What does Drain think about that? [Ow!]
Ankh_Too:
I think the hostage analogy is a bad one, but let’s look at it. Contrary to your statement the police are required to act responsibly and with the safety of the hostages in mind. They don’t get to low up the plane, kill everybody and blame the terrorists with impunity because “they started it.” They are still responsible for their actions, and must act prudently.
I thought my guesses concerning the make up of the group and their motivations were pretty good. I’m surprised you’d pick on the “Little old lady” thing. It doesn’t further their argument, and I used it analogously. In one article it was quoted that had the 10 commandments been displayed at Columbine the massacre wouldn’t have occured. A silly statement of course, but these are not evil people. They are confused, and they perceive a growing moral bankruptcy among youth (As the older generation always does.) They feel that the 10 commandments would help instill this, and wish to make a gift. Do they also hope to make youth more religious? Of course.
I remain unconvinced that defeating these people in this thing is going to be constructive. Ultimately they will move their displays I’m sure, but as is already happening they will become much more militant and in your face concerning their beliefs. Anybody who felt they were oppressed by the 10 commandments on the steps, will certainly feel a lot more oppressed by having it on all the front lawns of the community, and as a huge sign at the very entrance of the town. Will the fact that one display is no longer at the school console someone who has to see it replaced a hundredfold where he still must look, but can do nothing about it? As originally done the display was not meant to be hostile, but does this retributive backlash help anyone?
Why is such a Pyrhhic victory desirable?
The Abington School District Vs. Shemp decision you quoted could easily be argued to include the 10 commandments as the bedrock of law, and an ingrained part of society that is no longer offensible.
Perhaps that’s what the House of Representatives was thinking, though I doubt I can give that much credit.
You seem to miss my point. I acknowledge the Constitutionality of the issue. You don’t seem to acknowledge the human issue.
Is this hill worth dying for? I don’t think so.
I think it is rather simple.
- Their actions are unconstitutional.
- Their actions do indeed make certain people in the community feel the Christian (since I bet the Jewish 10c won’t be displayed) religion is being officially promoted by the government.
Why is it that it is that you demand the people whose constitutional rights are being infringed suck it up and move on? Why aren’t you shouting that the organization that is expressly trying to promote its religious beliefs–and only its particular religious beliefs–on public school grounds in blatant disregard of the constitution suck it up and move on? “Is this hill worth dying for?”, you ask. Why aren’t you asking this of the people who are stepping on other’s constitutional rights, instead of the ones being stepped on?
Because for both sides this has become an “issue” more important than the actual people involved. I don’t expect the religious right that thinks the 10 commandments would have stopped the Columbine massacre to even understand the Consititutionality of the issue, or how their actions can be interpreted as oppressive. THEY feel that THEY are being attacked for THEIR beliefs. Like people everywhere who get backed into corners, they become small, mean, and they retaliate.
I do however hold the ACLU to a higher standard. I expect them to know these things and choose their battles, and conduct them accordingly so that the outcomes will be constructive.
Scylla, I think everybody has acknowledged the “human issue” here. Hell, if it weren’t for all these human issues, constitutional issues would never come up!
See, constitutional rights rarely need defending from evil people with evil motives; the ACLU typically defends those rights against the actions of moral people with legitimate interests and good intentions.
The good people of the Adams County Ministerial Association have decided that the government should endorse their religious message as a means of filling that “moral bankruptcy” they perceive. Good intentions; unconstitutional and oppressive means. The school board should know better than this.
Well, they may feel that, but I don’t think a reasonable person would think that Christians are being discriminated against when no other religion can put up big hockin’ stone tablets with their religion’s rules either (for that matter, I can’t put up a big stone tablet that says “There is no God” on school grounds). If Satanists or Pagans wanted to do the same, they’d be shot down too. Do you reasonably expect that the religious minority in a community should always have to put up with the unconstitutional official promotion of the majority’s religion on public school grounds, simply because those who wish to use government resources to promote their particular religion are stubborn, ignore the law, and will get their feelings hurt if they’re told they can’t violate the constitution?
And this justifies the damage that will be done?
Rich people will just move their kids to private school. We know who will suffer, and I doubt it will be any consolation to them, that they don’t have to look at the 10 commandments.
And what of the very real possibility that must be considered? What if the ACLU loses?
A lot is at stake, and their seems to be no possibility of a net gain. Why allow to get to this level?
Wha’???
Here’s the question that comes to my mind. Should a school board allow “religious right” teachers to tell Hindu boys and girls that they’ve sinned against God* because the teachers “don’t understand the Constitutionality of the issue”?
*It’s in the Ten Commandments, Scylla. (See numbers 1 and 2.)
This thing started because somebody also wanted to put up a Phallic worship statue.
This is not a constructive way to go about doing things.
So, are you arguing that they should have allowed the phallic worship statue too? I mean, sure it’s unconstitutional, but those phallic-worshippers will just drag it through the courts and waste the time and money. And they’ll feel discriminated against if we don’t make an exception to the constitution just for them! Oh, let’s just let them stick it on school grounds, it’s not worth arguing about. ::gets out hammer and chisel to make my “There Is No God” monument to be displayed on public school grounds::
No. I am not in favor of erecting (heh, heh) a statue to phallic worship.
It seems to that attempting to do so isn’t exactly the best way to get your point across. I see it as a deliberate insult that only serves to make matters worse rather than bring about a resolution.
I a not defending the “right” to display the 10 commandments on public property. I am disapointed and disturbed by the manner with which the issue seems to be being handled.
I like this version better. 
http://www.cs.cuc.edu/~dpomery/TenCommandments.html
Hey, the first two are still pretty much the same, and that’s all that matters, right?
Scylla: I a[m] not defending the “right” to display the 10 commandments on public property.
No, you’re just saying that people who do it should be left alone. And that somehow the responsibility for the negative consequences should rest with the people who are challenging it and not with those who are doing it. :rolleyes:
If they don’t have a right to do it, then when someone objects to it, they should stop it. They’re not. See you in court.
Kimstu:
I assume you’re deliberately missing my point.
If somebody is smoking in a prohibited location there is a difference between politely asking him to put out the cigarette, and throwing a bucket of water over his head.
And I believe it is a rather accurate portrayal of what is going on in this situation. The School Board is, consciously or unconsciously, holding the students hostage by utilizing the resources that should be devoted to their well-being to defend against a lawsuit that they are, baring a complete reversal of the trend in jurisprudence, going to lose. I realize that the Brethren and Sistren of the Court have given some mixed decisions lately, but I don’t see them reversing a decision that is exactly on point. Given the limited information that we have about the genesis of this dispute, I feel that the ACLU and Mr. Baker are, in fact, acting quite responsibly. In my analogy, the police are not responsible if the terrorists torch the plane because their demands are not met. That, in a nutshell, is exactly what is happening here. Your argument still sounds as if you suggest that we should allow this violation of the constitution to continue, simply because they can’t afford to fight the fight. That is, as I have said previously, not a defense for their actions.
Your guess may have been good, but it was not accurate. You disagreed with my analogy above, just as I disagree with your analogy about ‘little old ladies’. The original analogy you used portrays them as innocent, sweet and slightly dotty women who wouldn’t have any idea why people might take exception to the display they intended. As a large evangelical association with an extensive social outreach program, the ACMA should have had a much better idea of the impact of they were attempting to do would be.
I certainly haven’t implied that they were evil. I’m confident that most of them are good, moral people who wish to do something that, in their opinion would improve the situation for the students in the school. Unfortunately, what they are doing is illegal and unconstitutional.
And they are free to do so, on the grounds of the church, or even their own property. They are not allowed to use public grounds to launch their evangelical crusade. I stipulate that they believe they are doing a good thing, that, according to their ideals, what they hope to accomplish is an laudable goal. I do now, however, believe that they have the right to force others to follow the same path.
The ‘mission statement’ of the Adams County for the Ten Commandments group states clearly that they view the Ten Commandments as a religious tract, and not simply a secular document showing the basis of western legal tradition. Their ‘compromise’ of including other documents is flawed in its conception, not merely its execution. If they truly wanted to include documents that were similar to the Ten Commandments, they would include the Five Pillars of Islam, the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism and the basic precepts from any and all religions.
And I am at a loss as to how you feel that allowing the display to stand is going to be a constructive. You feel that the outside world is interfering in the internal business of this community. But it’s obvious that at least one member of the community does not feel the same way as the majority. But even if that were not so, even if we stipulate, for the purposes of discussion, that everyone who lived in Adams County supported this display and was happy to have it in their school, it would not make it permissible to do. It is illegal. Whether or not it should be against the law is another discussion entirely and has no place here.
I cannot answer for Mr. Baker, but I can say that I would feel much better about the entire situation if the displays were limited to private property, even if they increased a thousand fold. And if the display of the Ten Commandments is so important to the people of Adams County, why don’t they do just as you suggest. It seems a equitable way to end this idiotic situation. By pulling the display from the school and asking 100 people to put up similar displays, any expected ‘effect’ from people regularly encountering the Commandments should increase, not decrease. But I fear, that is not the central point of the issue for most of the supporters. Their insistence on displaying the Commandments on public property implies that, in their view, the issue is whether or not religious beliefs should or should not be advocated by the government. If this is the case, unfortunately for them, the law of the land is clear on the issue.
Although you seem to feel it is not important, I believe it does help all of us. The issue at stake is one of the basic rights of our society. Whether or not we, as citizens are free to live our lives without the government attempting to force their way into our religious belief systems. I, obviously, find it a hugely important issue. And, I daresay, many of the posters in this thread do, as well.
It is not desirable. Due to the actions of the school board, however, it is the only alternative left.
**
I quoted Justice Brennan’s concurring opinion in the case because it specifically highlighted the issue you raised concerning the phrase ‘In God We Trust’. If you had read the entire decision, you would have seen that the prevailing court opinion found that the Ten Commandments were not included. I now quote from Justice Clark’s prevailing opinion:
I certainly do acknowledge the human issue, if I have not done so explicitly before, I do so now. The children are going to suffer for this and I think that those responsible should have to face the consequences. Unfortunately, since the issue seems to be so popular among the people of Adams County, I fear that the School Board is going to be able to bankrupt the district, injure the students’ ability to learn and generally disrupt their lives without any repercussions.
The problem is that you and I view feel that two different parties are responsible for this problem. You seem to feel that it’s Mr. Baker and the ACLU’s fault for going in and stirring things up when they were better left alone. All he did was exercise his civil rights. That’s it. He may have offended people in doing so. But that’s no reason to allow a fragrantly unconstitutional display to stand.
I, on the other hand, feel that the school board is solely and completely responsible for any damage done to the students. There is no basis for fighting this lawsuit that I can find. Admittedly, I’m not a lawyer, but from the information that I’ve seen, there are no new facts in evidence. If this issue goes the whole way to the Supreme Court, they will, in all probability, refuse to hear it, given that the decision in Stone v. Graham is exactly on point.
I fully understand what you’re saying, I just can’t understand how you arrived at this conclusion.
“… what are you so afraid of?”
Sorry, couldn’t resist. Yeah, that’s going in the sig as well.
I’m touched. I’m honored. I’m slightly offended. Where are the flowers, the chocolates? I mean, what does a guy have to do to be treated like a lady around here?
Scylla: If somebody is smoking in a prohibited location there is a difference between politely asking him to put out the cigarette, and throwing a bucket of water over his head.
What would you consider to be an action analogous to “politely asking him to put out the cigarette” for those who object to the violation of SOCAS in this case? What should they do if the violator doesn’t ocmply?
Do you really imagine that these SOCAS violators would have changed what they’re doing if they’d just been asked politely enough?
How many times are we required to ask them to put it out? The school board has been ‘asked politely’, their response was to approve the ‘historical documents’ scheme in an attempt to avoid the issue. It didn’t work.
In your analogy, the smoker will finish his cigarette and move on.In this case, the smoker is standing in the middle of the office with an infinite supply of some nasty 3 for a buck cigars and No Doze.
Ankh_Too:
Your continuing quote speaks directly to the required reading of prayers in school, and may not be applicable to a 10 commandments totem outside.
A smug and self righteous attack on the fundies (as indicated by the phallic worship thing,)is akin to taunting the terrorists to torch the plane (to continue the unfortunate analogy.)
I think there is a strong element of that in this case, and it shouldn’t be there. Being right doesn’t entitle one to sling it like a sledgehammer and damn the consequences. Indeed, one is required to be judicious.
But hey, it’s all there fault so let’s destroy the town, create some real religious hatred, and make the education of the children suffer.
We know better. We can do better than this. Who will ultimately suffer for this idiotic battle?
Why was this approached so insensitively?
Will we actually win?
Before we sow the fields with salt we should answer these questions.
And finally, when it all boils down to it, is it worth it?
It is a stone with letters in front of a school. All the other baggage has just been attached. The kids will probably pee on it.
Ultimately though the school district will be destroyed because of a disagreement concerning a stone with letters in front of a school.
Forget about everything else that it stands for. These laws were effected BECAUSE nobody should be hurt for their beleifs, but that is precisely what will happen.
The ACLU will participate in it. The high-minded will argue the issues, and the people that have nothing to do with it will pay the consequences. What else is new?
And the smug heavy-handed self-righteousness with which we attack this issue will serve to perpetuate it.
We’re a part of it too, and if we fight a battle and people get hurt we cannot shift that responsibility. We must accept it.
When all is said and done, it is just a rock with letters.
Right. And the Constitution is just words written on paper.
Xenophon:
Yes.
The Constitution is supposed to protect people. So is the ACLU. So is the school board.
There is also a religious group with beneficial goals and deep pockets.
You would think that putting all this brainpower goodwill and money together could result in something really beneficial.
But no, Because there are insensitve assholes on BOTH SIDES of the issue, nothing good is going to happen.