# Religious Displays in Public - Promblem Solved? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 11, 2006, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-displays-in-public-promblem-solved/383661 "2006-12-11T07:47:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Ammonius\_Saccus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@Ammonius\_Saccus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ammonius_Saccus)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2006, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-displays-in-public-promblem-solved/383661/1 "2006-12-11T07:47:20Z")
This guy seems to have solved the whole religious displays in public problem. But I am not a lawyer. What do you think? On the link it the post from Tuesday, December 05, 2006. [http://www.courtzero.org/](http://www.courtzero.org/) > [@](#): > > The Indiana Jones Solution > I have a proposal, a very possible solution to many of the Establishment Clause cases and the countless lawsuits brought by the ACLU and other groups over religious iconography. You will think I’m kidding, but I’m not. > > . . . > > Here is what I propose, and despite the tone of my writing, I assure you that I am serious: cities and towns and counties faced with a judge’s order to remove or cover or destroy a religious symbol on public land should convert that display or land into a museum. It would be a Museum of Forbidden Iconography and Symbology (MOFIS). It’s marvelously simple, really: the county officials who are ordered to remove, say a Ten Commandments display in front of a courthouse could vote to convert the fraction of an acre on which the display sits into a museum, and attach an historical marker that explains that this is an historic display to memorialize objects forbidden by American jurists. > > . . .. > > To that end, I’ve registered the domain name [MOFIS.org](http://MOFIS.org) (Museum of Forbidden Icons and Symbols). Don’t go to the URL, there isn’t anything there yet, but if this post interests anyone as to the possibility of establishing such a museum as an umbrella to save things like the Mojave Desert Cross I wrote about last week, let me know. I’m ready to establish the appropriate non-profit corporation to do just that. > > . . . ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2006, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-displays-in-public-promblem-solved/383661/2 "2006-12-11T11:58:41Z")
Judges aren’t stupid. Putting wings on a dog doesn’t make it a bat. Declaring a three foot square piece of wall a museum won’t make it one, either. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2006, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-displays-in-public-promblem-solved/383661/3 "2006-12-11T12:07:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Putting wings on a dog doesn’t make it a bat. Ooh. I’m going to use that in the next opinion I draft. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2006, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-displays-in-public-promblem-solved/383661/4 "2006-12-11T12:47:27Z")
**Ammonius Saccus** , I have trimmed your quote down to a manageable size. Please note the [rules regarding copyright](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7696968&postcount=3) for posting on the Striaght Dope. (In fact, it is not a bad idea to read all the [Rules for Posting at the Straight Dope Message Boards](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=384736).) [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![FRDE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e68b1a/32.png) [@FRDE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FRDE)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2006, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-displays-in-public-promblem-solved/383661/5 "2006-12-11T13:16:47Z")
It would be amusing to have that British Airways check in woman declared a museum. I must confess I’ve never seen a more aggressive cross. ---
**Author:** ![aclubs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e68b1a/32.png) [@aclubs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aclubs)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2006, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-displays-in-public-promblem-solved/383661/6 "2006-12-11T14:33:28Z")
Courts aren’t usually fooled by obvious shams. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2006, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-displays-in-public-promblem-solved/383661/7 "2006-12-11T14:52:23Z")
Wouldn’t a much simpler solution simply be to not display religious iconography in these areas? Are people’s faith so weak that they must propose ridiculously circuitous legal shams to have religious symbols everywhere they look or they start to degenerate into heretics? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2006, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-displays-in-public-promblem-solved/383661/8 "2006-12-11T15:02:38Z")
[QUOTE=Revtim] Are people’s faith so weak that they must propose ridiculously circuitous legal shams to have religious symbols everywhere they look or they start to degenerate into heretics? [/QUOTE] Or that they need to have their faith’s legends shown to them in cartoon characters? Or that there is a need for them to display their religiousity in public in contradiction to Matthew’s stricture? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2006, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-displays-in-public-promblem-solved/383661/9 "2006-12-11T15:09:37Z")
What’s “forbidden” about any of those objects? Forbidden to whom? That whole premise is bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2006, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-displays-in-public-promblem-solved/383661/10 "2006-12-11T15:27:54Z")
There is already a solution to these problems, it’s just that the fanatics don’t like them. You can display all the religion you want on your private property. On government land, any land can be converted into an open forum, where anyone can put up a religious display or any other free speech element, provided the forum is viewpoint neutral. The problem is that the fanatics don’t like the latter solution. What they want is government land specifically set aside for their religion and their religion only. A good example is the recent case in which Liberty University sued a school district to allow church bulletins to be sent home with kids. They made a good case that the bulletin program was an open public forum, and so could not restrict religious flyers and they won, in my opinion rightly. But then the UU church sent home a flyer about pagan festivals. And the religious right went batshit insane over it, completely forgetting their whole rationale of open forum. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE\_ID=53250](http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53250) That’s because they care about using the government to push their particular religious point of view, not about freedom of religion. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2006, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-displays-in-public-promblem-solved/383661/11 "2006-12-11T16:19:56Z")
[QUOTE=aclubs] Courts aren’t usually fooled by obvious shams. [/QUOTE] This reminds me of that one idea sometimes proposed by gun-control types — of permitting sales of any gun imaginable but banning all bullets. It’s a laughably transparent side-step, and nobody with more than three functioning brain cells could possibly be duped by it. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2006, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-displays-in-public-promblem-solved/383661/12 "2006-12-11T19:07:20Z")
I dunno, Cervaise. I know how to load my own. I wouldn’t _mind_ owning a P-90, even if I had to handload and mold every bullet. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2006, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-displays-in-public-promblem-solved/383661/13 "2006-12-11T19:48:27Z")
[[QUOTE=courtzero.org](http://QUOTE=courtzero.org)] cities and towns and counties faced with a judge’s order to remove or cover or destroy a religious symbol on public land should convert that display or land into a museum. [/QUOTE] Has there really been a decision that said a particular symbol had to be _destroyed?_ Are these symbols really that powerful that they must be thrown back into the fires from which they were forged? ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2006, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-displays-in-public-promblem-solved/383661/14 "2006-12-11T19:49:28Z")
[QUOTE=Revtim] Are people’s faith so weak that they must propose ridiculously circuitous legal shams to have religious symbols everywhere they look or they start to degenerate into heretics? [/QUOTE] Yes. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2006, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-displays-in-public-promblem-solved/383661/15 "2006-12-11T22:10:33Z")
[QUOTE=Ammonius Saccus] This guy seems to have solved the whole religious displays in public problem. But I am not a lawyer. What do you think? It would be a Museum of Forbidden Iconography and Symbology (MOFIS). It’s marvelously simple, really: the county officials who are ordered to remove, say a Ten Commandments display in front of a courthouse could vote to convert the fraction of an acre on which the display sits into a museum, and attach an historical marker that explains that this is an historic display to memorialize objects forbidden by American jurists. [/QUOTE] 1. The enemies of the First Amendment have already tried the trick of putting religious junk on a tiny sliver of private property in the midst of public property. It didn’t fly. The courts held, oddly enough, that the government must obey the first amendment rather than trying to abolish it with an abusrd technicality. This proposal would fail for the same reason. 2. A museum is defined as a building or institution. A fraction of a room inside a non-museum can’t be a museum. 3. **Enemy of First Amendment:** This right here is the Museum of Forbidden Iconography and Symbology. It contains objects “forbidden by American jurists”. **Ordinary American:** So what’s forbidden here? **EoFA:** The Ten Commandments display is forbidden. **OA:** If the Ten Commandments are forbidden, how can they be one of the most commonly displayed things in the country? Do you even know that the word “forbidden” means? **EoFA:** Well of course I didn’t mean that that the museum of Forbidden Iconography and Symbology contains anything forbidden. The Museum of Iconography and Symbology contains one object that is _not_ forbidden. But the jurists won’t allow us to keep it right here. **OA:** Then why is it right here? **EoFA:** Uh. Ummm. Uhhhhhhh. Ummmmmmmmm. I’m sure someone on the internet would know. To summarize, this proposal is a repeat of something that’s already failed, it’s dishonest, it’s insulting, it’s self-contradictory, and it involves butchering the English language. In other words, it’s exactly what we expect from the enemies of the First Amendment. Next question please. ---
**Author:** ![Ammonius\_Saccus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@Ammonius\_Saccus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ammonius_Saccus)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2006, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-displays-in-public-promblem-solved/383661/16 "2006-12-11T22:22:50Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] To summarize, this proposal is a repeat of something that’s already failed, it’s dishonest, it’s insulting, it’s self-contradictory, and it involves butchering the English language. In other words, it’s exactly what we expect from the enemies of the First Amendment. [/QUOTE] What case says this cannot be done? If the first Congress that passed the First Amendment thought it was OK and passed a resolution to have an Episcopal minister (who they are paying) read Episcopal prayers (from the Book of Common Prayer) at an Episcopal church after the inauguration of President Washington, why can’t we have a simple display on public property? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2006, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-displays-in-public-promblem-solved/383661/17 "2006-12-11T22:50:12Z")
[QUOTE=Ammonius Saccus] What case says this cannot be done? If the first Congress that passed the First Amendment thought it was OK and passed a resolution to have an Episcopal minister (who they are paying) read Episcopal prayers (from the Book of Common Prayer) at an Episcopal church after the inauguration of President Washington, why can’t we have a simple display on public property? [/QUOTE] So, would this museum of yours also include satanist paraphenalia? Buddhist, Hindu, and Shinto statues? Idols? A “God sucks” poster? All of these would be forbidden by the first amendment, and should go into the museum. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2006, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-displays-in-public-promblem-solved/383661/18 "2006-12-11T22:57:54Z")
[QUOTE=Ammonius Saccus] What case says this cannot be done? [/quote] McCreary County vs. ACLU of Kentucky, among others. > [@](#): > > If the first Congress that passed the First Amendment thought it was OK and passed a resolution to have an Episcopal minister (who they are paying) read Episcopal prayers (from the Book of Common Prayer) at an Episcopal church after the inauguration of President Washington, why can’t we have a simple display on public property? Because the First Amendment prohibits our government from making an establishment of religion. If persons entering a courthouse have to observe an order to obey one religion and foresake any other, that would certainly constitute the government establishing a religion as the law of the land. The hypothetical situation you envision with the founding fathers would not affect this one way or the other, since an Episcopal minister reading from the Book of Common Prayer doesn’t result in any changes to the text of the First Amendment. Next question please. ---
**Author:** ![aclubs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e68b1a/32.png) [@aclubs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aclubs)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2006, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-displays-in-public-promblem-solved/383661/19 "2006-12-11T23:04:03Z")
> [@Ammonius Saccus](#): > > What case says this cannot be done? _McCreary County v ACLU_ In that case, a County judge put up a display of the 10 commandments alone in a courthouse. Someone sued, and the judge put up a second display of the 10 commandments, surrounded by various other slogans. Someone sued again. Finally, the judge put up a display of a dozen or so documents which included the 10 commandments, but also included the national motto, the national anthem, the Declaration of Independence, and other such things. The display was intended to be (or was claimed to be) a display of documents central to the foundation of the United States. The Supreme Court saw through this charade, seeing that the real purpose of the display was to find some way of displaying the 10 commandments in a courthouse, by hook or by crook, and invalidated it on the grounds that a reasonable observer, familiar with the history of the display, would recognize that the display had a religious sectarian purpose, something the government is not allowed to engage in. Now, a case argued the same day, _Van Orden v Perry_, held a different 10 commandments display on the Texas state capitol grounds to be perfectly acceptable. It was 5-4, as was the other case, so there’s really no consensus, even on the Supreme Court, as to what exactly is acceptable. But current caselaw clearly demonstrates that it is unconstitutional to display the 10 commandments in an otherwise unconstitutional way, even if a sham excuse (such as “This is a museum now!”) is offered. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2006, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-displays-in-public-promblem-solved/383661/20 "2006-12-11T23:04:35Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] Because the First Amendment prohibits our government from making an establishment of religion. [/QUOTE] Actually, the First Amendment prohibits the government from _respecting an establishment of religion_, in other words, from doing things that are preferential to one religion over another. Clearly, a Ten Commandments display is preferential to the Abrahamic religions. QED. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-displays-in-public-promblem-solved/383661.md?page=2)