Easter Display Removed From St. Paul City Hall - Page 3

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 03-27-2006, 05:08 PM

It seems to me that there are two discussions going on.

On is separation of church and state at a federal level. That is pretty much agreed upon I think.

The other is how much federal should intrude upon local. This is a messy one that is always changing. There are times, I believe, (Civil Rights as one example) that federal should trump. Then when the crisis is over the feds should back off. Of course opinion on this goes all over the scale. Add to that what constitutes a crisis is often in the eyes of the beholder.

The fact of the matter is you got local governments all over the place displaying Christian, and other I would bet, symbols. Some even endorsing a particular religion. Those people in said communities either agree or don't make a stink about it. Doesn't make it right or wrong, just makes it.

The question as I see it is if just one person in that community objects to this display what should happen? Should a local government be able to override this individual? If it is not federal or state money, should we care? Or if it is state money, should only those in the state be able to have an opinion?

A hypothetical.

Let us assume it is only local money that is being spent. And they put up an huge display of XXX. But I am offended by XXX because I believe in YYY and XXX is in direct opposition to my beliefs. Same goes for XXX view of YYY. Now I practice YYY with a small group of people and it never comes up in daily life. Us and the XXXer's get along just great normally. (BTW there are 20 YYYer's and about 2000 XXXer's living in this particular community.) My whole family (some of which are XXXer's) and my business live here. I was borne here and have made a very large investment in the community. My elderly parents live here and need my assitance and will not move. My children are in all stages of school.

What can I do if the local government tells me "Well, we like you and all but 90% of the people voted to put this thing up and their money supported it. And hey, it is only for a couple of days during the year. So it is staying right there."? Do I have no recourse but to move away from everything I love and have worked for?

For me the answer is it is stupid for government, even if the feds don't interject, to do something like this. Government should not be derailed by displays of any symbol relating to a belief outside those of our national heritage. And it should try as hard as possible to avoid splitting the people it represents. This goes for Easter bunnies, Halloween decorations, Star of David or Crosses.

I would further say that I would find it my duty, and I do support anybody that tries, to rid government of such displays. We recently had a tussle over the fact that the seal for the city had a cross in it. This is in Oklahoma widely considered to be the Bible belt. I think it should be gone. It isn't necessary and only causes problems. If was never there it never would had been a problem.

And I think this is an area, as much as I don’t like feds telling locals what to do, that the state and or feds should step in and force removal of said symbols.

I also don't like the "under god" part in the pledge of allegiance. I think that phrase dilutes the power of the prose. It is even in contention with that other part "one nation indivisible", which I find to be the most meaningful and powerful part of the whole thing. The fact is “under god” does divide the country and that is just sad.

I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

That is some good stuff and needs nothing else.

**leejo** · 03-27-2006, 07:07 PM

I think that if 10% of the population feel that they have to move over an issue like this, someone is being overdramatic.

I happen to think that the constitution exists to protect the basic rights of the minority, not to demand that the majority cowtow to the few in all situations. If any truly feels that their rights have been trampled because city halls approves the display of a bunny, or a menorah, or honors Kwanza, or UT (but not A&M at the same time!) then I challenge them to explain how their rights, and not simply their feelings, have been hurt. Otherwise, yes it is pretty much a majority rule country.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 03-27-2006, 11:29 PM

UT or A&M! That is da devils work! Only OU should be displayed by any moral, upright citizen.

But to alienate 10% of the population when it is not necessary? Displays of religous symbols on government property means that they should be debatable. Democracy is all about debate. So government is now sponsoring and participating in the debate of religous beliefs. That is bad mojo.

And how is not displaying something kowtowing? They can still display it and are not submitting to the beliefs of others.

Religous symbols are powerful things. They cause action and improper use causes more than hurt feeling among others. I agree that it is silly to worry about these things. I could care less if a pentagram was in the court hall. Actually I would probably find it amusing. But many do take these things seriously and would be not only be offended but frightened by seeing said pentagram.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 03-28-2006, 12:04 AM

I forgot to add...

Why should 10% kowtow to the 90%?

**leejo** · 03-28-2006, 01:06 AM

Well, maybe not kowtow, but the more obnoxious the 10% are about trivial matters instead of legitimate abuses of their rights, the more likely the 90% are to vote for politicians who will support their position and appoint judges who will be inclined to care more about your rights and less about your feelings, which are not protected under the constitution.

So pick your fights is what I'm saying, I guess. If a rabbit so offends you that you think it's worth fighting over, then let's have that fight.

I think of it much like a neighborhood wanting to have a block party on UT/OU gameday. They get the permits, they buy the beer, cook the food, invite the friends, then along comes Myron Buzzkill on gameday demanding that there be no party. He doesn't like football and thinks it's stupid and doesn't want them to have their party on his block.

Most of the time the block are perfectly happy to be good, quiet neighbors, but after a while they might just decide that Myron is being a jerk and stop caring what he thinks. Hey if we're following the law, then screw Myron.

So I think there's a legal angle to this that is supportable - that these displays do not represent government's effort to establish a religion when people are careful to include multiple religions' displays and holidays - and I think there's a social aspect that really isn't a constitutionally protected matter but simple politics. In the former Myron's rights are protected, even if he's 1 in 300 million. In the latter, we have a straight up vote and the majority rules. The more flexible Myron is the less inclined the majority will be to shove anything down his throat.

**CingularDuality** · 03-28-2006, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

...I challenge them to explain how their rights, and not simply their feelings, have been hurt. Otherwise, yes it is pretty much a majority rule country.

Exactly. And that's why sexual harassment and racial slurs are a big deal out of nothing, too...

**leejo** · 03-28-2006, 09:42 AM

I think you make a good point, drama queen.

Is it your position that the open public practice of a religion is harrassing or exclusionary? If so, please come out with it, because I think that is the true position of a lot of these people who file suit.

**CingularDuality** · 03-28-2006, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Is it your position that the open public practice of a religion is harrassing or exclusionary? If so, please come out with it, because I think that is the true position of a lot of these people who file suit.

No way. People are free to practice whatever religion they want to, just like I can allow anyone I want to hold my hand and kiss me. But let the government or my employer force something specific on me, and it's harassment. I don't want to be forced to kiss someone, and I don't want to be forced to be treated to any particular religion while using government services.

AMosely · 03-28-2006, 03:58 PM

We are fortunate to live in a very diverse society. In the name of fairness, public institutions, especially government, should not display outward, public support for any particular religion, culture, race or political affiliation if the population that they represent is anything but unanimous in any of these categories.

That's my opinion on the matter.

derdmeh · 03-28-2006, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

We are fortunate to live in a very diverse society. In the name of fairness, public institutions, especially government, should not display outward, public support for any particular religion, culture, race or political affiliation if the population that they represent is anything but unanimous in any of these categories.

I'd go a bit further and say that the merits of religion would be greatly strengthened if there were no outward, public support for any particular religion even if the community were unanimous.

To me, it's a matter of cpmpletely free conscience. Government should provide the secure space in which adults can develop their conscience on their own free initiative. We have rights to a shared, public space from which we can find ourselves swayed by the truth of a religion or system of values. The things I freely believe because my heart and experience have been genuinely swayed, those things I will believe to the death or until they have been demonstrated to be false. Freedom is the basis for true conviction.

03-27-2006, 05:08 PM	#31 (permalink)
El_Gringo_Grande Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: OKIE HOMY Age: 40 Posts: 2,861	Re: Easter Display Removed From St. Paul City Hall It seems to me that there are two discussions going on. On is separation of church and state at a federal level. That is pretty much agreed upon I think. The other is how much federal should intrude upon local. This is a messy one that is always changing. There are times, I believe, (Civil Rights as one example) that federal should trump. Then when the crisis is over the feds should back off. Of course opinion on this goes all over the scale. Add to that what constitutes a crisis is often in the eyes of the beholder. The fact of the matter is you got local governments all over the place displaying Christian, and other I would bet, symbols. Some even endorsing a particular religion. Those people in said communities either agree or don't make a stink about it. Doesn't make it right or wrong, just makes it. The question as I see it is if just one person in that community objects to this display what should happen? Should a local government be able to override this individual? If it is not federal or state money, should we care? Or if it is state money, should only those in the state be able to have an opinion? A hypothetical. Let us assume it is only local money that is being spent. And they put up an huge display of XXX. But I am offended by XXX because I believe in YYY and XXX is in direct opposition to my beliefs. Same goes for XXX view of YYY. Now I practice YYY with a small group of people and it never comes up in daily life. Us and the XXXer's get along just great normally. (BTW there are 20 YYYer's and about 2000 XXXer's living in this particular community.) My whole family (some of which are XXXer's) and my business live here. I was borne here and have made a very large investment in the community. My elderly parents live here and need my assitance and will not move. My children are in all stages of school. What can I do if the local government tells me "Well, we like you and all but 90% of the people voted to put this thing up and their money supported it. And hey, it is only for a couple of days during the year. So it is staying right there."? Do I have no recourse but to move away from everything I love and have worked for? For me the answer is it is stupid for government, even if the feds don't interject, to do something like this. Government should not be derailed by displays of any symbol relating to a belief outside those of our national heritage. And it should try as hard as possible to avoid splitting the people it represents. This goes for Easter bunnies, Halloween decorations, Star of David or Crosses. I would further say that I would find it my duty, and I do support anybody that tries, to rid government of such displays. We recently had a tussle over the fact that the seal for the city had a cross in it. This is in Oklahoma widely considered to be the Bible belt. I think it should be gone. It isn't necessary and only causes problems. If was never there it never would had been a problem. And I think this is an area, as much as I don’t like feds telling locals what to do, that the state and or feds should step in and force removal of said symbols. I also don't like the "under god" part in the pledge of allegiance. I think that phrase dilutes the power of the prose. It is even in contention with that other part "one nation indivisible", which I find to be the most meaningful and powerful part of the whole thing. The fact is “under god” does divide the country and that is just sad. I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. That is some good stuff and needs nothing else.

03-27-2006, 07:07 PM	#32 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Easter Display Removed From St. Paul City Hall I think that if 10% of the population feel that they have to move over an issue like this, someone is being overdramatic. I happen to think that the constitution exists to protect the basic rights of the minority, not to demand that the majority cowtow to the few in all situations. If any truly feels that their rights have been trampled because city halls approves the display of a bunny, or a menorah, or honors Kwanza, or UT (but not A&M at the same time!) then I challenge them to explain how their rights, and not simply their feelings, have been hurt. Otherwise, yes it is pretty much a majority rule country.

03-27-2006, 11:29 PM	#33 (permalink)
El_Gringo_Grande Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: OKIE HOMY Age: 40 Posts: 2,861	Re: Easter Display Removed From St. Paul City Hall UT or A&M! That is da devils work! Only OU should be displayed by any moral, upright citizen. But to alienate 10% of the population when it is not necessary? Displays of religous symbols on government property means that they should be debatable. Democracy is all about debate. So government is now sponsoring and participating in the debate of religous beliefs. That is bad mojo. And how is not displaying something kowtowing? They can still display it and are not submitting to the beliefs of others. Religous symbols are powerful things. They cause action and improper use causes more than hurt feeling among others. I agree that it is silly to worry about these things. I could care less if a pentagram was in the court hall. Actually I would probably find it amusing. But many do take these things seriously and would be not only be offended but frightened by seeing said pentagram.

03-28-2006, 12:04 AM	#34 (permalink)
El_Gringo_Grande Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: OKIE HOMY Age: 40 Posts: 2,861	Re: Easter Display Removed From St. Paul City Hall I forgot to add... Why should 10% kowtow to the 90%?

03-28-2006, 01:06 AM	#35 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Easter Display Removed From St. Paul City Hall Well, maybe not kowtow, but the more obnoxious the 10% are about trivial matters instead of legitimate abuses of their rights, the more likely the 90% are to vote for politicians who will support their position and appoint judges who will be inclined to care more about your rights and less about your feelings, which are not protected under the constitution. So pick your fights is what I'm saying, I guess. If a rabbit so offends you that you think it's worth fighting over, then let's have that fight. I think of it much like a neighborhood wanting to have a block party on UT/OU gameday. They get the permits, they buy the beer, cook the food, invite the friends, then along comes Myron Buzzkill on gameday demanding that there be no party. He doesn't like football and thinks it's stupid and doesn't want them to have their party on his block. Most of the time the block are perfectly happy to be good, quiet neighbors, but after a while they might just decide that Myron is being a jerk and stop caring what he thinks. Hey if we're following the law, then screw Myron. So I think there's a legal angle to this that is supportable - that these displays do not represent government's effort to establish a religion when people are careful to include multiple religions' displays and holidays - and I think there's a social aspect that really isn't a constitutionally protected matter but simple politics. In the former Myron's rights are protected, even if he's 1 in 300 million. In the latter, we have a straight up vote and the majority rules. The more flexible Myron is the less inclined the majority will be to shove anything down his throat.

03-28-2006, 09:42 AM	#37 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Easter Display Removed From St. Paul City Hall I think you make a good point, drama queen. Is it your position that the open public practice of a religion is harrassing or exclusionary? If so, please come out with it, because I think that is the true position of a lot of these people who file suit.

03-28-2006, 03:58 PM	#39 (permalink)
AMosely Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Maine Age: 34 Posts: 2,793	Re: Easter Display Removed From St. Paul City Hall We are fortunate to live in a very diverse society. In the name of fairness, public institutions, especially government, should not display outward, public support for any particular religion, culture, race or political affiliation if the population that they represent is anything but unanimous in any of these categories. That's my opinion on the matter.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Civilization IV Warlords Patch 2.08	FriedFish	Civilization IV - General Discussion	1	11-02-2006 12:10 AM
Time to get real, America!	Magnum50	The Sandbox	81	10-04-2006 11:38 AM
Tactical Mod: Change Log	asch	Battlefield 2 Tactical Mod - Information & FAQ	9	08-17-2006 08:46 PM
Catalyst v5.8 Drivers Out Today	FishRoy	Hardware & Software Discussion	1	09-17-2005 09:31 PM
Get your own Googlism!	DeRanger	General Discussion	30	07-20-2005 06:48 PM

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links