Separation of Church and State

[Whaleboy]

In terms of mutation, yes. People like him think evolution involves people thrown together cell by cell... as though throwing lumps of metal might magically form an airliner.

[StarLightDeath]

Yep, you're a moron.

Fixed. Normally I don't point out this kind of stuff, but if you're going to call me a moron you should at least come off sounding intelligent yourself.

Try not to get annoyed at StarLightDeath. Anyone who thinks that evolution is like a roll of the dice is to be pitied. His intellect is obviously so far gone it's futile exercise to explain anything in which he does not hold a religious belief.

I'm sorry, I don't believe I ever made my opinions on evolution known. You seem to know so much about me so why don't you go ahead and tell me what my religious beliefs are as well.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Sloww... you are an idiot. What makes you think he was talking ONLY abotu the US?

Why were you so quick to insult him like this? I don't think it was called for -- we all have made mistaken presumptions at one time or another.



Or, are you one of those perfect people?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by ajbera
I have to confess to being a bit disappointed with Imran's interpretation on this topic (though I really do respect him and his intellect.)

Putting up a manger scene and then saying no other religious group can put up a comparable scene is somewhat coercive, in that by denying representation to others it is effectively endorsing Christianity. But merely having a manger is coercive? Are there really people out there who are so sensitive and weak willed that any demonstration of a belief they don't share is coercion?

A majority of the time, the manger scene is up but no other religious symbols are (secular symbols maybe). I've hardly ever seen anything up in city squares about Ramadan and I KNOW I've never seen anything for Wiccan festivals.

It is easy to say that it is 'merely' having a manger scene up. But it doesn't hold up to scrutiny until you allow Wiccans and Satanists and all those groups to be able to put their scenes up on the public squares just as easily.

[StarLightDeath]

I've hardly ever seen anything up in city squares about Ramadan and I KNOW I've never seen anything for Wiccan festivals.

Ah, now we get down to what the real problem is. Why don't you go put up some Islamic displays then Imran? I hear you whining alot, but you don't seem to be doing anything about it. Nobody is stopping you so hop to it.

[ajbera]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It is easy to say that it is 'merely' having a manger scene up. But it doesn't hold up to scrutiny until you allow Wiccans and Satanists and all those groups to be able to put their scenes up on the public squares just as easily.

How often has this been actually tried? How often have other religious groups been denied erecting their own scenes, or been hindered in their attempts to do so? And how often have they been able to do so without any problem? I'm sure there are case studies. It's all just theory unless we have some genuine cases to determine how much of a problem it is.

Furthermore, how much representation should be reasonably allowed for any given group? If a particular community is 95% Christian and 1% Jewish, should mangers and menorahs have equal representation, or should it be more proportional? (Just curious, because I'm agnostic and have no vested interest in any religious group "winning", although I honestly am amazed anyone can find a "mere" manger coercive.)

[Berzerker]

Imran

What about if there is a law saying there will be a manger scene? Would that make it coercive to you then?

It would be coercive if the law said I had to build it or stop by and leave frankincense.

Kind of silly determinant of when something becomes coercive.

I say the law is coercive, you say a manger scene is coercive. You were talking about silly determinants? C'mon Imran, the court's sloppy thinking doesn't oblige you to be sloppy.

Of course it does... Establishment is all about endorsing one religion over another. Think about it. The state declaring the episcopalian church to be the 'state church' would violate the establishment clause, even if there was no law.

Why do you continually separate "Congress shall make no law" from "respecting an establishment of religion" and act as if the former doesn't even exist? Declaring a state church is a law, the Prez/Congress endorsing Christianity is not a law.

And besides, the manger scene is coercive. It shows that you aren't of the 'favored' religion and if you want to be one of the big guys you gotta get with their beliefs.

I didn't know the gov't hired people to stand at manger scenes to keep a tally of who shows up to pay their proper respects.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It would be coercive if the law said I had to build it or stop by and leave frankincense.

And yet you aren't required to say the Pledge or say the "under God" part, yet you consider it to be coercive. Quite a disconnect there.

you say a manger scene is coercive

You say a pledge of alliegance is coercive. I don't see the difference, frankly.

Why do you continually separate "Congress shall make no law" from "respecting an establishment of religion" and act as if the former doesn't even exist? Declaring a state church is a law, the Prez/Congress endorsing Christianity is not a law.

A state legislature passes a law saying the state church is Mormonism. "Congress shall make no law" means that's ok, right?

Even if the 14th Amendment makes the 1st apply to the states, it STILL says "Congress" right? And if you argue that by applying the 1st to the states changes Congress to the legislature, that means that it can't ever apply to cities because they don't have legislatures. The city council is more of an executive branch, especially for cities that don't have directly elected mayors.

[mrmitchell]

My third question is, is there a practical basis for such a separation being enforced, even if it is not implied in the literal wording of the clause?

IANA scholar, cannot answer the other two

3. Definitely! Everyone who interprets the Constitution as to mean "a total wall of separation" will agree, that the mere public presence of the religion is coercive.

If you were in Saudi Arabia and had to get papers from the courthouse while there were portraits of Muhammed and Allah all over the walls, and Korans lying around on tables in all the rooms, you would probably agree that the mere presence is coercive. Even if a Mosque paid for the full cost of installing the religious material.

The job of judges is IMO to separate legitimate art from religious displays. This should be something everyone can agree on, for after all, we wouldn't need judges if the law was totally a black or white issue.

[Imran Siddiqui]

mrmitchell brings up a good point. A lot of people support manger scenes, but what if it was a big Buddha on the front lawn? Or a picture of Kali on the school house wall (brings up the other question of what about crosses on the walls of the classroom... if a manger scene isn't coercive neither is that... damn, I gotta use that one!)? While some may be consistent and ok with it, I'd imagine a lot of Christians in the US would be livid about such things.

[Berzerker]

And yet you aren't required to say the Pledge or say the "under God" part, yet you consider it to be coercive. Quite a disconnect there.

The Pledge is coercive because an agent of the state is asking children to stand and pledge allegiance to the state's God. How is that analogous to a manger scene where no one is asked to do anything?

A state legislature passes a law saying the state church is Mormonism. "Congress shall make no law" means that's ok, right?

Even if the 14th Amendment makes the 1st apply to the states, it STILL says "Congress" right? And if you argue that by applying the 1st to the states changes Congress to the legislature, that means that it can't ever apply to cities because they don't have legislatures. The city council is more of an executive branch, especially for cities that don't have directly elected mayors.

I feel like I'm reading Johnnie Cochran's legal defense from South Park. Now cities dont write laws because the city legislature is a city council?

[Berzerker]

mrmitchell brings up a good point. A lot of people support manger scenes, but what if it was a big Buddha on the front lawn? Or a picture of Kali on the school house wall (brings up the other question of what about crosses on the walls of the classroom... if a manger scene isn't coercive neither is that... damn, I gotta use that one!)? While some may be consistent and ok with it, I'd imagine a lot of Christians in the US would be livid about such things.

Manger scenes appear out in public without tax dollars or laws coercing attendance. It would be nice if you could stick to the debate instead of dreaming up unrelated hypotheticals

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Pledge is coercive because an agent of the state is asking children to stand and pledge allegiance to the state's God.

You can say no, so how is it coercive?

Is a cross on the wall of the classroom coercive, or is it ok?

I feel like I'm reading Johnnie Cochran's legal defense from South Park. Now cities dont write laws because the city legislature is a city council?

You do realize that to put a manger on the front lawn you have to get town council approval. So is that a legislative act or is none of it legislative acts?

Town councils appear to me to be less of a legislature than an executive board. Their meetings are very unlike Congress', unlike, say, state legislatures.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Manger scenes appear out in public without tax dollars or laws coercing attendance. It would be nice if you could stick to the debate instead of dreaming up unrelated hypotheticals

If you have to go to the town hall for a license and see the manger scene in front, would it be coercing your attendance in front of it? And I believe the public square in front of town hall is paid for by tax dollars. And you can't just put anything out in front of it because you are member of the public. Gotta get the town's approval (through city council meetings... if you consider their other actions to be legislative activity then so is the town approving a private group putting a manger on the scene).

So since you have to go to school, that means that you are coerced into seeing everything on the walls? Is someone going around to make sure you are looking at the crosses?

Does this also mean you'd be ok with big cross in the town council room if it was privately paid for? Like right at the front? Because you don't have to go to town council meetings.

[Berzerker]

If you have to go to the town hall for a license and see the manger scene in front, would it be coercing your attendance in front of it?

The manger scene doesnt belong to the town. My attendance is inside at a counter to fill out paper work, not in front of a building looking at a manger scene. And no, even if the manger scene was behind the counter it would not coerce me to do anything.

And I believe the public square in front of town hall is paid for by tax dollars.

The manger scene isn't. But so what if the land was paid for with tax dollars? Now we cant display our religious symbols on public land because thats coercion? No Bibles in public libraries? Cant wear crucifixes in public? Hell, how can we allow churches anywhere since their mere existence coerces us.

And you can't just put anything out in front of it because you are member of the public. Gotta get the town's approval (through city council meetings... if you consider their other actions to be legislative activity then so is the town approving a private group putting a manger on the scene).

No Imran, I do not equate a "permit" to use public land with a law that says we must ask permission to use public land. The permit doesn't "ask" us to do anything, the law does.

You can say no, so how is it coercive?

We've debated this ad nauseum and you already know why. Most (if not all) children know non-compliance can cause problems. If I hold a gun to your head and demand your money, you can say no too. Does that mean you aren't being coerced?

Is a cross on the wall of the classroom coercive, or is it ok?

No, and whether or not it is ok is up to the people sending their kids to the school to decide.

Does the 1st Amendment say "Congress can make no law"?

"shall"

Where is the 'Congress' in your city? I wouldn't particularly call my city council a legislature. They appear to be far more of an executive council than any legislature I've seen. A state legislature looks like Congress, feels like a Congress. A city council most definetly does not.

Do they make laws?

So far the only argument you've offered (not counting all the unrelated hypotheticals) is that the appearance of a religious symbol on public land coerces people who want to be a bigshot but feel they cant without... without...eh... what was that nonsense you came up with? Oh yeah, the manger scene is a religious test employed by the powerful to keep non-believers out of power.

This is ****ing nuts