American Politics 18

[Tempra]

All of that boils down to the fact that a pervasively religious symbol was erected on public lands. As I said, I don't really care too much about this - I'm focused more on the issues that touch lives in some real way - but let's not kid ourselves. The cross was placed for religious reasons and those who want it to remain are motivated by religious reasons.

This happens all the time. It seems to only cause a fuss when it is a Christian symbol. The cross is maintained by private parties and is in the middle of nowhere. How anyone can argue that this is an establishment of a religion with a straight face is beyond me. And technically, the land is no longer public land.

I expect the USSC will invoke the ceremonial deism exception. I predict much uproar around here about judicial activism.

[Yagathai]

This happens all the time. It seems to only cause a fuss when it is a Christian symbol..

I know, right? I also think it's unfair how there's only outrage when blacks are lynched by white mobs, and not vice-versa. Plus, bunch of straight guys string up a gay dude behind their pickup and drag him to death, media firestorm. A pack of queers do the same thing to a breeder and nobody says anything.

What a goddamn world we live in. What a goddamn world.

[Tempra]

can I have my 5 seconds back?

[Yagathai]

can I have my 5 seconds back?

Take as much time away as you want, kemosabe. We'll keep the home fires burning (books) until you return.

[Swordfish]

And yet we trust juries to make life-or-death decisions?

Yes. We do.

Of course, being on a jury and serving as a memebr of congress are not even remotely the same thing, so i have no idea what the relevance is.

There is also a process involved in filtering out the members of a jury for reasons that should be obvious.

it isn't simply the first random twelve people pulled out of a hat.

Randomly selecting congressman is a terrible, terrible idea.

Whoo is a randomly selected congressman with no possible future terms in office accountable to? the guy who invented the random name generator that got them there?

It's ludicrous.

[El-ahrairah]

Yes. We do.

Of course, being on a jury and serving as a memebr of congress are not even remotely the same thing, so i have no idea what the relevance is.

There is also a process involved in filtering out the members of a jury for reasons that should be obvious.

it isn't simply the first random twelve people pulled out of a hat.

Randomly selecting congressman is a terrible, terrible idea.

Whoo is a randomly selected congressman with no possible future terms in office accountable to? the guy who invented the random name generator that got them there?

It's ludicrous.

What's so terrible about having ordinary people serve who won't have time to learn the fine points of graft? Should having deep enough pockets and smooth enough voices to win biannual popularity contests really be the ultimate qualification?

As for accountability, I don't think the current way where career politicians base their votes on how to get reelected is worth much - it has some small merit - so I'll let 90% of the House keep it, and the rest can always be outvoted. There will be some incompetents picked by lot, just as incompetents have been elected for centuries, but this will lend at least some credence to "government by the people".

[Piper]

On the cross thing, I think the Court will let it stand. They dealt with similar cases in 2005, letting one piece stand and taking another down. Breyer was the swing vote (5-4 on both), and here's his reasoning in the one they let stand:

The case before us is a borderline case. It concerns a large granite monument bearing the text of the Ten Commandments located on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. On the one hand, the Commandments’ text undeniably has a religious message, invoking, indeed emphasizing, the Diety. On the other hand, focusing on the text of the Commandments alone cannot conclusively resolve this case. Rather, to determine the message that the text here conveys, we must examine how the text is used. And that inquiry requires us to consider the context of the display.

In certain contexts, a display of the tablets of the Ten Commandments can convey not simply a religious message but also a secular moral message (about proper standards of social conduct). And in certain contexts, a display of the tablets can also convey a historical message (about a historic relation between those standards and the law)–a fact that helps to explain the display of those tablets in dozens of courthouses throughout the Nation, including the Supreme Court of the United States. See generally App. to Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 1a—7a.

Here the tablets have been used as part of a display that communicates not simply a religious message, but a secular message as well. The circumstances surrounding the display’s placement on the capitol grounds and its physical setting suggest that the State itself intended the latter, nonreligious aspects of the tablets’ message to predominate. And the monument’s 40-year history on the Texas state grounds indicates that that has been its effect.

Not too much of a stretch to say that the crosses in this case do have a religious message, but also a secular, historical one in being a memorial to the soldiers. Just my rough guess, of course, but I think its not too hard an analogy for the Court to make.

[Swordfish]

What's so terrible about having ordinary people serve who won't have time to learn the fine points of graft?

Right. because only poiliticians are greedy. :rolleyes:

What is representative about picking congressmen at random? Who's desires, exactly, are being represented? the chronically random?

As for accountability, I don't think the current way where career politicians base their votes on how to get reelected is worth much - it has some small merit - so I'll let 90% of the House keep it, and the rest can always be outvoted. There will be some incompetents picked by lot, just as incompetents have been elected for centuries, but this will lend at least some credence to "government by the people".

it flies directly in the face of by the people, of the people, and for the people.

In a random sample you could select someone who's viewed are shared by exactly no one in the country.

Again, how is that representative of any constituency?

Seriously, just stop, it's a really bad, very poorly thought out idea that doesn't make sense, even on the surface.

[TerraPrime]

This happens all the time. It seems to only cause a fuss when it is a Christian symbol. The cross is maintained by private parties and is in the middle of nowhere. How anyone can argue that this is an establishment of a religion with a straight face is beyond me. And technically, the land is no longer public land.

I expect the USSC will invoke the ceremonial deism exception. I predict much uproar around here about judicial activism.

Two issues.

One is the legal issue. On that, you might very well be right.

The second issue is the comment from Scalia that the cross is not a Christian symbol. Do you agree with his reasoning here?

[Tempra]

Two issues.

One is the legal issue. On that, you might very well be right.

The second issue is the comment from Scalia that the cross is not a Christian symbol. Do you agree with his reasoning here?

No. I think he is doing some serious mental gymnastics to reach that conclusion. I do believe that a certain group's customs can become part of a shared culture. For example, Christmas is celebrated by 95% of Americans even though America is not comprised of 95% Christians. The Christmas tree (holiday tree?) has basically been stripped of its ties to Christianity (yes, i know it has a pagan origin). I think it is a fair argument to say that the cross has undergone the same type of transformation from being only a Christian symbol to a part of the greater shared culture like Christmas/Christmas tree. I don't, however, buy into that argument. I don't believe you can strip the Christian characteristic from the Christmas tree, let alone the cross. Both are indelibly tied to Christianity. I think Scalia's argument fails because an object does not lose its cultural history just because it becomes part of a shared culture.

[The Mance]

This happens all the time. It seems to only cause a fuss when it is a Christian symbol.

I'd be curious to see a few examples of any of those times "a pervasively religious symbol was erected on public lands" where the symbol wasn't some overt icon of Christianity. Frankly I'd be surprised to learn that any had. And I'll eat my keyboard if you can site a muslim or pagan symbol being erected on any publicly funded location that didn't evoke a giant fuss by concerned christians.

[Peter Irving]

Re: El-ahrairah

What? There were no jews or muslims or atheists 70 years ago? How "almost all" is all 70 years ago, compared to now? Do you know?

A monument that uses Christian iconography.

Imagine if the monument had been a Star of David, or the pentagram of modern wiccan. You think you can manage to convince the majority of people that it's just a monument, with no significant religious meaning?

If they wanted it I would have no problem plus I find the pentagram aesthetically pleasing as well.

Now there are times when I say no way to this like in the case Roy Moore ploped the ten comandments down in Alabama he did that for politics and to impose his veiws on others. These monuments are done out of peoples memories for their loved ones and I see no problem with that.

[El-ahrairah]

Right. because only poiliticians are greedy. :rolleyes:

All men are Fallen alike, but this particular vice I must say goes hand in hand with seeking any elected office. It's ambition at best and greed otherwise. As Tolkien said - "The most improper job of any man, even saints, is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity."

What is representative about picking congressmen at random? Who's desires, exactly, are being represented? the chronically random?

it flies directly in the face of by the people, of the people, and for the people.

In a random sample you could select someone who's viewed are shared by exactly no one in the country.

Again, how is that representative of any constituency?

One elected from a constituency does not truly represent all its citizens, only those who voted for him and to whom he is beholden. One chosen by lot represents no one and everyone equally. Anyhow as I mentioned, I would not at least at first choose the legislature entirely by sortition, but use 10% as a test.

Seriously, just stop, it's a really bad, very poorly thought out idea that doesn't make sense, even on the surface.

Well it's a really bad, very poorly thought out idea around 2500 years old, from the birthplace of democracy.

[Tempra]

I'd be curious to see a few examples of any of those times "a pervasively religious symbol was erected on public lands" where the symbol wasn't some overt icon of Christianity. Frankly I'd be surprised to learn that any had. And I'll eat my keyboard if you can site a muslim or pagan symbol being erected on any publicly funded location that didn't evoke a giant fuss by concerned christians.

"NEW YORK, February 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A sharply divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that it is constitutionally permissible for New York City public schools to ban the display of the Christian nativity during Christmas, while permitting the display of the Jewish menorah and the Islamic star and crescent during Hanukkah and Ramadan."

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/feb/06020601.html

be surprised.

[Peter Irving]

there's nothing wrong with showing any of them for their respective holidays! Hell if some naturalist wanted to celebrate Darwins birthday with a picture of darwin I'd say let them!

[DanteGabriel]

"NEW YORK, February 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A sharply divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that it is constitutionally permissible for New York City public schools to ban the display of the Christian nativity during Christmas, while permitting the display of the Jewish menorah and the Islamic star and crescent during Hanukkah and Ramadan."

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/feb/06020601.html

be surprised.

Was a cross banned for display, or just a nativity scene? Would a Christmas tree be allowed to be displayed? This case is not as clear-cut as you and your strangely religious reference website make it out to be. It could just be a difference of scale. I mean, if you permit the nativity scene, do the Jews and Muslims get to have a diorama too?

[The Mance]

Color me surprised, you found one.

Still, it's clearly absurd to imply that non-christian symbology gets pushed on the public with anywhere near the same frequency or vigor as nativity scenes or crosses et al.

[Elrostar]

This happens all the time. It seems to only cause a fuss when it is a Christian symbol. The cross is maintained by private parties and is in the middle of nowhere. How anyone can argue that this is an establishment of a religion with a straight face is beyond me. And technically, the land is no longer public land.

I expect the USSC will invoke the ceremonial deism exception. I predict much uproar around here about judicial activism.

The intricacies of the case aside, my quibble is with Scalia's comments about it. He's claiming that the cross isn't a Christian symbol. And I'm thinking to myself... "so if people decided to put a giant Star of David on a public school in Brooklyn, would that be okay as well?"

Honestly, the idea that 'a Cross doesn't have to count as a real religious symbol unless we want it to' is right up there with 'the default race for everyone is white, and the default sex is male, so when SCOTUS was exclusively white men it couldn't possibly have any racial or gender bias'.

Yes, the case has subtleties to it relating to whether the land is technically public property or not. Although it's made even more complicated by the fact that if the land is not maintained, it reverts back to the federal government, and it hasn't been so maintained. So it's not clear. But Scalia seems to be suggesting that as long as something is Christian (i.e. a cross) then it's okay, because that's not REALLY a religious symbol in any way we need to worry about with regards to the separation between church and state. Whereas I suspect he'd be pretty unhappy about the government setting up Islamic symbols at every crossroads, for instance.

[Tempra]

Was a cross banned for display, or just a nativity scene? Would a Christmas tree be allowed to be displayed? This case is not as clear-cut as you and your strangely religious reference website make it out to be. It could just be a difference of scale. I mean, if you permit the nativity scene, do the Jews and Muslims get to have a diorama too?

clear cut? I was asked to provide an example of a non-Christian symbol on public land. I did just that.

And I believe a Christmas tree was allowed because it was a "secular" symbol, as was the Menorah and Islamic crescent. I think the court made a mistake in claiming that the menorah and crescent were secular symbols.

Color me surprised, you found one.

Still, it's clearly absurd to imply that non-christian symbology gets pushed on the public with anywhere near the same frequency or vigor as nativity scenes or crosses et al.

Did I say it happened with the same frequency? And have you really never seen a Menorah displayed before?

The intricacies of the case aside, my quibble is with Scalia's comments about it. He's claiming that the cross isn't a Christian symbol. And I'm thinking to myself... "so if people decided to put a giant Star of David on a public school in Brooklyn, would that be okay as well?"

Honestly, the idea that 'a Cross doesn't have to count as a real religious symbol unless we want it to' is right up there with 'the default race for everyone is white, and the default sex is male, so when SCOTUS was exclusively white men it couldn't possibly have any racial or gender bias'.

Yes, the case has subtleties to it relating to whether the land is technically public property or not. Although it's made even more complicated by the fact that if the land is not maintained, it reverts back to the federal government, and it hasn't been so maintained. So it's not clear. But Scalia seems to be suggesting that as long as something is Christian (i.e. a cross) then it's okay, because that's not REALLY a religious symbol in any way we need to worry about with regards to the separation between church and state. Whereas I suspect he'd be pretty unhappy about the government setting up Islamic symbols at every crossroads, for instance.

I disagree with Scalia's reasoning, though I am sure we probably agree on the outcome. I don't know the religion (if any) of all those who the memorial is intended to represent, but I would be fine having a Star of David or Crescent or whatever erected next to the cross if any of the soldiers were Jewish or Muslim

[The Mance]

Did I say it happened with the same frequency?

Your casually dismissive statement certainly seemed to conflate the two, yes.

And have you really never seen a Menorah displayed before?

I've seen them around Christmas time as temporary lights displays. I've never seen one permanently erected in stone outside a city hall or courthouse.