huh....

 

And they justified their decision how exactly? How can one objectively come to that decision?

 

That is not really a free speech issue as much as it an separation of church and state issue, I would say. Either way, its ****ed up. edit: I know the article says its the other way around, but I hold by my guns.

On the subject, I recently read "Divided by god" by Noah Feldmann. Great book, and addresses exactly why the current system is so problematic.

 

Separation of church and state is invalid since monument to "religion A" was already accepted by city officials and is displayed in the public park. If this is so, then one could reason that monument to religion A was accepted under the freedom of speech. But that has been invalidated also because monument to "religion B" was not accepted while subject to the same circumstances as the religion A monument.

Religion A monument is allowed in the park because of reason X.

Religion B monument is not allowed on the park because of reason Y.

Therefore, religion A must be subject to different laws than religion B.

Does not compute.

The Supreme Court sets precedence with this ruling. Is this the type of precedence we should have in America? Magic 8 Ball says, "Outlook not so good"

 

Hmmmm, the justice quoted said that such monuments are a form of "government speech." So when are they ripping out the 10 Commandments monument due to separation of church and state?

Religions A and B are definitely being judged by different laws

 

That is crazy! Way to go Christians...

 

Exactly. It comes down to the fundamental question, what is counts as religion?

 

I'm sure the justices had access to some sort of English dictionary at the time of the hearing.

re⋅li⋅gion
[ri-lij-uhn]
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

 

I love basketball. It is the absolute purpose of my existence, and I participate in basketball rituals every weekend. They are awesome. Every night, before I go to bed, I sit with my hands on top of my favorite basketball and I pray that tomorrow I will make two more three pointers.

Do I have a religion now?

Does "Little bird of snow" or her father?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...6_0693_ZC.html

And is Buddhism actually count as a religion? Many practicing Buddhists would not define it as so. As I was told by a Monk in Burma, "you can be a christian Buddhist, or a Muslim Buddhist. It doesn't matter to us"

A dictionary definition only goes so far.

 

Does basketball explain the universe to you and your group of basketball worshipers and your practices? Does basketball worship try to give reason to man or his origin. Does it truly govern your conduct and imply a moral code?

The answer is a resounding no because we know basketball is a sport which has no foundation of any dogmatic belief or any divine faith.

Buddhism is seen by other sects as a religion. All of the cores of religion are there, they just don't worship a set of higher powers but instead seek "enlightenment". "Enlightenment", finding "God's Love", whatever works for you. You can be a Christian-Buddhist. I can be a Jew For Christ. One doesn't necessarily discount the other.

Or, we could flip your question. If we can't constitute what religion is because we can't determine the meaning of a common word in our own language, then logically we can't define what isn't a religion.

Therefor, if you truly think there's nothing substantial to prove what is or isn't religion, then logically there's no recognized religion and both of the memorials should be allowed in the park.

"Ipso facto, I'm your boss" - White Goodman

 

Look up the terms Etic and Emic.

 

Um...I agree with this 100%. I don't want some fanatic religious group forcing the city I live in to erect a symbol of their faith.

You want it? You buy it and put it on land that you paid for/rent (like...a church maybe?).

Keep your religion out of my life.

 

I agree with you, but the issue is that the Christians are getting represented and no one else is.


The rules should be All or Nothing.

 

But who are you to say what constituted religion? Basketball may be a sport, but its my ****ing religion too. It explains the universe to me. Magic Johnson is my Jesus Christ. It absolutely governs my everyday conduct, and gives me a sense of purpose.

Does my religion not count because you think its silly? I know a lot of fundamental Christians who think that Hinduism and Buddhism are ridiculous. Where is the line to be drawn? There is no sub-clause of the establishment clause defining religion. Yes, there is a dictionary definition, but that still is pretty broad. My basketball belief may be really really heartfelt. Who are you to say I can’t believe in basketball?

The fact is, these people have a legitimate, heartfelt, religious belief. The ruling by the Supreme Court directly violates their first amendment right. They messed up.

FWIW, I believe the monument should be allowed. Furthermore, any religious monument should be allowed, as long as it adheres to the same rules and regulations any secular monument would have to abide by (height, width, materials) for a location. However, this is assuming that there are absolutely no public funds involved in the monument’s construction. In other words, if this proposed monument was going to use any public money, its off the table. But if it was all private dollars, it should be allowed. This, I believe, is the strategy most in keeping with the original intent of the founders.