Can I haz states rights?

Well I see this thread is starting in the right direction.

Read the freaking decision... it has nothing to do with religious speech, but with the ability for the state to use its public property for public monuments. The court made a very good point that if the state took the position of a neutral broker in all monument displays then the public space would become quickly cluttered with monuments representing all points of view, or it would have to banish all monuments from the public space.

One of the examples that they gave was that cities would have to display anti war memorials beside WWII memorials, or (reductio ad absurdum) a monument to Al Qaeda beside 9/11 memorials. Put simply, the public elects the arbiters of public monuments, and therefore public monuments become the voice of the people through state speech.

It's a reasonable decision.

Code_Archeologist covered it. I think submitter is angling for a green light with a troll-bait headline. Or he's just a moron who knows only what he reads in the New York Post.

ThrnPhl: It's a reasonable decision.

Alito's focus on the effect of allowing more monuments, instead of removing the one offensive one, was misplaced. A practical outcome, not guided by the law. Most recent jurisprudence on this issue is a departure from 100yr old 1st amendment rulings. Shame.

Code_Archeologist: if the state took the position of a neutral broker in all monument displays then the public space would become quickly cluttered with monuments representing all points of view, or it would have to banish all monuments from the public space.

Considering that government (i.e. those with authority over public lands) is supposed to remain neutral in matters of religion, it seems to me the answer for what to do is pretty obvious.

Code_Archeologist: Read the freaking decision... it has nothing to do with religious speech, but with the ability for the state to use its public property for public monuments. The court made a very good point that if the state took the position of a neutral broker in all monument displays then the public space would become quickly cluttered with monuments representing all points of view, or it would have to banish all monuments from the public space.

One of the examples that they gave was that cities would have to display anti war memorials beside WWII memorials, or (reductio ad absurdum) a monument to Al Qaeda beside 9/11 memorials. Put simply, the public elects the arbiters of public monuments, and therefore public monuments become the voice of the people through state speech.

The problem is that the government is not allowed to have any stance on religion. It is allowed to have a stance on WWII. So while a WWII memorial is fine, a religious one is not.

I've got to tell you...I really can't work up the energy to care about this.

EvilEgg: The problem is that the government is not allowed to have any stance on religion. It is allowed to have a stance on WWII. So while a WWII memorial is fine, a religious one is not.

As I understand the decision, the criteria of whether the monument stays or goes is not based on the religious content of the message so much as a variety of factors. If the government is not basing the decision on the religious message, it's hard to see the endorsement issue, particularly if a monument makes clear who placed it there. At worst, this is a de minimis crossing of the line.

EvilEgg: The problem is that the government is not allowed to have any stance on establish a religion.

There. See the difference?

By the way, this headline was supposed to be a joke since I submitted it at the same time as this one which ended up 6 below it:

Ultra-liberal Supreme Court ignores 2nd amendment, upholds gun bans for those convicted of domestic violence

pandabear: EvilEgg: The problem is that the government is not allowed to have any stance on establish a religion.

There. See the difference?

The problem is that by saying one religion can have a memorial and another can't they are tacitly endorsing one religion over another. Which gives the state a religion, which it can't have.

Seems more like pragmatics to me. Who wants ten monuments in every park? To be honest, just keep religion out of school and politics and I'm ok with that.

pandabear: EvilEgg: The problem is that the government is not allowed to have any stance on establish a religion.

There. See the difference?

Are you claiming that allowing one religious monument and not allowing others is not an establishment of religion. And, we're not talking establish as in create a new religion, we are talking about the state establishing an official religion.

And, the decision here WAS based on content. They cited the length of time that the religion had been around (30-ish years). The state was essentially claiming that this religion was not legitimate. That too is establishment of one religion over the other.

This decision was nonsensical and illogical, and flat wrong.

As EvilEgg said, the state is not supposed to favor any religion over another. This ruling establishes the precedent that doing so is perfectly OK.

Whamdangler: That too is establishment of one religion over the other.

The constitution guarantees you freedom of religion. Not freedom from religion.

Church taxes (Germany, for instance)? Establishment of religion.
Death penalty for apostasy (Iran)? Establishment of religion.
Allowing religions displays by religions? Not establishment of religion.
Not allowing religious displays by less-common religions? Not establishment of religion.

You have the right in this country to practice whatever religion you like. You do not have the right to be shielded by the state in every instance and circumstance from how others practice their religions, although there are many people who want to think that this is the case.

pandabear: Not allowing religious displays by less-common religions? Not establishment of religion.

Allowing one religion to use public property and not allowing others? Establishment of religion.

I am not expecting to be shielded, but government has to treat all beliefs equally. Generally the best way to do this is to not allow any of them to use public property. If the want to erect a religious memorial put it on private property.

"Ultra-conservative"? Subby, do you realize that it was a unanimous decision and only half the court is conservative? No? Then STFU.

Code_Archeologist: Read the freaking decision...

... should be the advice given to anyone before they try to comment on SCOTUS decisions.

pandabear: The constitution guarantees you freedom of religion. Not freedom from religion.

First off, EVERYONE KNOWS THIS, and it's a strawman argument. No one here is arguing freedom FROM religion.

Favoring one religion over another, in this case by allowing some religions to have monuments promoting them, is EXACTLY what the establishment clause was meant to protect against. Period. This is why I said above that the decision is flat wrong.

*IF* the state does not want to favor any one religion, they have to treat all religions the same. That means, allowing any and all monuments, or none at all. Granted, they do not need to provide said monuments, but if they provide a forum (park space) for one, they need to provide the same forum for all.

Whamdangler: First off, EVERYONE KNOWS THIS, and it's a strawman argument. No one here is arguing freedom FROM religion.

Favoring one religion over another, in this case by allowing some religions to have monuments promoting them, is EXACTLY what the establishment clause was meant to protect against. Period. This is why I said above that the decision is flat wrong.

*IF* the state does not want to favor any one religion, they have to treat all religions the same. That means, allowing any and all monuments, or none at all. Granted, they do not need to provide said monuments, but if they provide a forum (park space) for one, they need to provide the same forum for all.

I generally agree with you and I believe firmly in the separation between Church and State, but this case is a bit different. The city had already accepted a number of non-denominational displays from other civic and community organizations in addition to the Ten Commandments monument. The courts have long-held that such religious monuments are appropriate as long as they're part of a myriad of displays.

In this case, though, the court found that the government has a freedom of speech as well--if they don't want to display a particular contributed monument from an organization that's not a long-standing civic or community organization, they're free to do so as long as it's not due to discrimination. In this case, the city just didn't want it, and the organization who donated the monument was trying to force the city to display it.

No, I agree with the court on this one.

EvilEgg: but government has to treat all beliefs equally

Rationally, you mean. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all have the ten commandments as part of their religious writings. It's a five thousand year old part of the culture. The seven aphorisms from a religion founded in 1975, much less so. Someone is always going to object to something. Someone is always going to want their credo cast in bronze and bolted to a boulder. But you can't let everyone do it, otherwise you would be constantly barking your shins against boulders with somebody else's credo on it, and I do want the government to protect me from that. The few remaining boulders, placed there without objection from the majority, I can avoid and the words cast in the brass I can ignore.

Or perhaps it should be allotted proportionally. A religious message that covers three billion people is on a statue 10 feet tall. OK, then you can put your message from a religion with 30 people on a statue one ten-millionth of a foot tall.

pandabear: Rationally, you mean.

No I meant equally. Some bureaucrat should not have a say in whether my belief is legitimate or not. It's not like the mainstream religions don't own good property where a large memorial can be very prominently displayed. Most times church owned property is right on the public square. Move it across the street and put it on your own front lawn.

Whamdangler: and it's a strawman argument.

Not really, the founders wrote the constitution in an environment where everyone was forced to pay for state churches, and certain religions were actively suppressed or outright criminal, according to the state. That's exactly what the establishment clause protects against.

Assume the mayor of a large city might meet with religious leaders to talk about, maybe, promoting programs for troubled youth. Does he have to meet with every single one? Or maybe just the Catholic bishop, a prominent rabbi, and a pastor of a large protestant congregation? And he doesn't give an audience to the guy who runs a church in his basement for his and two other families? Is this establishment of religion? It is, according to you.

Instead of the Commandments I'd like to see the Bill of Rights in every park.

the decision is reasonable in general, but the religious aspect of this particular instance runs squarely into the establishment clause and should dictate that they remove (and never should have put up in the first place) the monument.

EvilEgg: say in whether my belief is legitimate or not

The question here is whether a city should put up or allow to be erected an edifice espousing your beliefs, not whether they are legitimate. You could legitimately be a member of an antisemitic white supremacist religion--no one is stopping you. Should you get a an equal-sized monument next to the holocaust memorial? Or should the Supreme Court leave that up to local government to decide?

eddyatwork: Instead of the Commandments I'd like to see the Bill of Rights in every park.

In every park? Do the more inexpensive thing and just send a copy of the Constitution and amendments to every member of Congress. Chances are, a few of them haven't read 'em.

pandabear: The question here is whether a city should put up or allow to be erected an edifice espousing your beliefs, not whether they are legitimate. You could legitimately be a member of an antisemitic white supremacist religion--no one is stopping you. Should you get a an equal-sized monument next to the holocaust memorial? Or should the Supreme Court leave that up to local government to decide?

Again a religious monument is a special case, different from all others. The government can have an opinion on the holocaust, it can't have one on religion.

So with religious monuments it's all or nothing. Nothing tends to be easier.

EvilEgg: So with religious monuments it's all or nothing. Nothing tends to be easier.

OK, here's an example. You're the mayor of EvilEggville, and you have a nice city park that has a monument to the Ten Commandments donated by the local chapter of the Lions. You also have a very nice granite one donated by a local mosque that has the Five Pillars of Islam, and a another with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights donated by another organization. Maybe a few other community displays.

Now here comes the Church of Scientology, and they donate a monument to Xenu. Scientologists have never have a community presence, there are no Scientologists in the community, and they just want to spread the word about their organization. Because it's a legally-recognized religion by the United States with tax-exempt status, are you legally-obligated to place their monument in your city park just because they asked? Or as mayor, should you be able to tell them to hit the road? Should they be able to sue you to place their donation?

Hender: "Ultra-conservative"? Subby, do you realize that it was a unanimous decision and only half the court is conservative? No? Then STFU.

Read the thread...The fraking headline was a joke, intended to paired with another headline about the gun case calling the SC ultra-liberal. The mods greened one and not the other....

Hender: Now here comes the Church of Scientology, and they donate a monument to Xenu.

Xenu is like their Satan...they would never put up a monument to him.

\not the point, i know

Magorn: Read the thread...The fraking headline was a joke, intended to paired with another headline about the gun case calling the SC ultra-liberal. The mods greened one and not the other....

Well, you never know with Fark. It's a pretty regular basis that I hear that Bush "had control of all three branches of government" for years. Yes, that split-down-the-middle Supreme Court with the left-leaning swing vote was totally in Bush's pocket.

gustakooka: Xenu is like their Satan...they would never put up a monument to him.

\not the point, i know

Shows you how much I know and care about Scientology. And who knows? Maybe they'd put up a monument about the dangers of psychiatry because uh oh, here comes Xenu!

KaponoFor3: ... should be the advice given to anyone before they try to comment on SCOTUS decisions.

But... but... that's like work!

Hender: EvilEgg: So with religious monuments it's all or nothing. Nothing tends to be easier.

OK, here's an example. You're the mayor of EvilEggville, and you have a nice city park that has a monument to the Ten Commandments donated by the local chapter of the Lions. You also have a very nice granite one donated by a local mosque that has the Five Pillars of Islam, and a another with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights donated by another organization. Maybe a few other community displays.

Now here comes the Church of Scientology, and they donate a monument to Xenu. Scientologists have never have a community presence, there are no Scientologists in the community, and they just want to spread the word about their organization. Because it's a legally-recognized religion by the United States with tax-exempt status, are you legally-obligated to place their monument in your city park just because they asked? Or as mayor, should you be able to tell them to hit the road? Should they be able to sue you to place their donation?

I should have told the Lions and the Mosque sorry I can't accept them as I was constitutionally required to. Now I have to remove their statues later when sued by the Scientologists which is just going to wreck my town budget and get a lot of people pissed off at the one family that is, when it's really not their fault. They're nice people but the felt the community wasn't being inclusive as a government should be.

EvilEgg: I should have told the Lions and the Mosque sorry I can't accept them as I was constitutionally required to. Now I have to remove their statues later when sued by the Scientologists which is just going to wreck my town budget and get a lot of people pissed off at the one family that is, when it's really not their fault. They're nice people but the felt the community wasn't being inclusive as a government should be.

The Supreme Court says you can legally accept displays of the Ten Commandments and the Five Pillars of Islam as long as they're not the only things displayed. The groups who donated them are pillars of your community and well-respected. You're going to take them down just for your all-or-nothing attitude?

Now you can tell this out-of-town group to hit the bricks instead of taking down the other stuff. I don't have a problem with that.

Hender: You're going to take them down just for your all-or-nothing attitude?

Yes. They serve no purpose and shouldn't have been there in the first place.

I'm sorry, but this to me is favoring one religion over another. It is a public space with government-sanctioned religious monuments on it. To me that is a clear break in the separation of church and state. There should be no religious monuments that are government approved, period. There should be no religious monuments on government property, period. There should be no mention of any religion, and that included mentioning God, in any official government document, period. That is proper separation of church and state.

The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded. ~ James Madison

Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the Foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity? ~ John Quincy Adams

How about political monuments? They still OK?

GAT_00: That is proper separation of church and state.

When even Stevens and Breyer disagree with you that means your position is probably a fringe one.

lexnaturalis: GAT_00: That is proper separation of church and state.

When even Stevens and Breyer disagree with you that means your position is probably a fringe one.

Not fringe, more like unaware of the specifics of the case. It's not as clear-cut as he makes it out to be.

Hender: Not fringe, more like unaware of the specifics of the case.

You're right. That gets back to the "read the damned decision first" issue.

Hender: lexnaturalis: GAT_00: That is proper separation of church and state.

When even Stevens and Breyer disagree with you that means your position is probably a fringe one.

Not fringe, more like unaware of the specifics of the case. It's not as clear-cut as he makes it out to be.

It is still government approved religious posting. That is wrong. And yes, I am trying to find the actual text of the decision.

Give the Christians their win on this one and move on, in the long run everyone will get what they deserve anyway.

pandabear: EvilEgg: The problem is that the government is not allowed to have any stance on establish a religion.

There. See the difference?

When the government has coercive power over its citizens, where this power is ever-present on the minds of its population even when not being used... There is no difference between the government saying "We really like Christianity!! And by the way, we have the power to crush you" and "We are a Christian government!! And by the way, we have the power to crush you!!"

Hender: gustakooka: Xenu is like their Satan...they would never put up a monument to him.

\not the point, i know

Shows you how much I know and care about Scientology. And who knows? Maybe they'd put up a monument about the dangers of psychiatry because uh oh, here comes Xenu!

If you would like a fascinating read, check out the wikipedia page. Incredible crazy there.

Mordant: Give the Christians their win on this one and move on, in the long run everyone will get what they deserve anyway.

Rapture?

EvilEgg: Yes. They serve no purpose and shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Better get rid of that goddamn Declaration of Independence too, it mentions "God" as such once as well as "Creator" and "Supreme Judge of the World".

Burn the sonofabiatch, it serves no purpose and shouldn't be there in the first place. Can you believe that thing is displayed in public where everyone can see it? I'm being repressed.