NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/11/biblelawsuit.ap/index.html

Now, I don't know all the details of the case. However, if the monument was, as the homeless shelter claims, not affiliated with the courthouse, removing it is an infringement of their 1st Amendment rights. The fact that it was near the courthouse notwithstanding, if it was in no way paid for or maintained by public funds, there really is no problem having it there.

There is no way that the separation of church and state can ever be taken too far.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/11/biblelawsuit.ap/index.html

Now, I don't know all the details of the case. However, if the monument was, as the homeless shelter claims, not affiliated with the courthouse, removing it is an infringement of their 1st Amendment rights. The fact that it was near the courthouse notwithstanding, if it was in no way paid for or maintained by public funds, there really is no problem having it there.

There is a good way to tell if a religous symbol shouldn't be somewhere. Imagine for example that everywhere the word "crucifix" appears, it is replaced by the words "upside down pentagram". Everywhere the word "bible" appears it is replaced by the word "necrinomicon".

Would you be pissed off and protesting? If so, the relgious symbol is inappropriate.

It's on private property. How can that be wrong?

Oh yeah, Demipublicents--you get 30 points on the good side.

There is a good way to tell if a religous symbol shouldn't be somewhere. Imagine for example that everywhere the word "crucifix" appears, it is replaced by the words "upside down pentagram". Everywhere the word "bible" appears it is replaced by the word "necrinomicon".

Would you be pissed off and protesting? If so, the relgious symbol is inappropriate.

The point is that I would not. If government funds are not being used to build or maintain the exhibit, it is the group's right to have it there. Someone saying "I don't like seeing it when I walk by," (wheter it be an upside-down pentagram, crucifix, Star of David, Crescent Moon, Buddha, Hindu symbol Bible, Necrinomicon, Torah, Koran, Kama Sutra, etc.) that is *their* problem, not the problem of the person who put it there.

It's on private property. How can that be wrong?

Oh yeah, Demipublicents--you get 30 points on the good side.


What do you mean? It said a bible was removed from a courthouse monument.

What do you mean? It said a bible was removed from a courthouse monument.

It also said that the monument happened to be near the courthouse, but was in no way paid for by public funds. It was, in fact, a monument built and paid for by a homeless shelter.

The qualifier in my statement was that, as long as no government funds were being spent on it, there is no conflict. Perhaps you should try reading my statements before attempting to refute them.

There is a good way to tell if a religous symbol shouldn't be somewhere. Imagine for example that everywhere the word "crucifix" appears, it is replaced by the words "upside down pentagram". Everywhere the word "bible" appears it is replaced by the word "necrinomicon".

Would you be pissed off and protesting? If so, the relgious symbol is inappropriate.
The Necronomicon would not be offensive because it represents no real religion. It's an invention of H.P. Lovecraft. Just a ficticious book mentioned in a number of works of fiction. No more offensive than a monument to Cthulhu rising from his sunken city.

What do you mean? It said a bible was removed from a courthouse monument.
didn't read the article until just now.

It also said that the monument happened to be near the courthouse, but was in no way paid for by public funds. It was, in fact, a monument built and paid for by a homeless shelter.

The qualifier in my statement was that, as long as no government funds were being spent on it, there is no conflict. Perhaps you should try reading my statements before attempting to refute them.
If it's on public property then it's a violation. Public funds are being used to maintain it. If it's on private property then it's ok.

It also said that the monument happened to be near the courthouse, but was in no way paid for by public funds. It was, in fact, a monument built and paid for by a homeless shelter.

The qualifier in my statement was that, as long as no government funds were being spent on it, there is no conflict. Perhaps you should try reading my statements before attempting to refute them.

Maybe my reading comprehnsion skills are not working today because I have been out of school for a month on winter break and have been rotting my brain on ten cups of coffee a day but...

Where does the article say it was not on public property?

Where does the article say it was actually paid for by the homelesss shelter and not by public funds?

If it's on public property then it's a violation. Public funds are being used to maintain it. If it's on private property then it's ok.

Being on public property does not necessarily mean that public funds are being spent on it. If the shelter is paying some sort of rent/maintenance fee, there should be no problem - as long as anyone who wishes to construct a similar monument is allowed to do so and pay the same amount.

Where does the article say it was actually paid for by the homelesss shelter and not by public funds?

Within the quotes.

Being on public property does not necessarily mean that public funds are being spent on it. If the shelter is paying some sort of rent/maintenance fee, there should be no problem - as long as anyone who wishes to construct a similar monument is allowed to do so and pay the same amount.
In theory that's fine, but what happens if everybody demands the right to rent out space for their religious sculpture? There won't be enough space. It will interfere with the normal function of public buildings. It shouldn't be allowed because fairness can't otherwise be guaranteed.

Being on public property does not necessarily mean that public funds are being spent on it. If the shelter is paying some sort of rent/maintenance fee, there should be no problem - as long as anyone who wishes to construct a similar monument is allowed to do so and pay the same amount.


but people swear on the bible when they go to court? no? what is wrong with it? its not a symbol of oppression. even if it was maintained by the state - as long as their religious committment could be shown as egalitarian (they pay tribute to other religions with scultpure etc) what's the problem?

people take this business way too seriously.

Being on public property does not necessarily mean that public funds are being spent on it. If the shelter is paying some sort of rent/maintenance fee, there should be no problem - as long as anyone who wishes to construct a similar monument is allowed to do so and pay the same amount.
And what if there is a problem?

In theory that's fine, but what happens if everybody demands the right to rent out space for their religious sculpture? There won't be enough space. It will interfere with the normal function of public buildings. It shouldn't be allowed because fairness can't otherwise be guaranteed.

If this occurs, which would be very unlikely, the monuments could be removed. However, much like a church could rent out a public theatre to put on a religiously oriented play or could rent out a civic center for a religious concert, if there are procedures for renting out space for displays, there is no reason that any type of display cannot be put in that space.

Within the quotes.

Are we reading the same article? The only text I am seeing withing any quotes says "This display clearly violates the separation of church and state"
from the lawyer opposing the monument.

Even assuming it is paid for by private funds this would not change anything for me unless it is actually on private property. If it is on private property I have absolutely no problem with it.

Just because a monument is paid for privately doesn't make it ok if it is on city property though. While most people here seem pretty tolerant of other religions, if some Muslim group paid for a monument to be placed at a court house for the souls of the departed mujahideen and jihadist fighters of the muslim world people would get pissed off. Maybe not you people but other people.

but people swear on the bible when they go to court? no?

No, they do not. People swear on whatever religious text they wish to. If are atheist/agnostic and do not wish to swear on any religious text, they swear on a copy of the Constitution. If their religion prohibits swearing, they just have to promise to tell the truth.

what is wrong with it? its not a symbol of oppression. even if it was maintained by the state - as long as their religious committment could be shown as egalitarian (they pay tribute to other religions with scultpure etc) what's the problem?

If it were funded by governemnt, it would have to include every single religion including a nod to atheism and agnosticism, which is virtually impossible.

but people swear on the bible when they go to court? no? what is wrong with it? its not a symbol of oppression. even if it was maintained by the state - as long as their religious committment could be shown as egalitarian (they pay tribute to other religions with scultpure etc) what's the problem?

people take this business way too seriously.
Nobody can be forced to swear on the bible in court. Personally I don't think anyone should be allowed to swear on the bible in court. If you don't beleive in the bible and choose not to swear on it you may predjudice the jury.

If this occurs, which would be very unlikely, the monuments could be removed. However, much like a church could rent out a public theatre to put on a religiously oriented play or could rent out a civic center for a religious concert, if there are procedures for renting out space for displays, there is no reason that any type of display cannot be put in that space.
Theaters are privately owned and plays are temporary. There are 365 days /year to schedule plays for anyone who wants to rent the civic center. There is a limited ammount of floorspace in public buildings.

Are we reading the same article? The only text I am seeing withing any quotes says "This display clearly violates the separation of church and state"
from the lawyer opposing the monument.

I was thinking it was in a quote. In truth, it is throughout the article. The article is rather clear that the homeless shelter was responsible for putting up the monument, not the government.

Even assuming it is paid for by private funds this would not change anything for me unless it is actually on private property. If it is on private property I have absolutely no problem with it.

Public property belongs to everyone. As such, if there is a procedure for using it, everyone (even religious groups) must have equal access to said use.

Just because a monument is paid for privately doesn't make it ok if it is on city property though. While most people here seem pretty tolerant of other religions, if some Muslim group paid for a monument to be placed at a court house for the souls of the departed mujahideen and jihadist fighters of the muslim world people would get pissed off. Maybe not you people but other people.

It doesn't matter if people would get pissed off. Obviously someone was pissed off by having a Bible on their way to work. *Any* display will piss someone off - such is the way of the world. If you are advocating that all displays of any kind not expressly related to government announcements being banned from city property, that is fine. However, I don't think that's really what you are saying.

Nobody can be forced to swear on the bible in court. Personally I don't think anyone should be allowed to swear on the bible in court. If you don't beleive in the bible and choose not to swear on it you may predjudice the jury.


good plan.

if i was on a jury - i would convict any atheist or muslim on principle

good plan.

if i was on a jury - i would convict any atheist or muslim on principle
Whereas I would convict any and every muslim on principle. I guess neither of us belongs on a jury.

Theaters are privately owned and plays are temporary. There are 365 days /year to schedule plays for anyone who wants to rent the civic center. There is a limited ammount of floorspace in public buildings.

Not all theatres are privately owned.

And the limited floorspace has nothing to do with it. *If* there is a mechanism for renting out said floorspace, all members of the public must have equal access to it. Again, if you are advocating that no displays whatsoever be allowed on public space, that is your business.

good plan.

if i was on a jury - i would convict any atheist or muslim on principle

You are a truly disgusting human being if you are being serious.

Nobody can be forced to swear on the bible in court. Personally I don't think anyone should be allowed to swear on the bible in court. If you don't beleive in the bible and choose not to swear on it you may predjudice the jury.

You don't have to swear on a bible. You are allowed to take a secular oath. I have represented a couple of people at bankruptcy court through a program at my law school and some of the people chose this option.

Whereas I would convict any and every muslim on principle. I guess neither of us belongs on a jury.

Also a truly disgusting human being if this was serious.

You don't have to swear on a bible. You are allowed to take a secular oath. I have represented a couple of people at bankruptcy court through a program at my law school and some of the people chose this option.
I know. My point is that the jury might be predjudiced against someone who chooses not to swear on the bible.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]
Public property belongs to everyone. As such, if there is a procedure for using it, everyone (even religious groups) must have equal access to said use.
[QUOTE]

You are totally high. Not all public property is a venue for private expression. Do you think Moveon.org is allowed to hold anti Iraq war protests on an army base? Do you think they allow anti abortion protestors to walk right into the headquarters of the Department of health and human services?

I suppose a temporary rally or protest outside a courthouse would be fine with christians carrying bibles and religious symbols but it is not the same as decorating a court house with religous symbols.

Whereas I would convict any and every muslim on principle. I guess neither of us belongs on a jury.


which principle?

Also a truly disgusting human being if this was serious.
I'm not totally serious, but I would have a tough time maintaining the presumption of innocence if the accused were a muslim and the trial had to do with terrorism. I'm honest about my predjudice.

You don't have to swear on a bible. You are allowed to take a secular oath. I have represented a couple of people at bankruptcy court through a program at my law school and some of the people chose this option.

Cool does that mean i can swear on a necronomicon???

I know. My point is that the jury might be predjudiced against someone who chooses not to swear on the bible.

The jury might be predjudiced against someone who talks with a lisp.

The jury might be predjudiced against someone who has messy hair.

The jury might be predjudiced against someone who wears white after Labor Day.

Jury predjudice is an unfortunate part of our system, and is partially protected for by having more than one juror.

You are a truly disgusting human being if you are being serious.

what if i'm not serious?

what then?

The jury might be predjudiced against someone who wears white after Labor Day.




you saw serial mom too huh?

helluva film

The jury might be predjudiced against someone who talks with a lisp.

The jury might be predjudiced against someone who has messy hair.

The jury might be predjudiced against someone who wears white after Labor Day.

Jury predjudice is an unfortunate part of our system, and is partially protected for by having more than one juror.
The state has a responsibility to do everything in it's power to ensure a fair trial. It doesn't have the right to change someone's speech pattern, comb someone's hair, or mandate fashion. It does have the power to ban oaths sworn on religious books. It should do so.

You are totally high. Not all public property is a venue for private expression. Do you think Moveon.org is allowed to hold anti Iraq war protests on an army base? Do you think they allow anti abortion protestors to walk right into the headquarters of the Department of health and human services?

What part of the phrase "equal access" do you not understand? No one is allowed to hold protests on an army base. No protestors are allowed to "walk right into the headquarters of the Department of Health and Human Services."

As such, this is equal.

I suppose a temporary rally or protest outside a courthouse would be fine with christians carrying bibles and religious symbols but it is not the same as decorating a court house with religous symbols.

If the courthouse has regulations for allowing public groups to put up decorations, all public groups must be allowed equal access. If this is not allowed, then *no* public groups shall be allowed to put up decorations.

Being on public property does not necessarily mean that public funds are being spent on it. If the shelter is paying some sort of rent/maintenance fee, there should be no problem - as long as anyone who wishes to construct a similar monument is allowed to do so and pay the same amount.


It still relates to the appearance of endorsement by being displayed on public courthouse land, and is it clear to the casual observer that this is a private display rather than a public one?

And while I know that slippery slope arguments are tenuous, still - would this then allow the commandments back into the courthouse in Alabama if a replacement were offered free to the State? Could a local church group wallpaper the courtrooms with scripture as long as they pay for it?

To what extent are you willing to allow the display of religion in courthouses regardless of who is paying for it?

The state has a responsibility to do everything in it's power to ensure a fair trial. It doesn't have the right to change someone's speech pattern, comb someone's hair, or mandate fashion. It does have the power to ban oaths sworn on religious books. It should do so.

And if the person will onlly swear on said religious book? Uh oh, now we're introducing more bias...

And if the person will onlly swear on said religious book? Uh oh, now we're introducing more bias...
How about just having the person sign a contract that he will tell the truth or face perjury charges. Wouldn't that solve the problem?

It still relates to the appearance of endorsement by being displayed on public courthouse land, and is it clear to the casual observer that this is a private display rather than a public one?

If it is not, it would be rather easy to ensure that it was. The "appearance of endorsement" is not a problem as long as any religious group which wishes to has equal access (even if it means allowing only small spaces).

And while I know that slippery slope arguments are tenuous, still - would this then allow the commandments back into the courthouse in Alabama if a replacement were offered free to the State? Could a local church group wallpaper the courtrooms with scripture as long as they pay for it?

That depends. Does the courthouse in Alabama have a policy for renting out space for private displays? Do the said courtrooms allow any public group to wallpaper the rooms with their particular views?

Edit: The problem in Alabama was not that someone wanted to have a display, but that the judge (a direct representative of the state) snuck it in, without consent from the public. As such, it was illegal to begin with - there was no public or governmental consent and it set up the obvious enstatement of judicial bias - it was obvious that the judge was Christian and based his judgements off of his religion.

To what extent are you willing to allow the display of religion in courthouses regardless of who is paying for it?

If the courthouse has a policy for allowing private organizations to put displays on its premises (and this is a big if), then all such organizations (religous or not) must have equal access.

What part of the phrase "equal access" do you not understand? No one is allowed to hold protests on an army base. No protestors are allowed to "walk right into the headquarters of the Department of Health and Human Services."


The point is that the Courts are supposed to promote justice in a fair and unbiased, impartial manner. All groups should feel they have a fair chance at justice which is why normal courthouses don't allow groups of any sort to put up monuments and advertisements and stuff like that whether they be religous or not.

If I was a doctor accused of performing an illegal abortion procedure, I might feel the overt presence of religious symbols would prejudice the court against me. It would be like if there was a major class action lawsuit against General electric for manufacturing exploding lightbulbs and they were allowed to put up a giant banner saying "GE we bring good things to life" on the court house steps.

I'm honest about my predjudice.

So? It doesn't make it okay to be a biggot just because you admit it.

The point is that the Courts are supposed to promote justice in a fair and unbiased, impartial manner. All groups should feel they have a fair chance at justice which is why normal courthouses don't allow groups of any sort to put up monuments and advertisements and stuff like that whether they be religous or not.

And such coutrhouses would not have allowed this monument either, so it is besides the point. As I said, if *all* such displays are disallowed by the courthouse in question, then none will be allowed.

If I was a doctor accused of performing an illegal abortion procedure, I might feel the overt presence of religious symbols would prejudice the court against me. It would be like if there was a major class action lawsuit against General electric for manufacturing exploding lightbulbs and they were allowed to put up a giant banner saying "GE we bring good things to life" on the court house steps.

If you knew that the space could equally go to a display of the Kama Sutra, why would it matter?

If you knew that the space could equally go to another brand of lightbulbs, why would it matter?

I am not arguing here that advertisements or displays should be allowed on public space - that is for those who control said space to determine. I, for one, agree that courthouses should not contain anything that might lead to bias, and I would lobby to keep all courthouses which hold jurisdiction over me (thus those that I have a say in) free of any private advertisements or displays.

My point is that this courthouse obviously did not have such a rule, and the ruling was not "Private organizations should not have displays on public lands," but was specificaly "Private organizations that happen to have religious ties should not have displays on public lands." If private displays are allowed, they are not necessarily the opinion of the government involved.

Cool does that mean i can swear on a necronomicon???

As your attorney I would strongly advise you against it. (It might bite your fingers off)

The real question regarding separation of church and state is whether or not the mission in question receives any governmental funding or raises all money through private donation. Non-profit organizations -including faith based organizations - that run homeless shelters are entitled to apply for government funding under the Emergency Shelter Grants Program (Part of the Stewart B. Mc Kinney Homeless Assistance Act) administered by HUD.

so i actually looked up the issue in a texas newspaper to get more details and i dont know how i feel about it

the monument is on the courthouse grounds, it contains a tattered bible under glass. it was put up in the 50's as a memorial to a local philanthropist who was a big supporter of the charity that has maintained the monument (more or less) since it was put there.

the article didnt say it was HIS bible

so i dont have a problem with a monument put up to a local pillar of the community. i dont think the bible was put there in order to promote christianity. i think it was put there to emphasize the mans christian good works. it seems to me to be utterly different than the monument of the 10 commandments that was put up by the alabama judge.

i think they are being petty in insisting that it be removed but i didnt see any pictures of where exactly it in relation to the entrance of the courthouse. that might change my mind.

So? It doesn't make it okay to be a biggot just because you admit it.
Deal with it. We all have predjudices. I'm just not a hyporite or liar about it.

I have a question. Why do some people consider public prayer to the Christian Deity socially acceptable, and public prayer to anything else appalling and highly offensive?


Every time someone posts a separation of church and state thread, I forget to ask.

It also said that the monument happened to be near the courthouse, but was in no way paid for by public funds. It was, in fact, a monument built and paid for by a homeless shelter.

The qualifier in my statement was that, as long as no government funds were being spent on it, there is no conflict. Perhaps you should try reading my statements before attempting to refute them.

I'm sorry if someone has already said this...I haven't read all the posts yet, but:

Regardless of whether the monument was paid for privately, it should not have been displayed in public space...space that is maintained by public funds, and not privately owned. If it was inside a privately funded homeless shelter that received no tax dollars, then fine. I'm not drawing comparisons here, but if a racist group paid for a horrific monument to lynchings, and propped it up against a tree in a park, it would have to be taken down, as the park is public space.

I'm sorry if someone has already said this...I haven't read all the posts yet, but:

Regardless of whether the monument was paid for privately, it should not have been displayed in public space...space that is maintained by public funds, and not privately owned. If it was inside a privately funded homeless shelter that received no tax dollars, then fine. I'm not drawing comparisons here, but if a racist group paid for a horrific monument to lynchings, and propped it up against a tree in a park, it would have to be taken down, as the park is public space.

If the said public space had policies for allowing private displays, then the display would not have to be removed as long as the people in question went through the appropriate measures.

I have a question. Why do some people consider public prayer to the Christian Deity socially acceptable, and public prayer to anything else appalling and highly offensive?

Every time someone posts a separation of church and state thread, I forget to ask.

Some people are bigots. It is highly unfortunate, but true.

Some people are bigots. It is highly unfortunate, but true.

Damn. I was hoping for something besides the truth...

There is no way that the separation of church and state can ever be taken too far.

Indeed.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/11/biblelawsuit.ap/index.html

Now, I don't know all the details of the case. However, if the monument was, as the homeless shelter claims, not affiliated with the courthouse, removing it is an infringement of their 1st Amendment rights. The fact that it was near the courthouse notwithstanding, if it was in no way paid for or maintained by public funds, there really is no problem having it there.
if the situation is as described, then it is not a case of separation of church and state. there is no such thing as too much separation of church and state, but there is such a thing as injustice or oppression of religious beliefs and practices.

Personally I think the seperation of church and state in America goes too far. I support a voluntary non-denominational prayer in school and I support the 10 commandments in courtrooms and schools.

Personally I think the seperation of church and state in America goes too far. I support a voluntary non-denominational prayer in school and I support the 10 commandments in courtrooms and schools.
Why do you think the 10 commandments belong in courts and schools when most of them would be unconstitutional if made into law?

And what's a non-denominational prayer?

Our whatever who art wherever Hallowed be his/her/their/it's name

Why do you think the 10 commandments belong in courts and schools when most of them would be unconstitutional if made into law?

And what's a non-denominational prayer?

Our whatever who art wherever Hallowed be his/her/their/it's name

Don't feed the fundi troll please! ;)

if the situation is as described, then it is not a case of separation of church and state. there is no such thing as too much separation of church and state, but there is such a thing as injustice or oppression of religious beliefs and practices.

Bibles don't belong as monuments on Court House grounds.

If the man was a pillar of the community, why put the monument on the grounds of the courthouse? Why not the homeless shelter?

Most likely this was an attempt to show support for the jackass in Alabama.

SCOTUS will soon decide on this issue once and for all.

However, the story in question, I refer you to the Houston Chronicle for more details and greater local insight. As a Houstonian, myself, I can assure you that the public outcry against it is as loud and obnoxious as the public outcry against its removal.

What I personally don't understand is that the people protesting its removal completely ignore the organization which put it there in the first place. Ignoring the arguments for and against the Bible being "God's Word", would God's word be better served laying tattered under glass, or being put into application by channeling all of this energy into the hundreds of people who call the Star of Hope "home"?

The protestors are saying that the court has removed God's Word and, thus, have removed God. I find it very strange to believe that a court - let alone any simple human - would have such power. They're not removing God, they're removing a book.

The Necronomicon would not be offensive because it represents no real religion. It's an invention of H.P. Lovecraft. Just a ficticious book mentioned in a number of works of fiction. No more offensive than a monument to Cthulhu rising from his sunken city.

Blasphemy!!

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

Most likely this was an attempt to show support for the jackass in Alabama.

Probably not, since the reports all say that the monument has been there for *years* and the Bible was only a small part of the monument itself.

I find it ironic that the government sanctions the teaching of the religion of humanism.

Blasphemy!!

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
Ctulhu fhtagn! Ctulhu fhtagn!

I find it ironic that the government sanctions the teaching of the religion of humanism.
Especially since it's been proven in laboratory tests that the only true religion is the Cthulhu cult. 9 out of 5 dentists agree.

Especially since it's been proven in laboratory tests that the only true religion is the Cthulhu cult. 9 out of 5 dentists agree.
When asked, 92% of all pineapples did not make any effort to disagree with that statement.
IT MUST BE TRUE!!

When asked, 92% of all pineapples did not make any effort to disagree with that statement.
IT MUST BE TRUE!!
I'd like five minutes alone in a room with the 8%who did.