Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (73438)	8/27/2003 2:11:48 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Well, I was discussing general principle. The idea that First Amendment law does not apply to a state's expression is bogus. Under such law, the answer is: it depends. Basically, if the manifestation amounts to favoritism and promotion of a particular religion, even something broad (e.g. Christianity as opposed to Roman Catholicism), then it is ruled out of bounds. If the manifestation is rendered innocuous, for example, by contextualization (the example I gave of showing various law- givers in the Supreme Court frieze), then it is ruled in bounds. In this case, remove the statue from a position of honor, putting it into a side room, may suffice to meet the federal court's concerns. I more or less agree with this, even though I think that the federal courts have been more stringent than need be in many cases in the last 25 years.

To: one_less who wrote (73438)	8/27/2003 2:41:24 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

One of the things to take into account is that the incorporation doctrine, though embraced in the 19th century, was "filled in" during the 20th century, and therefore was not quite mature until the 1960s, as the implications were drawn out. Another is that for a long time most of the contrary belonged to a Christian denomination, was Jewish, or was content to respect the symbols of Christian belief, as, for example, the deists, with the sense that religious belief had a powerful civilizing function. Therefore, favoritism came to be interpreted as benefiting a particular sect. Thus, for a long time, the symbols of "Judaeo- Christianity" were safe from challenge. Now we have substantial minorities of Muslims, Hindus, and so forth, as well as a number of self- identified "seculars". In the new climate, favoring "Judaeo- Christianity" or, for that matter, religion in general, is considered going to far. The counter- argument has been made that secularizing the "public square" favors "secular humanism" too much. The problem is that reticence does not equal promotion; there are exceptions that show reverence that have so far survived challenge; and the public square is not really naked, insofar as there are non- governmental public displays. The area I agree with is when there is an attempt to drive out innocuous customs by permitting a veto power to the disaffected that is bound to seem as if it is hostile to any religious expression.........