I knew the game that you were going to play, and I didn’t feel like playing it. I would say that established meant A, B, and C, then you would go something like, “Well, what do you mean by B?”, and I’d go, “B means A, B, and C.”, and this would just repeat over and over again.
Or, I would give an example, and you would find an absurd extreme and go, “You mean like this?”
But since you told me what you think I meant, I’ll clarify.
When one hears the word “established” it usually carries certain connotations with it.
For example, to become established, a person or organization usually has to be around for a while.
Also, being established usually means that a person or organization has become part of a community, or city, or state, or nation, or a bunch of communities, cities, states or nations.
Also, being established usually means being recognized by your peers. For example, even though we have different beliefs, the Catholic church recognizes Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism as established, mainstream religions.
And finally, I was talking about mainstream religions as opposed to cults. And no, don’t ask me what I mean by cult, everybody knows what a cult is, and like I said, I’m not in the mood for games of semantics.
I’m interested in this part of your post. By a judge posting the a Ten Commandments monument, what rights or privilegs are taken away from the people?
People still have the freedom of speach, religion, press, the right keep and bear arms, and so on, do they not?
I wasn’t interested in games of semantics either, but thank you for your presumption of bad faith.
I was interested in knowing whether or not you had a definition of “established religion” that was capable of including mine.
Government endorsement of the Ten Commandments–and I don’t care who paid for the monument, putting them up in the middle of a courthouse constitutes government endorsement–is an encroachment on the right of individual citizens to decide for themselves what god or gods to worship, according to the dictates of their own consciences. The government has no right to tell the people that this god is the LORD, before whom you should have no other gods.
My point is, posting the Ten Commandments in courthouses is symbolic, yes, but I maintain it’s also symptomatic of a general disregard for the individual freedom of conscience of one’s fellow citizens (or even outright contempt for one’s fellow citizens, especially when it comes to atheists or members of small minority religions or what are perceived as “cults”). This disregard will likely manifest itself in more substantive ways, to the extent that the politician in question can get away with it. You seem to agree that Roy Moore is an “extremist”. Fortunately, Roy Moore isn’t in any position to enforce laws against Sabbath-breaking or blasphemy (or “sodomy”, thanks to the SCOTUS), even if that is ultimately his desire.
Whenever the Ten Commandments are posted in these settings, it’s always with the claim that they are “the basis for our laws”. If that were really true, there would be no “free exercise of religion”. There is no provision for “free exercise of religion” in the Ten Commandments or in the larger law code from which they are taken. That law code’s penalty for Sabbath-breaking, for blasphemy, or for worshipping “false gods” is death. If the Commandments are regarded as the foundations of civil law (as opposed to a religious moral code, binding only on those who freely accept them, as putting them in a church or a private home may signify, in opposition to putting them in a civil courthouse or capitol), then they necessarily imply a theocracy with no religious liberty for unbelievers in the Biblical God.
Allowing politicians to get away with this symbolic declaration of opposition to the basic principles of the Bill of Rights–that the Ten Commandments are or ought to be the foundation of our civil law–allows them to at least try to undermine respect for the liberties of people with whose religious convictions (or lack thereof) evangelical Christians disagree.
These symbolic declarations of opposition to the basic principles of the Bill of Rights also let us know which politicians we need to vote out of office.
MEBuckner, I think that I see your point.
Actually, I’m not going to argue, I just want to see if I understand you, so please correct me if I’m wrong.
You’re saying that if government official puts up a religious display, or allows private citizens to put up a display, then the whole government is involved, not just that one individual or individuals.
Further more, acknowledgment of a religion = endorsement of a religion.
Also, displaying a religious symbol on public property = forcing people to believe in that religion.
Am I understanding you correctly?
I’m sorry that I jumped the gun. In a GD thread a long time ago, somebody tried playing semantics games with me, and it looked to me that you were going to go that rout too. I guess I was wrong, my apologies.
Obviously we’re talking about a display on government property, and not on private property (including private property which is “public” in the sense of “open to the general public” or “exposed to public view”), nor in a “free speech forum” (like a publically-owned park where anyone is permitted to put up a temporary banner, with access governed by fair and impartial rules).
Yes, under those circumstances, displaying religious symbols on public property involves the state. It is no longer a question of an individual exercising his or her right to free exercise of religion.
Pretty much. What is “acknowledgment”? The Central Intelligence Agency’s World Factbook notes that 56% of the American people are (or identify as) Protestant, 28% are Roman Catholic, 2% are Jewish, 4% are adherents of other religions, and 10% do not claim to have any religion*. That is a government “acknowledgment” of the religious views of the people. What other “acknowledgement” is needed? Of course, the government exists to protect the lawful and peaceful expression and practice of the religious or non-religious views of the people; that’s a fundamental part of what governments are for–establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, and securing the liberty to the people.
*Those figures may or may not be accurate, and at any rate the World Factbook does not even claim that it’s numbers are any more up to date than 1989.
I would say rather that it shows a dangerous contempt for the rights and conscience of people who don’t believe in that religion. Also, to the extent that public funds are involved–and even if private funds are provided to “donate” the religious symbol, once it’s in the courthouse, its upkeep will likely be borne by the taxpayers–public displays of religion may force non-believers in that religion to pay for that religion, whether they believe in it or not.
Of course, we must remember that, according to US courts, the Menorah, the Magen David, and a Crescent are not “religious symbols” at all, nosirreebob! The all-knowing Courts have said so. They are “cultural symbols” and thus can be displayed with impunity on government property.
Think of the public civil sphere is like a national park: you only bring in what you can take out, to leave the area ready for other people. It’s there for everyone to to enjoy, but no one to dominate, especially when they are not even present.
It’s extremely hard to be a witch who lacks belief in gods where I live, because the people around me have expressed some pretty extreme intolerance of the fact that I do not share their mostly-Protestant religious beliefs.
I’ve been accused of everything from drinking goat blood to condoning or participating in the sacrifice of babies, told that sick freaks like myself don’t belong in America, that this is a ‘god fearing’ country and I don’t deserve to be a citizen of it, threatened and harassed, sent to guidance counselors throughout high school because I did not want to sing Silent Night with the rest of my class and because I celebrated the Solstice instead of Christmas.
The display on public property of religious symbols bothers me because it has, in my own life, come part and parcel with authority figures trying to ‘fix’ what was wrong with me, and the sneering and taunts that came from the town’s council members when they were on ‘their own time’. I don’t for a minute think that a district magistrate who puts up a nativity scene and calls witches unworthy of being Americans, or animal slaughterers would give me a fair shake if I were in his court room for any reason.
He certainly didn’t think I deserved any protection from harassment, in fact remarked to me while he was ‘off the job’ that if I’d just learn to behave like the rest of the town, I wouldn’t be treated badly. I’d fear that same attitude if I walked into Moore’s court and saw the ten commandments on the wall.
Hmmm…the main public library of Cambridge, Mass, hardly a backwater and decidedly secular and tolerant, has a beautiful Richardson-designed building near Harvard Square with murals in what used to be the main reading room. One of the murals features the Ten Commandments, mixed in with other venerable works of literature and science like The Principia, etc. It (the mural) was finished in 1889.
AFAIK, nobody has objected to it, and there they are, right on the wall, in a prominent place for innocent children to see! It hasn’t stopped the library from offering programs for anybody and everybody and believe me, there is nothing Judeo-Christian about their return policies. 
But the point is, the Commandments are important and everyone should know what they are just as they should know what Confucianism is and the Five Pillars of Islam and the Roman gods. When does it stop being about belief and become about cultural literacy (to coin a phrase)?
And FWIW, I also think Moore goes too far but I still agree with the OP. And Catsix, the kind of junk you’ve gone through is inexcusable. One of my college friends married a male Wiccan and it was one of the most moving ceremonies I’ve ever been to. And my best friend is a Unitarian. Half the discussions we’ve had dealt with me overturning their assumptions about Christians and Catholics as well as their informing me!
Joel,
Your distinction between “established” and “unestablished” religions (whatever that may mean) may make sense to you, personally, but the the government is forbidden from making any distinctions at all as to what constitutes a legitimate religious view and what doesn’t. The government is simply not allowed to endorse one view over another for any reason.
1.) Why are the commandments important to anyone who doesn’t believe in that particular God?
2.) The judge in the commandments case has made it clear that this is purely a religious statement for him and not an attempt to enforce any “cultural literacy.” As a matter of fact he has refused to install any other religious or historical artifacts around his commandments monument despite repeated requests. His reason for these refusals is that he doesn’t want to distract from the “importance of God” in his courthouse.
Point one is that they are, in many respects, the moral foundations of the society they live in. No, they’re not the only ones, and aspects of them have of course cropped up unrelated in societies for eons, but they’re extensively referenced, quoted directly and indirectly, etc. in thousands of ways in the culture. I’m not saying it should be mandatory to memorize them but any well-rounded person should know that there’s ten of them, that they were given to the Jews by Moses, and that they prohibit killing (or murder), stealing, and adultery. Belief doesn’t really come into it. For example, I know full well that the sun doesn’t revolve around the Earth, but I should also know that Aristotle, etc., thought that it did before I can understand why Galileo and Copernicus were so revolutionary.
Point two I already agree with you on. And there’s already a couple of Moore threads. Good summation, though, thanks.
I’m not sure the commandments even have the sort of historical significance people claim they do. They certainly are not given the same sort of special precedence in the Bible that is claimed. Nor are they even all that central culturally, to Judiasm or Christianity. If you wanted cultural symbols, there are far more representative ones. The difference with the Commandments is that they are more than represenative of a culture: they are forceful statements of a particular religious belief system. It’s hardly the same thing as a symbol or cultural artifacts.
There is no “ten” of them really. The only place “the ten commandments” are reffered to in the Bible is a DIFFERENT set of ten commandments, a set which few people have ever heard of, but that the text, at least, treats as being just as important. “All that openeth the matrix are mine” isn’t exactly well known.
And again, I think their historical significance is extremely overplayed, and more a modern invention than a balanced historical perspective.
Hell, I just wish the nutty judge would pay some heed to his own state Constitution:
Sounds good to me. Too bad the courts have interpreted matters in such a way that only Christian symbols get the boot.
(Numbering mine.) What’s funny (funny strange, not funny haha) is that I’ve been accused of all of the above, too–for being Catholic.
I don’t have a point other than that it shows how mutable the idea of an “established” religion can be.
Julie
Well, if the government is forbidden from making any distinctions at all as to what constitues a legitamate religion, then if tommorow I went to the IRS and told them I that I just started my own reglion and wanted a tax exempt status, what do you think would happen?
See, that’s what I mean by established.
Mainstream Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and Hindu sects/denominations are examples of established religions.
So what if anybody was able to put up a temporary banner at someplace like city hall, or a courthouse, or state capitol, what would be your opinion on that?
Hmmm, I was thinking that a government official putting up a religious display could be thought of in the same was as a radio talk show host with the disclaimer “The views expressed are not necessarily those of this radio station, it’s staff or management…”
I’ll have to get back to you on this one.
Dangerous contempt? I disagree with that, but, the point about tax dollars paying for upkeep, that’s something that’s never crossed my mind. You’ve given me something to think about.