Atheists that claim they are tolerant explain this
16 Dec 2011, 10:23 pm
cw10 wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
91 wrote:
Mayor Tony Court summed it up perfectly: “It’s offensive,” Court said. “Nothing in our display challenges or puts down what others believe. I don’t think you can say that about the banner the group is supposed to be sending.”
Nonsense. A nativity scene is a direct challenge to my non-christian views.
Sure, but not being offended isn't a right in America. Neither is it the responsibility of the state to make sure you're not offended.
Of course; and, of course, that goes both ways. People don't have the right to be protected from offense at the FFRF banner, either.
16 Dec 2011, 10:23 pm
91 wrote:
Oodain wrote:
91 wrote:
Nonsense, if you want to find the nativity offensive then that is your choice,
just as you choose to find the assertion of non belief offensive.
There is a wide gap between can and reasonable. The Supreme court says that a nativity in a secular display is not offensive. The same test they used on the nativity can be used on the banner and the banner, as we have discussed fails.
I personally just don't understand, this Bamyan attitude that sees the beauty of the other side as being judgmental. When I watch Carl Sagan, I can experience his wonder of the universe, when I read Dawkins I can appreciate how he wants to see the world. In a free society, a man is still required to see the other side's point of view. Even though we as a society have rejected this view; instead preferring to push that which we disagree with, outside of our line of sight. That standard , is just not good enough when it comes to the public realm. By all means, Vex can be as intolerant of my religion as he likes but that does not mean that we are compelled to cater for an intolerance that refuses to see beauty in the other side. We can distinguish as a society, between what offends people and what offends reasonable people, the supreme court does and we ought to. Otherwise, we will end up putting the opinions of bigots above our own. We will label all the colors of our culture as offensive and churn them through a blender, until all that is left is the beige of an asylum's walls.
The message the FFRF put forward, is designed to insult, the nativity is designed to reflect the season.
Mayor Tony Court summed it up perfectly: “It’s offensive,” Court said. “Nothing in our display challenges or puts down what others believe. I don’t think you can say that about the banner the group is supposed to be sending.”
Dan Barker, from the FFRF said he that it is 'an Anti-Christian message' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKvA-9abh2E about 3:10 into the video).
Hi 91,
Your flip-flop is spectacular.
The religious beliefs of the plaintiff is all that matters to your asserted "legal mind".
Change:
"Nativity Asserting Christian, Plaintiff,
versus
SANDY DESHAW AND RENEE TOMMILA, in
their individual capacities and their official
capacities as employees and agents of the state
of Washington; GOVERNOR CHRIS GREGOIRE,
in her official capacity as Governor of the
State of Washington, Defendants.
Change "
TO"
"Other Than Nativity Asserting Christian (at worse one of "those" Atheist), Plaintiff,
versus
SANDY DESHAW AND RENEE TOMMILA, in their individual capacities and their official
capacities as employees and agents of the state of Washington; GOVERNOR CHRIS GREGOIRE,
in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Washington, Defendants."
And you do the 180-degree active flip from your passive flop.
Why would "FILL IN THE BLANK PLAINTIFF" claim such a baseless and unreasonable secular display as being protected, as a public display in a public space, in needless & expensive frivolous lawsuits, according to your Great Wisdom???
Well, it only depends on the name of the plaintiff filled in the blank ("weighted" with plaintiff's religious views). Equality, and everything else, is totally irrelevant by your Legal Values System.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, AT TACOMA
CASE NO. C06-5719RBL: http://oldsite.alliancedefensefund.org/ ... lement.pdf
"The instant case was commenced under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of Plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech and due process of law and correlative claims under the Washington State Constitution. The Plaintiff was and is a citizen of the United States and the State of Washington. The action alleges Defendants, State of Washington officials, denied a request by the Plaintiff to erect a Nativity Scene in the Capitol Rotunda after the State had permitted a private party to erect a Menorah in the Rotunda and where the State had allowed the display of a 'Holiday Tree' donated by a private party. "
So by you, anybody's other baby in the crib changes everything to the reverse. Unbiased must mean only Zero Voltage in your Logic Land of Twisted Prolix Legalities, or, again, when it comes to the law it the U.S.A., it is very clear that you do not know what you are talking about.
Tadzo
16 Dec 2011, 10:29 pm
blauSamstag wrote:
Nonsense. A nativity scene is a direct challenge to my non-christian views.
In your view, perhaps, in a general sense, I doubt it. The nativity is just a depiction of the birth of Jesus. One is free to read what ever message into it you like. For myself, the image of a Koran simply says 'there are Muslims' if you do not want to be tolerant of it, that is your choice (but thanks for proving Inuyasha right). I think you are perhaps moving away from the point, the atheist banner is a disendorsement of religion, specifically, in the words of it's proponents a disendorsement of Christianity. I am not arguing that it is unconstitutional on the grounds that it is insulting but on the grounds that it is a disendorsement. Insult and establishment/disestablishment are not the same thing.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
16 Dec 2011, 11:50 pm
91 wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
Nonsense. A nativity scene is a direct challenge to my non-christian views.
In your view, perhaps, in a general sense, I doubt it. The nativity is just a depiction of the birth of Jesus..
_________________
.
17 Dec 2011, 12:13 am
Vexcalibur wrote:
In your view, perhaps, in a general sense, I doubt it. The nativity is just a depiction of the birth of Jesus..
I love it when you ignore my argument and just take the part you want to respond to. Whenever I see .. at the end of your post a straw-man alarm goes off. Perhaps you should engage with my argument and not what you think my argument is.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
17 Dec 2011, 12:37 am
LKL wrote:
Of course; and, of course, that goes both ways. People don't have the right to be protected from offense at the FFRF banner, either.
The argument is not one from offense, it is one from disendorsement.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
17 Dec 2011, 1:54 am
91 wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
Nonsense. A nativity scene is a direct challenge to my non-christian views.
In your view, perhaps, in a general sense, I doubt it. The nativity is just a depiction of the birth of Jesus. One is free to read what ever message into it you like. For myself, the image of a Koran simply says 'there are Muslims' if you do not want to be tolerant of it, that is your choice (but thanks for proving Inuyasha right). I think you are perhaps moving away from the point, the atheist banner is a disendorsement of religion, specifically, in the words of it's proponents a disendorsement of Christianity. I am not arguing that it is unconstitutional on the grounds that it is insulting but on the grounds that it is a disendorsement. Insult and establishment/disestablishment are not the same thing.
Hi 91,
Your word usages are rather unusual for federal court cases in the U.S.A., and I find more matches with otherwise material. One being:
"Religious vilification, anti-discrimination law and religious freedom" Speech by the NSW Attorney General, the Hon. Greg Smith SC MP
24 August 2011
"2. The Association has been addressing, here at Sydney University the broad theme of the challenges of secularism to religious freedom."
and, of Senator McCain disavowing endorsements from John Hagee and Rod Parsley.
Your "Legal Language" is weighted with phrases not from the Law as interpreted in U.S.A. federal courts.
To your previous contention of what is under the umbrella of protected religious rights, the Courts held:
"Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of "ultimate concern" that for her occupy a "place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons," those beliefs represent her religion. Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n. 5 (7th Cir.1994) (internal citation and quotation omitted); see also Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 340, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 26 L.Ed.2d 308 (1970); United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 184-88, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965). We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir.2003) ("If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.")."
The U.S.A. courts have also ruled that the rights legally exercised by others must be tolerated, even if held "offensive" by a majority, and especially if only offensive to a very small narrow-minded group taking offense at any divergent belief or opinion.
Since you demand that all protected opinions and beliefs you find offensive should not be protected, your judgments about anybody's other baby in the crib changes everything to the reverse for your favored stance, unbiased must mean only Zero Voltage in your Logic Land of Twisted Prolix Legalities, or, again, when it comes to the law it the U.S.A., it is very clear that you do not know what you are talking about.
When federal judges encounter such conflict, they are generally polite and acknowledge the conflict in silence by abstention of the particular judge.
Rarely, as with Two-Ton Ten Monument Toters, they have to receive the judicial notice to: "Go Recuse Yourself".
Tadzio
P.S.: So the Court's doors are closed by you if the plaintiffs aren't from your school, like:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, AT TACOMA
CASE NO. C06-5719RBL: http://oldsite.alliancedefensefund.org/ ... lement.pdf
"The instant case was commenced under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of Plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech and due process of law and correlative claims under the Washington State Constitution. The Plaintiff was and is a citizen of the United States and the State of Washington. The action alleges Defendants, State of Washington officials, denied a request by the Plaintiff to erect a Nativity Scene in the Capitol Rotunda after the State had permitted a private party to erect a Menorah in the Rotunda and where the State had allowed the display of a 'Holiday Tree' donated by a private party. "
All images are graven and offensive if not endorsed by 91's blessings???
17 Dec 2011, 7:15 am
91 wrote:
HerrGrimm wrote:
OK, so...before I say anything, why don't you define what 'confrontational' and 'predatory' mean. There is one case that comes to mind, but I want a groundwork of what you think of it.
I would keep the definitions pretty broad. The Westboro Baptist sign, that they are proposing for a Christmas display would be both. I would put the banner from the FFRF in roughly the same category; mainly because their respective proponents expect them to be. Something like the atheist 'A' symbol and a nativity are pretty harmless so I don't have a problem with the display of either.
I thought you said you were not going to comment on Tadzio's link, but I guess when it is convenient you are going to use them.
Let's review what you said:
91 wrote:
HerrGrimm wrote:
There you go making the 'confrontational' argument again...and the 'predatory' argument, which I have repeatedly dismissed as a viable argument.
You still have not provided a sound argument as to why one can dismiss it, nor do you seem to have a strong grasp on the concept of precedent. The argument you are making seems to be more against the Supreme Court and Precendent as it presently stands. The court does not share you interpretation and you have provided no evidence what-so-ever to suggest either that it does or it should.
OK, so even if I haven't shown that something 'confrontational' or 'predatory' should be allowed under the First Amendment and cannot be an argument in the matter, I am more than willing to show it (unlike anything you have said, I am still waiting for you to give cases were you find Roberts's court reasonable in First Amendment cases).
How many YouTube videos do you want of Nazis marching on city or other government property, waving swastika flags and being protected from counter-protestors who want to smash their skulls in by police probably 5 to 10 times the size of the Nazi group? Or are you going back to the 'disendorsement' argument, even though I have explicitly been talking about all First Amendment cases, since you brought it up. And I don't understand why you are arguing this point if it is not important to your argument that the sign is offensive. Plus there's that whole Nazi planned march in Skokie:
In the link above they wrote:
It is useful to consider the three primary arguments set forth by Skokie in support of its effort to forbid the march. First, the village argued that the display of the swastika promoted “hatred against persons of Jewish faith or ancestry” and that speech that promotes racial or religious hatred is unprotected by the First Amendment. The courts rightly rejected this argument, not on the ground that the swastika doesn’t promote religious hatred, but on the ground that that is not a reason for suppressing speech. After all, it the Nazis could be prohibited from marching in Skokie because the swastika incites religious hatred, then presumably they couldn’t march anywhere for the same reason, and movies could not show the swastika, and even documentaries could not show the swastika. And if the swastika can be banned on this basis, then what other symbols or ideas can be suppressed for similar reasons. What about movies showing members of the Ku Klux Klan? News accounts showing Palestinians committing suicide bombings in Israel or showing Israelis attacking civilians?
Second, the village argued that the purpose of the marches was to inflict emotional harm on the Jewish residents of Skokie and, especially, on the survivors. Certainly, some residents would be deeply offended, shocked and terrified to see Nazis marching through the streets of Skokie. But they might also be offended, shocked and terrified to know that Schindler’s List was playing at a movie theatre in Skokie, or in Chicago, or in Illinois, and African-Americans might be offended, shocked and terrified to know that the movie Birth of a Nation was playing in a theatre in their town or nation. And so on. Moreover, it is doubtful that the actual intent of the Nazis was to inflict emotional harm on the residents of Skokie. Initially, the Nazis sought to march in a totally different community in Chicago, one with almost no Jewish population. But they were denied a permit. They then decided to march in Skokie in order to get publicity for their grievance. Indeed, the signs they planned to carry in Skokie did not say “Bring Back the Holocaust,” but “White Free Speech” and “Free Speech for the White Man.” Making First Amendment rights turn on judgments about a speaker’s subjective intent is a dangerous business, because intent is very elusive and police, prosecutors and jurors are very prone to attribute evil intentions to those whose views they despise.
Third, the village argued that if the Nazis were permitted to march there would be uncontrollable violence. But is this a reason to suppress speech? Isn’t the obligation of the government to protect the speaker and to control and punish the lawbreakers, rather than to invite those who would silence the speech to use threats of violence to achieve their ends? If the village of Skokie had won on this point, then southern communities who wanted to prosecute civil rights marchers in Selma, Montgomery and Birmingham could equally do so, on the plea that such demonstrations would trigger “uncontrollable violence.” Moreover, once government gives in to such threats of violence it effectively invites a “heckler’s veto,” empowering any group of people who want to silence others to do so simply by threatening to violate the law.
Second, the village argued that the purpose of the marches was to inflict emotional harm on the Jewish residents of Skokie and, especially, on the survivors. Certainly, some residents would be deeply offended, shocked and terrified to see Nazis marching through the streets of Skokie. But they might also be offended, shocked and terrified to know that Schindler’s List was playing at a movie theatre in Skokie, or in Chicago, or in Illinois, and African-Americans might be offended, shocked and terrified to know that the movie Birth of a Nation was playing in a theatre in their town or nation. And so on. Moreover, it is doubtful that the actual intent of the Nazis was to inflict emotional harm on the residents of Skokie. Initially, the Nazis sought to march in a totally different community in Chicago, one with almost no Jewish population. But they were denied a permit. They then decided to march in Skokie in order to get publicity for their grievance. Indeed, the signs they planned to carry in Skokie did not say “Bring Back the Holocaust,” but “White Free Speech” and “Free Speech for the White Man.” Making First Amendment rights turn on judgments about a speaker’s subjective intent is a dangerous business, because intent is very elusive and police, prosecutors and jurors are very prone to attribute evil intentions to those whose views they despise.
Third, the village argued that if the Nazis were permitted to march there would be uncontrollable violence. But is this a reason to suppress speech? Isn’t the obligation of the government to protect the speaker and to control and punish the lawbreakers, rather than to invite those who would silence the speech to use threats of violence to achieve their ends? If the village of Skokie had won on this point, then southern communities who wanted to prosecute civil rights marchers in Selma, Montgomery and Birmingham could equally do so, on the plea that such demonstrations would trigger “uncontrollable violence.” Moreover, once government gives in to such threats of violence it effectively invites a “heckler’s veto,” empowering any group of people who want to silence others to do so simply by threatening to violate the law.
And if you are telling me I have to follow Supreme Court precedent every time anyway, you obviously are trying to grasp at straws for your argument. Sometimes the decision sets a horrible precedent that should be challenged again immediately, which I believe the Lynch case did now.
Vexcalibur wrote:
Is not more confrontational than a graphical display about how Jesus is truly God.
91 wrote:
I note with interest that you failed to quote the end part of the banner, 'Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds'. A pretty glaring omission on your part.
Nonsense, if you want to find the nativity offensive then that is your choice, the FFRF spokesman describes their banner as anti-Christian, they expect it to be interpreted a certain way, it is not open to misinterpretation on my part. If however you insist, that a baby in a manger with some angels around it is truly insulting then I suspect you are just intolerant of opposite points of view. The fact that you take no issue with the display of an actually anti-Christian banner and rail against a nativity scene kind of proves Inuyasha's point in the thread title.
Nonsense, if you want to find the nativity offensive then that is your choice, the FFRF spokesman describes their banner as anti-Christian, they expect it to be interpreted a certain way, it is not open to misinterpretation on my part. If however you insist, that a baby in a manger with some angels around it is truly insulting then I suspect you are just intolerant of opposite points of view. The fact that you take no issue with the display of an actually anti-Christian banner and rail against a nativity scene kind of proves Inuyasha's point in the thread title.
Right, because those Jews were so intolerant towards your sacrosanct nativity in Lynch by saying they felt betrayed by the creche standing. By the way, you are using the 'offensive' card again. You have continually made an argument saying this, yet you claim this has nothing to do with it. Please reveal your true intentions for once, you have dodged my question about proving your faith is not predjudicing your decision, which of course it not a valid argument.
From another Skokie post:
In the above link they wrote:
A lengthy series of court battles ensued after Collin obtained Jewish counsel from the Illinois Division of ACLU. Both the injunction and the ordinances were declared unconstitutional. Here’s Federal Judge Bernard M. Decker expressing the principle in striking down the Skokie ordinances: "It is better to allow those who preach racial hatred to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say and hear…The ability of American society to tolerate the advocacy of even hateful doctrines…is perhaps the best protection we have against the establishment of any Nazi-type regime in this country."
How tolerant was the ACLU lawyer, despite probably thinking that swastika was the most insulting thing to him?
In the above link they wrote:
One sad note: If the ACLU had not agreed to represent Collin, he would have lost in court. "Skokie would have prevailed," said David Hamlin, the director of the Illinois ACLU in a later interview. "There's no question about it. The Nazis couldn't afford to hire a lawyer, and even if they could have, I don't think there is a lawyer who would have taken the case.
By the way, I take no issue with the display being there as well given the links I have shown and what I found. Put me on that list as well.
In the Lynch syllabus, it is noted:
In the above link they wrote:
Several representatives of Pawtucket's business community testified that, although the overall Christmas display played an important role in promoting downtown holiday trade, the display would serve this purpose equally well even if the creche were removed. App. 133, 135, 139-140. [b]The Mayor also testified that, if the nativity scene had to be eliminated, the city would continue to erect the annual display without it. Id. at 115.
IT looks like the creche was irrelevant to a lot of people. So, if people came to you and are offended by the Nativity, why wouldn't you take it down? I mean, you won the case, so the precedent is still there for later use. And why would you try so hard to use this case to keep the creche up, when it should be obvious that by defending this position you are showing intolerance towards others by telling them to "suck it up" when they complain about it. Again, just because there is Supreme Court precedent in your favor doesn't mean you are right, nor does it mean I have to follow it to the level you do. And you do not need to wait to have a decision overturned to do the right thing.
17 Dec 2011, 8:56 pm
91 wrote:
LKL wrote:
Of course; and, of course, that goes both ways. People don't have the right to be protected from offense at the FFRF banner, either.
The argument is not one from offense, it is one from disendorsement.
*snort*
have you even been reading the thread up to this point?!
18 Dec 2011, 3:02 pm
Here is something interesting I have found:
The complaint from FFRF includes the picture they took of the creche. Note there seems to be nothing around it like the OP video. In this Christian Post article it also shows the creche by itself, and it appears to have nothing around it.
The question I ask myself is: Why are the pictures the same? If the ruling is the creche cannot be the sole focus of a display, why would you not do a picture around the creche showing the other parts of the display?
Probably because it is not there. I have reason to believe now the creche might be unconstitutional based on that picture, especially because now that I look at it it seems to stick out on the road when people drive by it. I would also like to note that this should have been common sense for some people supporting the creche to stand to show the area around it, but no one has stepped forward with footage or other pictures proving that there actually is something there. This is the age of YouTube, so don't say you cannot find anything. And don't try to just say, "Well, I saw it on TV," without showing the actual TV footage, I am not going to believe you when you do that.
Also:
I clicked on another link in the above Christian Post article because I wanted to see what silliness the Catholic League was up to this Christmas. In the article:
In the above article they wrote:
“If you would like to see vulgarity, see what some atheists are doing in Loudon County, Va., with a crucified skeleton dressed as Santa Claus or what atheist PZ Myers did to the Eucharist a few summers ago,” Field pointed out to CP, though it was made clear that the student who put up the anti-Christmas display was attacking commercialism and materialism, not religion.
The Loudon County case was mentioned here:
91 on Page 9 wrote:
If that does not meat your definition of an insult, then perhaps this does; I posted it on the last page and so far no atheist has even mentioned it, much less condemned it.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/ ... to-a-cross
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/ ... to-a-cross
If the Catholic League spokesman made this claim that it did not attack religion, and numerous Christians actually agree that the holiday has been taken over by commercialism, this atheist display would actually agree with some strict Christians' views. So why should it be condemned, again?
###############################################################################
UPDATE:
At the courthouse today, a Rally for Faith happened at its steps (with the numbers "reported" to be around 7500 people):
This is the most important one I think:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bbQfxSf9U&feature=related[/youtube]
I have a hard time finding the other parts of the display in these videos, but it is because of so many people, and maybe they dug them up (??).
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST0uZwbpnSg&feature=related[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-B8SnvMx50&feature=related[/youtube]
I question how easily and quickly this event happened.
18 Dec 2011, 6:34 pm
HerrGrimm wrote:
How many YouTube videos do you want of Nazis marching on city or other government property, waving swastika flags and being protected from counter-protestors who want to smash their skulls in by police probably 5 to 10 times the size of the Nazi group? Or are you going back to the 'disendorsement' argument, even though I have explicitly been talking about all First Amendment cases, since you brought it up. And I don't understand why you are arguing this point if it is not important to your argument that the sign is offensive.
Nazi party rallies come under the freedom of assembly, not the free exercise clause or the establishment clause. Constitutional law does not function in any way like you think it does. The Westboro case you cited also comes under freedom of speech, the Government does not have an absolute freedom of speech, it is restricted by the establishment clause. I have not been arguing that it should be banned because it is insulting and that we ought to restrict the FFRF's freedom of speech. I am arguing, that under the establishment clause, the government is not free to make an anti-religious statement with it's displays on government property. You simply do not seem to get it.
HerrGrimm wrote:
And if you are telling me I have to follow Supreme Court precedent every time anyway, you obviously are trying to grasp at straws for your argument. Sometimes the decision sets a horrible precedent that should be challenged again immediately, which I believe the Lynch case did now.
Supreme court precedent, as it stands at any given moment is the interpretation of constitutional law that lower courts must follow. It is how the laws of precedent work, even with line ball decisions, the court tends to uphold previous decisions, it is called stare decisis. If you want to claim the banner ought to be constitutional then by all means make that case, but don't mistake it for a case that the banner is constitutional. Otherwise you are just exposing the fact that you have no clue about constitutional law.
HerrGrimm wrote:
By the way, you are using the 'offensive' card again. You have continually made an argument saying this, yet you claim this has nothing to do with it.
What??? You seem to be missing the points I am making, instead just mashing them together. The atheist banner is a disendorsement, it therefor would be illegal for the county to display it. Whenever I have mentioned the 'offensive' nature of the banner with regards to its constitutionality it has been in line with the endorsement test.
HerrGrimm wrote:
Probably because it is not there. I have reason to believe now the creche might be unconstitutional based on that picture, especially because now that I look at it it seems to stick out on the road when people drive by it. I would also like to note that this should have been common sense for some people supporting the creche to stand to show the area around it, but no one has stepped forward with footage or other pictures proving that there actually is something there. This is the age of YouTube, so don't say you cannot find anything. And don't try to just say, "Well, I saw it on TV," without showing the actual TV footage, I am not going to believe you when you do that.
I am not going digging for you. Is the FFRF alleging that there are no secular display items on the Courthouse lawn? I have read their claim and they certainly do not seem to be taking issue with that fact. Their complain, if I remember it correctly was that they did not think it was not all integrated. But a holiday display can have separate focal points remember.
HerrGrimm wrote:
I question how easily and quickly this event happened.
Don't mess with Texas.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
18 Dec 2011, 8:17 pm
91 wrote:
Nazi party rallies come under the freedom of assembly, not the free exercise clause or the establishment clause. Constitutional law does not function in any way like you think it does. The Westboro case you cited also comes under freedom of speech, the Government does not have an absolute freedom of speech, it is restricted by the establishment clause. I have not been arguing that it should be banned because it is insulting and that we ought to restrict the FFRF's freedom of speech. I am arguing, that under the establishment clause, the government is not free to make an anti-religious statement with it's displays on government property. You simply do not seem to get it.
You keep saying 'disendorsement,' when I clearly stated I was answering why 'confrontational' and 'predatory' does not cut it. You ask me a question or bring something up, and I answer based on what the question is, and then you go back and try to make a 'disendorsement' claim. I also see some parts of my posts have been cut out and you tried only to respond to what you thought were the weakest parts of my posts. You must feel so proud. You don't need to say why I should condemn the display like you want me to, or if you would listen to others and put the Lynch display down?
91 wrote:
Supreme court precedent, as it stands at any given moment is the interpretation of constitutional law that lower courts must follow. It is how the laws of precedent work, even with line ball decisions, the court tends to uphold previous decisions, it is called stare decisis. If you want to claim the banner ought to be constitutional then by all means make that case, but don't mistake it for a case that the banner is constitutional. Otherwise you are just exposing the fact that you have no clue about constitutional law.
Are you really saying I should follow Supreme Court precedent every time until it is overturned by a court? Please...
91 wrote:
What??? You seem to be missing the points I am making, instead just mashing them together. The atheist banner is a disendorsement, it therefor would be illegal for the county to display it. Whenever I have mentioned the 'offensive' nature of the banner with regards to its constitutionality it has been in line with the endorsement test.
Are you going to just repeat 'disendorsement' until I go away? It is quite obvious the only reason why you are even defending this case is that you are Christian and don't like the message it says. Besides, even if the sign was unconstitutional, your argument is so weak you will not get a favorable ruling. Why is the red 'A' OK with you, since it still supports atheism and sends an anti-religious message? Anything that an atheist or secular group submits affirming their beliefs in any way AT ANY TIME on government property will send an anti-religious message and automatically get rejected. Signs promoting homosexuality would probably also be considered anti-religious and banned. Any sign that remotely shows disfavor towards religion would be put down. It would be a disaster, but why should you care?
91 wrote:
I am not going digging for you.
That says a lot right there.
HerrGrimm wrote:
I question how easily and quickly this event happened.
91 wrote:
Don't mess with Texas.
Says a lot there, too.
18 Dec 2011, 11:01 pm
HerrGrimm wrote:
You keep saying 'disendorsement,' when I clearly stated I was answering why 'confrontational' and 'predatory' does not cut it. You ask me a question or bring something up, and I answer based on what the question is, and then you go back and try to make a 'disendorsement' claim. I also see some parts of my posts have been cut out and you tried only to respond to what you thought were the weakest parts of my posts. You must feel so proud. You don't need to say why I should condemn the display like you want me to, or if you would listen to others and put the Lynch display down?
The problem is, that you keep raising irrelevant precedents, the only thing that this does, is prove you don't understand how constitutional law works. I would not pull a perfectly constitutional display down on the grounds that it 'might' offend someone or that it 'can' offend someone or even if id 'does' offend someone. I don't want to live in a society that is as afraid of it's own cultural shadow as that one would be and if you don't like one the way it is, feel free to move, there are many places that are ruled by PC nuts or atheistic thugs.
HerrGrimm wrote:
Are you really saying I should follow Supreme Court precedent every time until it is overturned by a court? Please...
That is kind of how precedent works. If you put forward a case, then every court below the supreme court is bound to enforce the precedent, if it goes to the supreme court, it will most likely enforce the precedent. If you disagree with the precedent, I have repeatedly indicated that you ought to identify your position as being in opposition to the present legal consensus; just as I do when I talk about Roe v. Wade.
HerrGrimm wrote:
Are you going to just repeat 'disendorsement' until I go away? It is quite obvious the only reason why you are even defending this case is that you are Christian and don't like the message it says.
You don't seem to like Latin terms, now when you Google stare decisis you ought to also search for ad hominem.
HerrGrimm wrote:
Besides, even if the sign was unconstitutional, your argument is so weak you will not get a favorable ruling. Why is the red 'A' OK with you, since it still supports atheism and sends an anti-religious message? Anything that an atheist or secular group submits affirming their beliefs in any way AT ANY TIME on government property will send an anti-religious message and automatically get rejected. Signs promoting homosexuality would probably also be considered anti-religious and banned. Any sign that remotely shows disfavor towards religion would be put down. It would be a disaster, but why should you care?
This would be called a slippery slope argument, interesting how athiests can usually spot this. The Supreme Court has a test, one that does a reasonable job of distinguishing between a statement that a position exists, like a nativity or the atheist 'A' amongst other symbols and something which says 'religion x is right/wrong or moral/immoral. This objection has no merit because it simply muddies the waters, denying a standard can exist, despite the fact that it does. Your argument from induction, stands against evidence that you just hand-wave out of the way in order to make your point.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
19 Dec 2011, 1:29 am
91 wrote:
HerrGrimm wrote:
You keep saying 'disendorsement,' when I clearly stated I was answering why 'confrontational' and 'predatory' does not cut it. You ask me a question or bring something up, and I answer based on what the question is, and then you go back and try to make a 'disendorsement' claim. I also see some parts of my posts have been cut out and you tried only to respond to what you thought were the weakest parts of my posts. You must feel so proud. You don't need to say why I should condemn the display like you want me to, or if you would listen to others and put the Lynch display down?
The problem is, that you keep raising irrelevant precedents, the only thing that this does, is prove you don't understand how constitutional law works. I would not pull a perfectly constitutional display down on the grounds that it 'might' offend someone or that it 'can' offend someone or even if id 'does' offend someone. I don't want to live in a society that is as afraid of it's own cultural shadow as that one would be and if you don't like one the way it is, feel free to move, there are many places that are ruled by PC nuts or atheistic thugs.
HerrGrimm wrote:
Are you really saying I should follow Supreme Court precedent every time until it is overturned by a court? Please...
That is kind of how precedent works. If you put forward a case, then every court below the supreme court is bound to enforce the precedent, if it goes to the supreme court, it will most likely enforce the precedent. If you disagree with the precedent, I have repeatedly indicated that you ought to identify your position as being in opposition to the present legal consensus; just as I do when I talk about Roe v. Wade.
HerrGrimm wrote:
Are you going to just repeat 'disendorsement' until I go away? It is quite obvious the only reason why you are even defending this case is that you are Christian and don't like the message it says.
You don't seem to like Latin terms, now when you Google stare decisis you ought to also search for ad hominem.
HerrGrimm wrote:
Besides, even if the sign was unconstitutional, your argument is so weak you will not get a favorable ruling. Why is the red 'A' OK with you, since it still supports atheism and sends an anti-religious message? Anything that an atheist or secular group submits affirming their beliefs in any way AT ANY TIME on government property will send an anti-religious message and automatically get rejected. Signs promoting homosexuality would probably also be considered anti-religious and banned. Any sign that remotely shows disfavor towards religion would be put down. It would be a disaster, but why should you care?
This would be called a slippery slope argument, interesting how athiests can usually spot this. The Supreme Court has a test, one that does a reasonable job of distinguishing between a statement that a position exists, like a nativity or the atheist 'A' amongst other symbols and something which says 'religion x is right/wrong or moral/immoral. This objection has no merit because it simply muddies the waters, denying a standard can exist, despite the fact that it does. Your argument from induction, stands against evidence that you just hand-wave out of the way in order to make your point.
Hi 91,
Now you have again established that you do not practice what you preach as being American Federal Law as held by the U.S. Supreme Court.
You think "stare decisis" will save your abused dislogic from being shown as nonsense. Per "stare decisis", the standing interpretations from the U.S. Supreme Court are conveinently listed at:
http://www.uri.edu/personal/hbak9412/Reldis.htm
Your repetitious musical selection and variation of who, what, when, where, how, etc. of circular polemics with every issue and every element just continues.
Your overall self-contradictions before the current ones, where you had jumped from everything "offensive", to then, "I am arguing, that under the establishment clause, the government is not free to make an anti-religious statement with it's displays on government property," illustrates you are under the sophistry that everything must be religious or anti-religious (and subjected to your very narrow "one correct monotheistic god only religion" interpretation). You also seem to be unaware of your inherent prohibition of all notions of pantheisms, as if you confused the popular as first commandment with the First Amendment to the U.S.A.'s Bill of Rights. You now also "switched horses" by assuming "the government" is the entity necessarily making "the statement" with any display "allowed" by the government, despite only the "government's physical space occupied on the government's property" is involved per se.
You have my permission to continue messing your philosophical pants, but please try not to spread your anti-philosophy into the latest posted "creche" citing case of the Supreme Court of the United States: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1276.pdf
Again, since you demand that all protected opinions and beliefs you find offensive (or now, established, disestablished, Court "reasonable-test", etc., things you pull out of thin air ad nauseum) should not be protected, your judgments about anybody's other baby in the crib changes everything to the reverse for your favored stance, unbiased must mean only Zero Voltage in your Logic Land of Twisted Prolix Legalities, or, again, when it comes to the law it the U.S.A., it is very clear that you do not know what you are talking about.
Tadzio
P.S. Who's being offensive: "Abbott fired a shot across the bow of the Wisconsin atheists in effect telling them not to mess with Texas."
http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement ... vity-scene
"Do It Like Texas, Or You Do Not Do It At All!?!?!?" "If so, the Whole World's in A Big Mess with Texas?"
Sorry about that Don't Mess With Texas Bush giving the sign: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_sign
19 Dec 2011, 4:11 am
@ Tadzio
The crosses in the case you mentioned stand alone, the debate is over the question of whether they serve a secular purpose. Personally I think they do but that is another matter. You mentioned Justice Thomas's dissent, he was not dissenting a decision, but a refusal to hear a particular case. If you think the supreme court declining a to hear or declining to rule counts as a binding precedent then you know next to nothing of Constitutional law. I really am growing tired of your piping up every now and again to sprout personal attacks on my position with mostly irrelevant information. It is also worth you keeping in mind that it was the FFRF who described the banner as anti-Christian, not me, I base my argument on their position. I simply stated that it offended me, but that does not count for all that much.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
