, of course realized that there were many religions on equal footing with Christianity. But many people used the term as in: "We have to teach those Injuns some Christianity." The concept of religions, plural, was only just starting to emerge.

    In addition, the context of the Constitution's clause, when it was written, was that Europe was embroiled in civil wars based on Christian sectarianism.

    I don't think the Constitution foresaw the current situation, completely malleable boundaries between ideologies called "religion," ideologies called "cults, and ideologies called "secular."

    And besides—let's take the Constitution as is. What is the legal litmus test for a "religion"?

    Does the IRS consider you to be a religion? If yes, you're a religion; if no, you are not a religion.

    moniker on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Does it improve the area, contribute to the furthering of our society, or denote some aspect of history worth acknowledging.
    This is exactly the argument that people have successfully used to defend putting up the Ten Commandments.
    Thanatos wrote:
    The first words on the goddamn thing are "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; Do not have any other gods before me." If we're going to say that's historical, then a monument to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that says that he created man from a meatball must be historic, too.
    I don't like the above argument. But I think you're being unfair. Say what you will about the TC (and I can say a lot, including that they explicitly endorse slavery), but they are old.[/b] Shit, the Charlton Heston movie alone was incredibly important, culturally and historically in recent American history. That's the argument that justifies putting them up, and you really can't honestly make that argument for the FSM.

    Maybe for native American gods though.

    Qingu on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Qingu wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Does it improve the area, contribute to the furthering of our society, or denote some aspect of history worth acknowledging.
    This is exactly the argument that people have successfully used to defend putting up the Ten Commandments.

    That's nice.

    moniker on
  • Darkchampion3dDarkchampion3d Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Qingu wrote: »
    The decision leaves me uneasy, but I can definitely see the logic and the practicality behind it.

    If the government is forced to accept this monument, then they would likewise be forced to accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster monument, the Qingu As Master of the Universe monument, and the Gigantic Winged Penis monument. This isn't a slippery slope fallacy; if the court ruled in Summun's favor it would set a legitimate precedent for any group to sue if the government did not display their monument.

    I also like how the court made an effort to separate the issue of "should government be forced to accept any monument for display in public parks?" from the issue of "does displaying particular religious monuments in public parks constitute a breach of the establishment clause?" I think, as long as these issues have separate jurisprudence, then I'm okay with this.

    I would totally put out some cash for a FSM or Winged Penis monument to stand proudly next to the Summum bullshit monument had it been allowed.

    Darkchampion3d on
    Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Why not just take the coward's way out and just put it up as a vote every election?

    Couscous on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Does the IRS consider you to be a religion? If yes, you're a religion; if no, you are not a religion.
    Which is also a steaming heap of bullshit.

    Nonprofits should be tax-exempt. "Religion" should have absolutely nothing to do with it. The curious case of L. Ron Hubbard is more than enough to demonstrate how this policy is abused.

    Qingu on
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Qingu wrote: »
    I don't like the above argument. But I think you're being unfair. Say what you will about the TC (and I can say a lot, including that they explicitly endorse slavery), but they are old.[/b] Shit, the Charlton Heston movie alone was incredibly important, culturally and historically in recent American history. That's the argument that justifies putting them up, and you really can't honestly make that argument for the FSM.

    Maybe for native American gods though.

    What secular historical importance do the Ten Commandments have? They didn't shape our laws.

    Would it be acceptable for the Utah state government to put up a huge statue of the angel Moroni in the center of the city, on public land, just because a lot of people in Utah happened to be Mormon at the time of the state's founding? If so, why couldn't any state with a historical majority (or even large plurality or minority!) of citizens put up a monument or statue dedicated to their particular sect (Catholic, Lutheran, whatever) in their state capital? In their public schools? Could they teach the theology of that religion in their public schools as a part of "state history?"

    This "historical importance" nonsense has got to go.

    Matrijs on
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Nobody sued to have the ten commandments removed. They didn't have to rule on that issue.

    enc0re on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Matrijs wrote: »
    What secular historical importance do the Ten Commandments have? They didn't shape our laws.
    I agree. I'm just saying, the SCOTUS thinks they have, or something, and so there's precedent.

    My anger at seeing the Ten Commandments and God depends on where they're put up. I don't really care if they're in a public park in some bum-fuck town full of religious idiots. I care a lot more if they're put up in a public school, next to a list of school rules. And I care a lot that "under God" is in the pledge. I wouldn't care at all if they're put up next to the Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta.

    I think these battles should be fought on a case-by-case basis.

    Qingu on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    The big trouble with the establishment clause is that it specifically forbids Congress from passing any law which establishes a religion. An issue such as this one, in which a city official or perhaps city council must either judge on a case-by-case basis the acceptability of a gift or draw up guidelines for such judgment, is arguably not covered. Surely the spirit of the clause implies that the state should not endorse any religion over another, but what it does in practice and in letter is prevent the creation of any legal edifice based upon religious practice; no element of the legal system shall be constructed to favor one religion over another.

    Should a Mayor be restricted from displaying a cross in his office? I don't think so, even though he has obviously personally endorsed some form of Christianity. There's no legal edifice behind it. Should a state be able to write legislation that reads, "no FSM monuments in public areas?" Obviously not. Things become super-murky when the question is "does the city council have a right to deny these whackos access to publicly-owned space for the purposes of, essentially, advertising?" I think there's a solid argument to be made that yes, they have a right to deny them access and it need not have anything to do with a fact that they are a religious institution, which is what the majority decision states. "It is not representative of the character of our community" is a pretty good standard for what a city should accept as a gift, I think.

    SCOTUS doesn't like to rule on any more than it absolutely has to. When the barest of justification to determine an outcome is served by a particular decision, that's the best one to chose, and let another case which that margin does not cover provide the example by which to judge those other issues. Since a decision on the establishment clause isn't necessary to close this issue, issuing a decision on the establishment clause is unwise; another case probably more closely adheres to the contours of the Constitutional issue at hand and will therefore produce a better ruling. (theoretically)

    MrMonroe on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    enc0re wrote: »
    Nobody sued to have the ten commandments removed. They didn't have to rule on that issue.
    They have in the past, though. And ruled it can stay.

    Thanatos on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    The big trouble with the establishment clause is that it specifically forbids Congress from passing any law which establishes a religion. An issue such as this one, in which a city official or perhaps city council must either judge on a case-by-case basis the acceptability of a gift or draw up guidelines for such judgment, is arguably not covered. Surely the spirit of the clause implies that the state should not endorse any religion over another, but what it does in practice and in letter is prevent the creation of any legal edifice based upon religious practice; no element of the legal system shall be constructed to favor one religion over another.

    Should a Mayor be restricted from displaying a cross in his office? I don't think so, even though he has obviously personally endorsed some form of Christianity. There's no legal edifice behind it. Should a state be able to write legislation that reads, "no FSM monuments in public areas?" Obviously not. Things become super-murky when the question is "does the city council have a right to deny these whackos access to publicly-owned space for the purposes of, essentially, advertising?" I think there's a solid argument to be made that yes, they have a right to deny them access and it need not have anything to do with a fact that they are a religious institution, which is what the majority decision states. "It is not representative of the character of our community" is a pretty good standard for what a city should accept as a gift, I think.

    SCOTUS doesn't like to rule on any more than it absolutely has to. When the barest of justification to determine an outcome is served by a particular decision, that's the best one to chose, and let another case which that margin does not cover provide the example by which to judge those other issues. Since a decision on the establishment clause isn't necessary to close this issue, issuing a decision on the establishment clause is unwise; another case probably more closely adheres to the contours of the Constitutional issue at hand and will therefore produce a better ruling. (theoretically)
    The "Congress" thing hasn't been an issue since the First Amendment was ruled to apply to the states under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

    Unless you're trying to argue that it's perfectly okay for Utah to declare Mormonism the official state religion, that's not really a question we need to be asking.

    Thanatos on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    I don't like the above argument. But I think you're being unfair. Say what you will about the TC (and I can say a lot, including that they explicitly endorse slavery), but they are old.[/b] Shit, the Charlton Heston movie alone was incredibly important, culturally and historically in recent American history. That's the argument that justifies putting them up, and you really can't honestly make that argument for the FSM.

    Maybe for native American gods though.

    What secular historical importance do the Ten Commandments have? They didn't shape our laws.

    Would it be acceptable for the Utah state government to put up a huge statue of the angel Moroni in the center of the city, on public land, just because a lot of people in Utah happened to be Mormon at the time of the state's founding? If so, why couldn't any state with a historical majority (or even large plurality or minority!) of citizens put up a monument or statue dedicated to their particular sect (Catholic, Lutheran, whatever) in their state capital? In their public schools? Could they teach the theology of that religion in their public schools as a part of "state history?"

    This "historical importance" nonsense has got to go.

    Hang on now.

    It would be reasonable for the City Council in SLC to accept as a gift a statue of the angel Maroni; it's representative of the character of the area and that's a sufficient test. There's no establishment of legal recognition of religious practice in this case.

    It would be unreasonable for the state legislature to sign into law a measure funding the construction of said statue, and it would be a clear violation for public schools to teach theology; that's spending state resources, under legal sanction, on religion.

    In a dominantly baptist area, it would be reasonable for the city to accept a statue of the ten commandments. It's a big part of the life of the community. It would be utterly unreasonable for them to sign a law saying they'll help pay for the damn thing. Putting it in front of a courthouse is, well, tacky, and a little insensitive, and the City Council or whoever is making the decision ought to take that into account. "People will get waaaay pissed if we do this" is also a legitimate test.

    MrMonroe on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Baptists have twelve commandments?

    Are the last two "Thou shalt not dance" and "Thou shalt not condone anything that brings joy to anyone, ever?"

    Thanatos on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The "Congress" thing hasn't been an issue since the First Amendment was ruled to apply to the states under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

    Unless you're trying to argue that it's perfectly okay for Utah to declare Mormonism the official state religion, that's not really a question we need to be asking.

    That's not what I'm implying at all. States are bound by the same restriction. Great. But that doesn't mean a city council cannot accept a gift of a statue that is religious in nature. They aren't creating any legal edifice establishing a particular religion above another. Whether they should or not is another issue, but I don't think the establishment clause prevents it, nor do I think it needs to have any bearing on this case, which is my main point.

    MrMonroe on
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The "Congress" thing hasn't been an issue since the First Amendment was ruled to apply to the states under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

    Unless you're trying to argue that it's perfectly okay for Utah to declare Mormonism the official state religion, that's not really a question we need to be asking.

    I believe it's actually the Due Process clause. The idea there is that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The phrase "due process of law" is held to "incorporate" certain rights, including many (though not all) of those listed in the first 8 amendments to the US Constitution.

    The Establishment clause, in particular, was incorporated in Everson v. Board of Education in 1947.

    Matrijs on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Baptists have twelve commandments?

    Are the last two "Thou shalt not dance" and "Thou shalt not condone anything that brings joy to anyone, ever?"

    Don't forget "no homos"

    also, I have no idea how that happened. edited for carelessness.

    MrMonroe on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The "Congress" thing hasn't been an issue since the First Amendment was ruled to apply to the states under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

    Unless you're trying to argue that it's perfectly okay for Utah to declare Mormonism the official state religion, that's not really a question we need to be asking.
    That's not what I'm implying at all. States are bound by the same restriction. Great. But that doesn't mean a city council cannot accept a gift of a statue that is religious in nature. They aren't creating any legal edifice establishing a particular religion above another. Whether they should or not is another issue, but I don't think the establishment clause prevents it, nor do I think it needs to have any bearing on this case, which is my main point.
    If they're accepting some religious monuments for display, but not others, then that pretty much is creating a legal edifice establishing a particular religion above another.

    And let's be honest, here: these groups aren't making "donations" to the city; they're requesting free advertising from the city.

    Thanatos on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Baptists have twelve commandments?

    Are the last two "Thou shalt not dance" and "Thou shalt not condone anything that brings joy to anyone, ever?"
    Don't forget "no homos"

    also, I have no idea how that happened. edited for carelessness.
    I wasn't being sarcastic, there; I thought you actually just knew something about Baptists that I didn't.

    They're crazy enough to add on a couple of extras, anyhow. :P

    Thanatos on
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    I don't like the above argument. But I think you're being unfair. Say what you will about the TC (and I can say a lot, including that they explicitly endorse slavery), but they are old.[/b] Shit, the Charlton Heston movie alone was incredibly important, culturally and historically in recent American history. That's the argument that justifies putting them up, and you really can't honestly make that argument for the FSM.

    Maybe for native American gods though.

    What secular historical importance do the Ten Commandments have? They didn't shape our laws.

    Would it be acceptable for the Utah state government to put up a huge statue of the angel Moroni in the center of the city, on public land, just because a lot of people in Utah happened to be Mormon at the time of the state's founding? If so, why couldn't any state with a historical majority (or even large plurality or minority!) of citizens put up a monument or statue dedicated to their particular sect (Catholic, Lutheran, whatever) in their state capital? In their public schools? Could they teach the theology of that religion in their public schools as a part of "state history?"

    This "historical importance" nonsense has got to go.

    Hang on now.

    It would be reasonable for the City Council in SLC to accept as a gift a statue of the angel Maroni; it's representative of the character of the area and that's a sufficient test. There's no establishment of legal recognition of religious practice in this case.

    It would be unreasonable for the state legislature to sign into law a measure funding the construction of said statue, and it would be a clear violation for public schools to teach theology; that's spending state resources, under legal sanction, on religion.

    In a dominantly baptist area, it would be reasonable for the city to accept a statue of the twelve commandments. It's a big part of the life of the community. It would be utterly unreasonable for them to sign a law saying they'll help pay for the damn thing. Putting it in front of a courthouse is, well, tacky, and a little insensitive, and the City Council or whoever is making the decision ought to take that into account. "People will get waaaay pissed if we do this" is also a legitimate test.

    Nice try. The problem here is that by putting the statue up on public land, rent-free, you are providing a continuing public endorsement of the associated religion, and a continuing public subsidy of that religion through, effectively, advertising its tenets. Maybe if a religion wanted to rent out a piece of the park and put up a statue that would be acceptable, but in that case, anti-discrimination statutes would probably apply, and the other monument at issue in this case would have to be allowed.

    I just don't see a logically coherent outcome to this case that allows the state or local government to display the Ten Commandments legally while rejecting similar displays of religious creeds by other sects.

    Matrijs on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The "Congress" thing hasn't been an issue since the First Amendment was ruled to apply to the states under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

    Unless you're trying to argue that it's perfectly okay for Utah to declare Mormonism the official state religion, that's not really a question we need to be asking.
    That's not what I'm implying at all. States are bound by the same restriction. Great. But that doesn't mean a city council cannot accept a gift of a statue that is religious in nature. They aren't creating any legal edifice establishing a particular religion above another. Whether they should or not is another issue, but I don't think the establishment clause prevents it, nor do I think it needs to have any bearing on this case, which is my main point.
    If they're accepting some religious monuments for display, but not others, then that pretty much is creating a legal edifice establishing a particular religion above another.

    And let's be honest, here: these groups aren't making "donations" to the city; they're requesting free advertising from the city.

    Unless they create guidelines that say "these religions are ok, these other ones aren't," I don't think they are. If the guidelines are not religious in nature, it falls to the community norm to determine what's acceptable and what isn't, and community makeup is far from immutable. There is limited space in the park, so it stands to reason that a wealthy minority shouldn't be able to bring in whatever they like regardless of the will of the community, whether the donation is religious or secular in nature.

    And yes, you're right, they're requesting free advertising space. But then, so is anyone who wants to put something on public land.

    MrMonroe on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The "Congress" thing hasn't been an issue since the First Amendment was ruled to apply to the states under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

    Unless you're trying to argue that it's perfectly okay for Utah to declare Mormonism the official state religion, that's not really a question we need to be asking.
    That's not what I'm implying at all. States are bound by the same restriction. Great. But that doesn't mean a city council cannot accept a gift of a statue that is religious in nature. They aren't creating any legal edifice establishing a particular religion above another. Whether they should or not is another issue, but I don't think the establishment clause prevents it, nor do I think it needs to have any bearing on this case, which is my main point.
    If they're accepting some religious monuments for display, but not others, then that pretty much is creating a legal edifice establishing a particular religion above another.

    And let's be honest, here: these groups aren't making "donations" to the city; they're requesting free advertising from the city.
    Unless they create guidelines that say "these religions are ok, these other ones aren't," I don't think they are. If the guidelines are not religious in nature, it falls to the community norm to determine what's acceptable and what isn't, and community makeup is far from immutable. There is limited space in the park, so it stands to reason that a wealthy minority shouldn't be able to bring in whatever they like regardless of the will of the community, whether the donation is religious or secular in nature.

    And yes, you're right, they're requesting free advertising space. But then, so is anyone who wants to put something on public land.
    Yes, but they're requesting free advertising space for a religious message. There is value in that. If it's a permanent monument, there is huge value in that. The most analogous thing I can think of (though obviously not analogous in magnitude) would be naming rights to a stadium. And the city is just giving that away. That's basically the same as writing a check to the church.

    Thanatos on
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    And yes, you're right, they're requesting free advertising space. But then, so is anyone who wants to put something on public land.

    So suppose Coca-Cola wanted to do something similar and some city council was stupid enough to go along with it. What's the difference? Well, the difference is that it would be legal for Coca-Cola because there's no Constitutional provision stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of business."

    Religions are treated differently in Constitutional law. There's nothing particularly exciting or ground-breaking about this revelation.

    Matrijs on
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009
    Qingu wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    It's not arbitrary, it's in our Constitution

    it being a "guideline" that government establishment or preference of religion is not allowed
    The Constitution was written at a time when the word "religion" largely meant "Christianity." Humanists like Jefferson, of course realized that there were many religions on equal footing with Christianity. But many people used the term as in: "We have to teach those Injuns some Christianity." The concept of religions, plural, was only just starting to emerge.

    In addition, the context of the Constitution's clause, when it was written, was that Europe was embroiled in civil wars based on Christian sectarianism.

    I don't think the Constitution foresaw the current situation, completely malleable boundaries between ideologies called "religion," ideologies called "cults, and ideologies called "secular."

    And besides—let's take the Constitution as is. What is the legal litmus test for a "religion"?

    I hate that type of narrow originalism, and I reject it

    I like to think of the Constitution in the context of, y'know, the world we live in

    Also I disagree that those boundaries you speak of are completely malleable, and that we have to just throw up our hands and call all distinction between religion and ideologies "arbitrary"

    Medopine on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Guys, guys, guys.
    Background

    In September 2003, the mayor of Pleasant Grove City, Utah, received an unusual letter from Summum “Corky” Ra, the leader of a little-known religious organization based in Salt Lake City. As he had done in other towns in Utah, Ra sought permission to erect a monument to the “Seven Aphorisms of Summum” in a city park, alongside a depiction of the Ten Commandments that had been donated to the city more than three decades prior.

    After city officials denied his request, Ra filed a suit alleging a violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit eventually agreed, finding the park to be a traditional public forum and the Ten Commandments monument to constitute the private speech of the original donor.
    The reason SCOTUS "avoided" the establishment clause is because the original case, and the decision by the 10th Circuit, weren't about Establishment or Religion, they were all about free speech in a public forum. The 10th Circuit decided that any refusal of any suggested display in a public park is subject to the protections of free speech in a public forum.

    In other words, the 10th circuit was basically saying that the government can't determine what does or does not go in a park, but rather a public park is effectively a public forum upon which anyone can put absolutely anything they want, and the Free Speech clause forbids the government from saying no or removing it. Hell, this would make the act of picking up litter at a public park unconstitutional.

    SCOTUS rightfully slapped this down, and their reasoning directly addressed the issues at hand, and were not "screwy." They correctly addressed the fact that the government does reserve the right to design the park and decide what goes where, and any joe schmoe who says "I want to put a ____ here" does not have the free-speech right to do so. The government has a right to maintain the park in the manner it determines, and that isn't a public forum or censorship. If you dont like the Parks Commission, vote about it.

    Now, Scalia specifically says in the decision that, hey, by the way, for example, the government can't favor one religion over another with what they decide to put in a park. I mean, he goes above and beyond to tell you guys exactly what you want to hear, so I don't get at all why you think they are being dodgy about this.

    But enc0re is right, no one was suing to remove the Ten Commandments. They ruled on the case, gave an accurate opinion on why the government saying "no" to your weird statue does not violate your free speech, and even made it pretty damn clear that a case challenging the Ten Commandments might have raised the more pertinent issue here. What more do you want? They rule on the appeals in front of them, and write opinions to clarify the ruling. They don't write laws or pass executive orders based on things they find out about in the case brief. Three branches of government, anyone?

    Yar on
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009
    Yar wrote: »
    Guys, guys, guys.
    Background

    In September 2003, the mayor of Pleasant Grove City, Utah, received an unusual letter from Summum “Corky” Ra, the leader of a little-known religious organization based in Salt Lake City. As he had done in other towns in Utah, Ra sought permission to erect a monument to the “Seven Aphorisms of Summum” in a city park, alongside a depiction of the Ten Commandments that had been donated to the city more than three decades prior.

    After city officials denied his request, Ra filed a suit alleging a violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit eventually agreed, finding the park to be a traditional public forum and the Ten Commandments monument to constitute the private speech of the original donor.
    The reason SCOTUS "avoided" the establishment clause is because the original case, and the decision by the 10th Circuit, weren't about Establishment or Religion, they were all about free speech in a public forum. The 10th Circuit decided that any refusal of any suggested display in a public park is subject to the protections of free speech in a public forum.

    In other words, the 10th circuit was basically saying that the government can't determine what does or does not go in a park, but rather a public park is effectively a public forum upon which anyone can put absolutely anything they want, and the Free Speech clause forbids the government from saying no or removing it. Hell, this would make the act of picking up litter at a public park unconstitutional.

    SCOTUS rightfully slapped this down, and their reasoning directly addressed the issues at hand, and were not "screwy." They rightfully addressed the fact that the government does reserve the right to design the park and decide what goes where, and any joe schmoe who says "I want to put a ____ here" does not have the free-speech right to do so. The government has a right to maintain the park in the manner it determines, and that isn't a public forum or censorship. If you dont like the Parks Commission, vote about it.

    Now, Scalia specifically says in the decision that the government can't favor one religion over another with what they decide to put in a Park. I mean, he goes above and beyond to tell you guys exactly what you want to hear, so I don't get at all why you think they are being dodgy about this.

    But enc0re is right, no one was suing to remove the Ten Commandments. They ruled on the case, gave an accurate opinion on why the government saying "no" to your weird statue does not violate your free speech, and even made it pretty damn clear that a case challenging the Ten Commandments might have raised the more pertinent issue here. What more do you want? They rule on the appeals in front of them, they don't write laws or pass executive orders based on things they find out about in the case brief. Three branches of government, anyone?
    I think that it was weird to construe it as "government speech therefore the FA doesn't apply" when very clearly it was a private group trying to speak by putting up a monument (to me, anyway)

    You don't have to get all indignant and come in here like we're bumbling idiots for not understanding the appeals process, though. We did already establish, before enc0re additionally enlightened us, that the ten commandments thing was not at issue in this case directly.

    Medopine on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Yar wrote: »
    What more do you want?

    A statue of puppies.

    moniker on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    You don't have to get all indignant and come in here like we're bumbling idiots for not understanding the appeals process, though. We did already establish, before enc0re additionally enlightened us, that the ten commandments thing was not at issue in this case directly.
    Yeah I realize that the thread turned more towards, "but if it was..." It seemed though that the two had gotten mixed. The decision largely made sense; whether or not the Ten Commandments should be there vs. other religions and Establishment is a different debate that it seems we're heading down. I don't think the former was made very clear before the latter.

    Yar on
  • Element BrianElement Brian Peanut Butter Shill Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I'm not sure how relavent it is, but in Spanish Fork, Utah; which is about 20 minutes south of Pleasant Grove; they have a statue dedicated to the Catholic Settlers that founded Spanish Fork, (it may or may not have a cross on it, which if you know anything about the LDS church, we don't display crosses). There is no catholic church in Spanish Fork, it's about as normal a majority LDS town as you can get in Utah.

    Element Brian on
    Switch FC code:SW-2130-4285-0059

    Arch,
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I also don't think you can say that allowing one monument and disallowing the other is necessarily an endorsement of one religion over the other. It's just an endorsement of one monument over the other.

    Now, the REASON for endorsing that monument and not the other might be the religion, and that would be wrong.

    SageinaRage on
    sig.gif
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    I hate that type of narrow originalism, and I reject it

    I like to think of the Constitution in the context of, y'know, the world we live in
    Eh. I like to think that the Constitution ought to be changed from time to time to reflect the world we live in.
    Also I disagree that those boundaries you speak of are completely malleable, and that we have to just throw up our hands and call all distinction between religion and ideologies "arbitrary"
    Boundary cases are important (such as scientology). And the distinction seems especially arbitrary in the context of the shit government is designed to interact with—laws and social behavior.

    Consider a Mennonite and a hippie both claiming they should not have to sign up for selective service because of their beliefs. The Mennonite believes God commands him to nonviolence. The hippie believes the universe is designed in such a way that, like, evolution happened to favor the doves over the hawks sometimes, and this is one of those times, so the universe is telling him not to hurt people, man. What is the functional difference, in terms of governance, between these two ideologies?

    Qingu on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Qingu wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    I hate that type of narrow originalism, and I reject it

    I like to think of the Constitution in the context of, y'know, the world we live in
    Eh. I like to think that the Constitution ought to be changed from time to time to reflect the world we live in.
    Also I disagree that those boundaries you speak of are completely malleable, and that we have to just throw up our hands and call all distinction between religion and ideologies "arbitrary"
    Boundary cases are important (such as scientology). And the distinction seems especially arbitrary in the context of the shit government is designed to interact with—laws and social behavior.

    Consider a Mennonite and a hippie both claiming they should not have to sign up for selective service because of their beliefs. The Mennonite believes God commands him to nonviolence. The hippie believes the universe is designed in such a way that, like, evolution happened to favor the doves over the hawks sometimes, and this is one of those times, so the universe is telling him not to hurt people, man. What is the functional difference, in terms of governance, between these two ideologies?

    Being a conscientious objector in the event of a draft does not require coming from specific religious sects...

    moniker on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Wait. I thought the ruling was that it's okay to be a conscientious objector from a non-religious sect because "humanism" counts as a religion for the purposes of this law.

    Qingu on
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Qingu wrote: »
    Wait. I thought the ruling was that it's okay to be a conscientious objector from a non-religious sect because "humanism" counts as a religion for the purposes of this law.

    I think conscientious objector status depends on something else. The test, as I understand it, is whether or not you object to "war in any form." The idea is that if you are so morally averse to war and violence that you would never take up arms, even to defend yourself, then you qualify for conscientious objector status.

    Matrijs on
Sign In or Register to comment.