Maybe, but “Many see the absence of such [Christian] displays as an announcement that they can expect an assault on freedom and dignity.” still seems a bit odd, considering that most courthouses have never had such displays.
I think I can do it.
The issue is not whether either should be banned or allowed, but at which level of gov’t - local or federal - the decision should be made.
The “harms” from something like smoking or eating bad foods are based on human biology and the same everywhere; thus the balance between freedom and control should be the same everywhere. This should be decided at the federal level. If the feds determine that the harms are not so great as to outweigh freedom interests in say smoking in a private business, that decision should be the same everywhere.
In contrast, the “harms” from something like displaying porno are highly contextual. No-one (other than the makers) of porn are physically harmed by merely viewing it; the “harm” is to vague and amorphous (but nonetheless real) notions such as “public decency” which of necessity vary by the nature of the public. Stuff that would not merit a harsh glance in (say) a New York contemporary art exhibit would be highly disruptive if put on a billboard in a rural midwestern town. Thus, the issue of what should, or should not, be considered okay for public display is properly a local one, judged by “community standards” and local circumstances - that is, a local and not a federal issue.
Now, one may argue that only potential physical harms should be restrained and not affronts to such vague notions as public decency, and that is a perfectly respectable position based on the 1st Amendment; in my opinion though such an absolute approach to rights is unworkable (and IMO the Canadian system, by acknowledging this up front rather than with work-arounds such as “pornography is not speech” is a better system).
I assume, then, that you’re opposed to the display of a menorah on the White House lawn during Hannukah?
Since someone actually tossed down a list of supposed RW ‘culture war’ items I figured I’d chime in with my two cents worth (and a bargain at half the price!):
Totally disagree. There is a good reason we have a separation between church and state in this country. If you want/need religious displays then you have the right to put them up in your own home or on your own property.
That said, I think some generic ‘religious’ items should be permissible because it’s part of the national culture…stuff like a Christmas tree or a wreath or something. But like a manger, a cross, etc etc? Nope…that stuff has no place on federal government property for a nation as religiously diverse as we are.
Again, totally disagree. If a parent feels the need to have religious education for their kids they have the right to either home school or send their kids to a private religious school.
The only quasi-religious topic that should be discussed in public school would be in history class…and I think all the major religious should be touched on wrt how they impacted world (and US) history.
I agree…this is one of those things that if a person doesn’t like it they are free to find a job elsewhere.
I agree…though of course I’m more a states rights person, and I think that local laws better reflect local populations.
This would go for alcohol, tobacco and even some drugs would be best handled at this level instead of at a national level of a one size fits all type strategy. This, again, would be one of those cases where, if you lived in a state where you couldn’t get the porn you crave then you could always move to a state where you could.
I think states should also be able to decide whether or not they want to continue the embargo of Cuba…so that I can move to one where I can get good Cuban cigars.
Again, agreed. This is similar to the seatbelt laws. Essentially people should be informed why or how something is bad for them…and then left to make their own decisions. If they want to be stupid and eat the wrong things, smoke, drive without a seat belt, etc etc…well, sounds that would be their problem then. One of the LW things that really annoys me is this stance of trying to save me from myself…for my own good. Let me decide what’s best for me, thanks. Set up the laws so that there are consequences for my actions (if I drink and drive, or drive under the influence, say)…but then let me decide what’s best and live with the consequences.
-XT
The presence of a cross in the courtroom suggests that you will be treated unfairly - in a way that favors christians and disfavors non-christians. Of course this is not a guarantee that bigotry will occur - just like if the judge had a picture of himself in a KKK uniform hanging behind him, that would not guarantee that a black person will be treated unfairly. Still, it is highly inappropriate for the court to display allegience with a religion or faction, regardless of the loss of warm fuzzies that christians would otherwise get when reminded that they are (maybe) above the law.
Yes. I am also opposed to the display of a Christmas tree or a Fanouz. And yes, I’m aware that the White House actually has a Christmas tree and a menorah, as well as a dinner celebrating the end of Ramadan. Inclusion is nice, but I prefer that the government refrain from all religious expression.
There’s a word for those people, too. It’s “Christian.” Which kind of highlights the problem those of us who aren’t in your club have with you requiring that our government publically endorse your beliefs.
No, not at all. I don’t think the government should be making laws about what we can or cannot do with our bodies at all, wether it be stuffing them to bursting with pizza, or stripping them naked and photographing them for profit.* My point is that, if you’re going to take the position that the government should be telling us what to do with our bodies, it’s rather bizarre to oppose intervention where it could arguably save lives, and champion it where there’s no health risk at all.
*I might, however, be convinced to support a ban on people doing both.
I don’t know that the Soviet Union is the best counter example, as the ideal of separation between church and state is a government that’s religiously neutral. The Soviet Union wasn’t simply secular, but was actively hostile towards religion. I don’t want my courthouses to bear quotes from Karl Marx any more than I want them to sport crucifixes. I don’t want my government to take a position on religion one way or the other. That’s yet another thing in which the government should not be involved at all.
By this logic, one could oppose laws against unhealthy foods on the grounds that they lead to heart disease, but support them on the grounds that fat people are disgusting?
So, all supporters of local pornography bans, would you support similar bans on religious iconography, if somebody managed to find a town populated halfway with clones of Der Trihs? This presumes that practice of religion is still allowed and that religious iconigraphy can still be displayed inside the privacy of their church building and their homes - we just require that they take down all the crosses and stuff from public view like when they’re displayed on the outside of buildings and on top of steeples and the like so that the highly irritable activist atheists don’t have their tender sensibilites disturbed.
If not, I’m formally starting The Holy Religion Of The Naked Body - of which all pornography is sacred iconography. (Religious practices are centered on the holy practice of ‘bating’, which involves digital minipulation of the body. Adherents who achieve mastery regularly have profound religious experiences.)
I don’t really think of that as a “cultural” issue the way the others listed in the OP are cultural issues – YMMV. After all, a “secular-progressive” society could be a society where everybody has guns or where nobody (exept the police) does; so could a “traditionalist” society; there are countless examples of all four in history around the globe.
It is not “just a way for schools to single out children that are different from the rest”. It is a way for schools to offer what many parents want to be part of their children’s education. Many parents want their kids to be raised fully in a religious environment. If we force children to take part in public schools where any endorsement of religion by any adult is forbidden, we make that impossible.
As for children being “singled out” for not taking religious classes, that wouldn’t happen. I doubt that there’s any school where those parents who choose not to enroll their kids would be in short supply.
Not sure you are addressing my point.
My point is that drawing the distinction between the locus of regulation of physical harms - which are the same everywhere - and purely subjective “harms” - which are contextual and thus local - is defensible.
You may wish to argue that the latter should never be regulated - that they are all as absurd as your example.
That is in turn a perfectly respectable argument, but certainly you would have to acknowledge that it is not a position shared by everyone. I myself do not think an opposition to public displays of hardcore porn analogizes well, for many reasons, with banning activities “because fat people are disgusting”.
Children aren’t forced to take part in public schools; they could go to a private one, even a private ostentatiously religious one. The only relevant distinction is whether taxpayers are forced to foot the bill.
Reactions such as this are why the US approach to rights as being absolute isn’t all that helpful.
The better approach IMO is to weigh the competing freedoms and harms in play in a reasonable manner.
Many parents want their kids to be raised in a fully secular environment. When we insert religion into the public schools, we make that impossible.
The facilities for religious education already exist in abundance. Churches, synagogues, mosques are everywhere, and are more than happy to assist parents in these matters.
No, the Supreme Court granted itself the power. Power means the ability to make decisions and enforce them on others. When the Supreme Court says, for instance, that there will be no manger scene in a public park, it is the Supreme Court that is making that decision. It is not the taxpayers. At least in most cases, the majority of taxpayers want the manger scene to remain. That majority of taxpayers now has its power eliminated.
No I don’t, because I don’t live exclusively in my home. Few people do. Except for the super-rich, it’s not really possible. I am influenced by things that happen outside my home as well. If Larry Flynt opens a porn emporium right next door, with 10,000 feet of floor space, enormous posters, flashing neon signs, and so forth, all of this would have a major negative effect on me.
And, frankly, I think everyone understands the point perfectly well. The people I know who support pornography on free speech grounds generally don’t want to live next door to porn shops or strip clubs. Rather, they’re okay with a status quo that restricts such businesses to poor neighborhoods. So the result is that poor people have to put up with that filth, while the rich and the middle class do not.
Sure, in a sense. Do you feel there are any cases in which a majority’s power should be curbed in order to protect minorities?
Two words: home school. Three more words: religious private school. Several more: with those two options, you could slant it to the one single religion you prefer. Constitutionally speaking for a publiuc school to do this, it would have to provide equal indoctrination for every religion represented by the students. How many religions do you propose a school slant towards at once?
I can’t parse this for some reason - though I can say, kids will pick on each other for anything.
I disagree. You endanger me when you don’t wear a seatbelt on the road.
They help keep you in position to control the car when things are hairy, and therefore less likely to run me off the road too.
You endanger me by BEING on the road. This isn’t a shot at your driving skills…just reality. We all endanger each other by simply interacting. The probability of my wearing a seat belt or not actually effecting you is minuscule…much less than the probability of you endangering me simply by driving at all.
And how often does this situation happen? It’s like my father in law telling me why he won’t wear a seat belt…why? Because there is a chance that if the car crashes AND catches on fire AND he’s unconscious or otherwise can’t get the seat belt off (etc etc)…well, he could die then.
There is some level of risk that any individual or society has to be willing to take…and policy shouldn’t be set because of some improbable event where my not having a seat belt on actually caused you harm. Shit happens. Besides, I’m fairly sure that the reason there are seat belt laws have almost nothing to do with the scenario you are describing, and everything to do with saving me from my own folly.
Oh…and ftr? I always wear my seat belt. Not because the government tells me to, but because it’s the smart thing to do. It should still be my choice though.
-XT