Quote:
Originally posted by MagiK:
quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
Nowhere. But, the freedom from a governmental establishment of religion (1st Amendment) requires you look to see if people can be "offended" as part of your factual inquiry as to wherether an act is really "establishing" religion or "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
|
Dude, you totally lost me. I posted the exact words of the first ammendment it doesnt say anything about taking into consideration wether some crackpot is going to be offended. Establishing A religion has nothing to do with offending...it is an action all unto itself. Someone being offended by a person, place or thing is not "establishing" anything...except perhaps said persons ignorance or said persons cranial penile content.
[/QUOTE]My point is that offending someone is *evidence.* If you post a Jesus quote on a public building among other philophical quotes, and no one is offended, there is less likelihood that the act is one of establishing a religion. I just don't see how you'd measure the "establishment" of religion without looking to people's reactions. Building marble statutes of Greek Gods all over the country could very well be argued to be an establishment of religion. But, it's been done and no one cries out that our government is trying to endorse Greek Mythology as a national religion -- largely because no one is offended and we all realize the government is using the "art" and "philosophy" of Greek Mythology, without endorsing polytheism.
People and their quotes are engraved on marble buildings everywhere. But, if you were to nit-pick, you'd find that most thinkers had a religious stance, and that the stance came through in their writing. Aristotle's Ethics can't be discussed without getting into his view of heaven. But, posting an Aristotle quote isn't seen as establishing a religion.
Why, then, can't religious figures, art, and ideas from the Christian religion be displayed without it being an "establishment." Is it simply because there are a lot of Christians in the nation?
edit:
I second Cloudy's post. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]
Actually, had that case followed Supreme Court law, it would have held that Christian Christmas displays are okay so long as they are not alone. In other words, if you want to display the Nativity, you need to put Santa and Rudolph or some Kwanzaa icons in the scene as well. Apparently, the SUpreme Court thinks christian icons are okay so long as they are diluted.
I guess I'm saying had the city had appealed in the case you mention, Cloudy, I think the offended heathens would have lost.
[ 07-02-2003, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]