Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2014/01/12 10:15:31
Subject: Satanists unveil design for statue at Oklahoma state capital
No there isn't. The plurality ruled the presence of other monuments not to be determinative. The overlap between the plurality and concurring opinions, and thus the legal precedent, is the monument going 40 years without legal challenge determinatively shows that the monument was not an establishment. Moreover, neither the plurality nor the concurring opinions note that any other monument present was religious in nature much less evoking some religion other than Judaism or Christianity.
Peregrine wrote: so you're just going to ignore the indisputable fact that the secular aspects of the ten commandments (as opposed to the instructions for worshiping god properly) are also contained in other historical codes of law, some of which are even older than the ten commandments.
I'm going to reiterate once again the response I already made on this point, which answers it completely:
Manchu wrote: The plurality ruled the presence of other monuments not to be determinative.
Yes, but it's the swing vote that matters in this case. One person is the difference between a ruling of constitutional, and a ruling of unconstitutional. And that one person's opinion specifically mentioned the presence of other monuments in the area as justification.
Also, you're ignoring the other case I mentioned, where the court specifically ruled that the deciding factor between an acceptable holiday display and an unacceptable one is that the acceptable one contained a religious symbol alongside secular symbols, while the unacceptable one presented only a single religion's symbols. That's a pretty clear precedent that the inclusion of things from other religions/beliefs/etc is important.
I'm going to reiterate once again the response I already made on this point, which answers it completely:
Sorry, but that's just absurd. If the specific commandments aren't being evoked then why does there need to be text at all, instead of just some vague legal-looking symbols? Why does it have to be the Christian ten commandments and not some other legal code? You're making a ridiculous argument that the commandments don't matter, but they're simultaneously an important part of our history and therefore it's legitimate to display them. And you can't have it both ways.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2014/01/12 10:54:51
Subject: Satanists unveil design for statue at Oklahoma state capital
Peregrine wrote: Yes, but it's the swing vote that matters in this case.
No, that is not how one determines the holding in a plurality. As I already explained, it is the narrowest grounds of the concurring opinions that establishes precedent. In this case, that is explicitly NOT the other monuments part.
Peregrine wrote: Also, you're ignoring the other case I mentioned
It is immaterial. It was decided 16 years before Van Orden. If it did establish your made-up "one among many" requirement then why did the Supreme Court not apply it in Van Orden? In fact, no such requirement exists. It was not created by County of Allegheny and it was not created by Van Orden.
Peregrine wrote: You're making a ridiculous argument that the commandments don't matter, but they're simultaneously an important part of our history and therefore it's legitimate to display them.
It's pretty simple. I am distinguishing the substantive content of each commandment on the one hand and the overall symbol of the Decalogue on the other. As I already explained, most anybody who looks up at the Supreme Court building to see Moses holding the tablets knows that the commandments include stuff like "you shall have no other God before me." But neither that specific commandment nor any other is necessarily being evoked; rather the symbol of the Decalogue stands for the Judeo-Christian tradition of ethics, morality, law, and civil society. A statue of Baphomet cannot convey anything similar.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/01/12 10:57:49
Manchu wrote: As I already explained, it is the narrowest grounds of the concurring opinions that establishes precedent.
Yes, the official legal precedent. But if you want to win in court you'd better pay attention to that deciding vote, or you're likely to have your display rejected based on that argument.
If it did establish your made-up "one among many" requirement then why did the Supreme Court not apply it in Van Orden?
Because religion is a complex subject and the court was evenly split. But you'll notice that there was the same 4-4 split in both ten commandments cases, and the deciding vote that found one acceptable and rejected the other was based in part on the fact that the acceptable one was displayed in a context where there were other similar monuments.
As I already explained, most anybody who looks up at the Supreme Court building to see Moses holding the tablets knows that the commandments include stuff like "you shall have no other God before me." But neither that specific commandment nor any other is necessarily being evoked;
So then why does the ten commandments monument have to show the text of the commandments, instead of just an abstract symbol of the stone tablets?
rather the symbol of the Decalogue stands for the Judeo-Christian tradition of ethics, morality, law, and civil society.
Sorry, but that argument is nonsense. There is no such thing as a "Judeo-Christian" tradition that is magically better than other traditions of ethics, morality, law, and civil society. And it's especially nonsense in a country which was specifically founded on a principle of secular laws.
A statue of Baphomet cannot convey anything similar.
Why not? We've already established that your "historical" argument is nonsense because the ten commandments did not have any exceptional role in the formation of our legal system, so we're left with the idea that the commandments are a symbol of law, like the scales. And I don't see how you or the government have any right to declare that Baphomet can not be a symbol of law to Satanists, or that the Satanist representation of law is any less valid than the Christian representation of law.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2014/01/12 11:39:06
Subject: Satanists unveil design for statue at Oklahoma state capital
Nothing you've said about the Supreme Court rulings is correct. The latest stuff, especially about "winning in court," is outright gobbledygook.
As to whether the text of the commandments "needs" to be displayed, I repeat: this question is irrelevant to every point I have made. What I have said from the start is that the Ten Commandments are not equivalent to a demon statue. What does or does not adequately convey a depiction of the Decalogue is immaterial.
I've also already addressed your inability or unwillingness to engage with reality on the issue of the influence of Judeo-Christian tradition on Western thought and declined to waste time "proving" what is obvious.
In short, I've reasonably answered everything you have brought up that bears on the following issues:
- the government can legally display religious symbols - the Ten Commandments evokes an important source of Western society and law - Satanist symbols cannot evoke that - for that reason, the Ten Commandments and the Baphomet statue are not equivalent - I don't care whether the Ten Commandments are displayed in front of the Oklahoma state house or not
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/01/12 11:43:01
Manchu wrote: I've also already addressed your inability or unwillingness to engage with reality on the issue of the influence of Judeo-Christian tradition on Western thought and declined to waste time "proving" what is obvious.
Sorry, but your "reality" is not the one that the rest of us live in. Your so-called "Judeo-Christian tradition" is just nonsense. Having a Christian majority in a country does not mean that all of its laws are based on Christian "tradition". What we actually have is a secular society with laws based on secular principles (like "don't murder people") that are entirely independent of the "Judeo-Christian tradition" and have been part of legal codes since before any bible stories were invented. Meanwhile the things that are actually unique to the "Judeo-Christian tradition", such as all of the commandments about how to worship god, are entirely ignored by our legal system.
- the Ten Commandments evokes an important source of Western society and law
And, once again, they indisputably do not, because the commandments are not a source of our laws. All the nonsense about the proper way to worship god is ignored entirely, and the secular principles are just common-sense laws that everyone already had. The whole "evoking" idea is nothing more than an attempt to get around separation of church and state by pretending that the monument isn't about presenting an important part of Christian beliefs.
- Satanist symbols cannot evoke that
They can evoke it just as well as any Christian monument.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2014/01/12 12:00:34
Subject: Satanists unveil design for statue at Oklahoma state capital
I am content to let the last few pages speak for themselves for others as you simply ignore what I post in favor of some other argument you'd prefer to have.
Manchu wrote: There is no "one among many" requirement. This is something you made up for the sake of argument or as a result of poor use of the internet. Or both. Indeed, the Court's ruling did not turn on the presence of other monuments. The Court did, however, note that "the public visiting the capitol grounds is more likely to have considered the religious aspect of the tablets’ message as part of what is a broader moral and historical message reflective of a cultural heritage." Further, you inability or unwillingness to accept the evident historical importance of the Ten Commandments to Western thought is a defect that I do not care to waste time remedying.
Actually the state law in question even provides that the ten commandments will be"one of many". The legislature put this language in the law as a means to refer back to the supporting supreme Court case (which is also specifically mentioned in the law). By not allowing other monuments, they are breaking the law that they wrote. Really, it's a short law, I recommend that you read it, a quick 1 1\2 pages.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
2014/01/12 18:38:01
Subject: Satanists unveil design for statue at Oklahoma state capital
Please cite the case you believe creates a "one of many" requirement. If you mean Van Orden, please see above as I have already extensively explained that that case does not create a "one of many" requirement.
Also here is the text of the law that you suggested I read:
Manchu wrote: Please cite the case you believe creates a "one of many" requirement.
It's not a "case". The legislation allowing for the "private donation" of this monument by Mike Ritze's family is what opened the door for the Satanists to actually start this whole thing.
The long and short of it is that "as long as no state money goes into it and the monument gets precleared by a committee, it's okay". The reason that this is becoming such a thing though is that the committee has apparently met just once, to approve the Ten Commandments monument...and then immediately stopped accepting applications.
2014/01/12 18:59:06
Subject: Satanists unveil design for statue at Oklahoma state capital
Kanluwen wrote: The legislation allowing for the "private donation" of this monument by Mike Ritze's family is what opened the door for the Satanists to actually start this whole thing.
There is nothing in HB1330 that provides for the funding or placement of further monuments. Nothing in the rationale of the bill in question would support the placement of a Satanist monument.
Kanluwen wrote: The reason that this is becoming such a thing though is that the committee has apparently met just once, to approve the Ten Commandments monument...and then immediately stopped accepting applications.
Again, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Oklahoma ever opened such an application process.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/12 18:59:35
Kanluwen wrote: The legislation allowing for the "private donation" of this monument by Mike Ritze's family is what opened the door for the Satanists to actually start this whole thing.
There is nothing in HB1330 that provides for the funding or placement of further monuments. Nothing in the rationale of the bill in question would support the placement of a Satanist monument.
You realize that the entire purpose of HB1330 was to allow for a privately donated statue which otherwise likely would not have been funded?
Kanluwen wrote: The reason that this is becoming such a thing though is that the committee has apparently met just once, to approve the Ten Commandments monument...and then immediately stopped accepting applications.
Again, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Oklahoma ever opened such an application process.
@Kanluwen: According to the petition, the committee you are referring to was created "to permit and arrange for the placement on the State Capitol grounds of a suitable monument displaying the Ten Commandments." No application process for other monuments is mentioned.
@AlmightyWalrus: Could you provide an example?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/12 19:19:19
That the Ten Commandments found in the Bible, Exodus 20:1-17 |
| |
21|and Deuteronomy 5:6-21, are an important component of the moral |
| |
22|foundation of the laws and legal system of the United States of |
| |
23|America and of the State of Oklahoma; |
| |
24| |
| |
Req. No. 5295 Page 1
___________________________________________________________________________
1| 2. That the courts of the United States of America and of |
| |
2|various states frequently cite the Ten Commandments in published |
| |
3|decisions; |
| |
4| 3. That the Ten Commandments represent a philosophy of |
| |
5|government held by many of the founders of this nation and by many |
| |
6|Oklahomans and other Americans today, that God has ordained civil |
| |
7|government and has delegated limited authority to civil government, |
| |
8|that God has limited the authority of civil government, and that God |
| |
9|has endowed people with certain unalienable rights, including life, |
| |
10|liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; |
| |
11| 4. That in order that they may understand and appreciate the |
| |
12|basic principles of the American system of government, the people of |
| |
13|the United States and of the State of Oklahoma need to identify the |
| |
14|Ten Commandments, one of many sources, as influencing the |
| |
15|development of what has become modern law; and |
| |
16| 5. That the placing of a monument to the Ten Commandments on |
| |
17|the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol would help the people of |
| |
18|the United States and of Oklahoma to know the Ten Commandments as |
| |
19|the moral foundation of law.
Why does it matter that people in the US feel that God did (or didn't) do those things? Isn't that what separation of church and state is about?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2014/01/12 20:07:59
Subject: Satanists unveil design for statue at Oklahoma state capital
In the US, the separation of church and state comes down to the First Amendment of the Constitution -- more specifically, two clauses in that amendment: (1) the Establishment clause, which prevents the government from setting up a state religion, and (2) the Free Exercise clause, which prevents the government from interfering with one's religious beliefs.
This is not a proscription against akcnowledging the sources of our culture and society, including publicly and by the government. As Justice Clark wrote,
The fact that the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself. This background is evidenced today in our public life through the continuance in our oaths of office from the Presidency to the Alderman of the final supplication, "So help me God." Likewise each House of the Congress provides through its Chaplain an opening prayer, and the sessions of this Court are declared open by the crier in a short ceremony, the final phrase of which invokes the grace of God. Again, there are such manifestations in our military forces, where those of our citizens who are under the restrictions of military service wish to engage in voluntary worship. [...] This is not to say, however, that religion has been so identified with our history and government that religious freedom is not likewise as strongly embedded in our public and private life. Nothing but the most telling of personal experiences in religious persecution suffered by our forebears could have planted our belief in liberty of religious opinion any more deeply in our heritage. It is true that this liberty frequently was not realized by the colonists, but this is readily accountable by their close ties to the Mother Country. However, the views of Madison and Jefferson, preceded by Roger Williams, came to be incorporated not only in the Federal Constitution but likewise in those of most of our States. This freedom to worship was indispensable in a country whose people came from the four quarters of the earth and brought with them a diversity of religious opinion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/12 20:08:40
@Manchu,
I already quoted the section of the law that states that the monument will be one of many. Actually, section 2, Subsection D states that it will be placed in a location where there are numerous other monuments. Being a former state employee and having had routine business at the capital building, I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that there are no other monuments and it appears that none are intended. This means that this law was created in bad faith with no intention for certain provisions to be observed and/or enforced which means that it will likely be thrown out at some point. Meanwhile, the same law that required the monument be privately donated also requires the state to defend its existence which requires tax-payer dollars being wasted for a thinly veiled religious statement.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
2014/01/12 22:47:33
Subject: Satanists unveil design for statue at Oklahoma state capital
Wow, that law text is seriously creepy. It reads like it was written by someone who doesn't have any but the most grudging respect for the separation of church and state.
And it definitely does mention "numerous other monuments," though I'm not sure what those are meant to be.
2014/01/12 23:06:21
Subject: Re:Satanists unveil design for statue at Oklahoma state capital
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Why does it matter that people in the US feel that God did (or didn't) do those things? Isn't that what separation of church and state is about?
In theory, yes, god should be irrelevant and the government should STFU on the subject. However, in practice in the US governments are full of vague references to god (with a defense that it's a vague "higher power" that does refer to a single religion's god) and the Christian majority is happy to allow that violation because it aligns with their religion. If you changed all of those references to Satan instead you would see massive outrage and suddenly everyone would remember that separation of church and state means that you shouldn't have those references.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: This is not a proscription against akcnowledging the sources of our culture and society, including publicly and by the government.
And, once again, this defense does not apply. The ten commandments were not in any way the source of our laws or morality. Citing them as a source is entirely about Christian ideology and a desire to put that ideology in a prominent place in society, not secular history.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/12 23:28:10
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2014/01/12 23:32:46
Subject: Satanists unveil design for statue at Oklahoma state capital
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Wow, that law text is seriously creepy. It reads like it was written by someone who doesn't have any but the most grudging respect for the separation of church and state.
And it definitely does mention "numerous other monuments," though I'm not sure what those are meant to be.
Thing is, and this comes from a teacher I once had who was fairly well knowlegable on the subject, apparently, the 1st Amendment, which bans the FEDS from establishing a state religion does not apply to the individual states. In essence, if it's not in the Oklahoma State Constitution as such, they can come out and say they are a Baptist, Catholic, Pastafarian state, Utah can declare that it is a Mormon state, etc. However, most of us are smart enough to realize that if an individual state DID do this, then they'd most assuredly lose federal money (at the very least), and probably a whole lot more that we don't really realize.
Of course, this was coming from a teacher, so it may or may not be correct.
2014/01/13 00:11:58
Subject: Satanists unveil design for statue at Oklahoma state capital
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Wow, that law text is seriously creepy. It reads like it was written by someone who doesn't have any but the most grudging respect for the separation of church and state.
And it definitely does mention "numerous other monuments," though I'm not sure what those are meant to be.
Thing is, and this comes from a teacher I once had who was fairly well knowlegable on the subject, apparently, the 1st Amendment, which bans the FEDS from establishing a state religion does not apply to the individual states. In essence, if it's not in the Oklahoma State Constitution as such, they can come out and say they are a Baptist, Catholic, Pastafarian state, Utah can declare that it is a Mormon state, etc. However, most of us are smart enough to realize that if an individual state DID do this, then they'd most assuredly lose federal money (at the very least), and probably a whole lot more that we don't really realize.
Of course, this was coming from a teacher, so it may or may not be correct.
The constitution still applies to state government.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2014/01/13 00:28:34
Subject: Satanists unveil design for statue at Oklahoma state capital
Manchu wrote: Get as schmarmy as you want, "Satanism" was invented in 1966 and has made virtually no impact on American society except for a few instances of media hysteria.
Unlike the term 'Christian' and it's sudden mass usage only cropping up around the same time...
2014/01/13 00:29:52
Subject: Satanists unveil design for statue at Oklahoma state capital
The constitution still applies to state government.
What? State government can not go against the constitution. That's why state governments can't restrict speech, press, assembly, right to a attorney, religious freedom, ect.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2014/01/13 01:03:33
Subject: Satanists unveil design for statue at Oklahoma state capital
agnosto wrote: Actually, section 2, Subsection D states that it will be placed in a location where there are numerous other monuments.
You said that by not allowing the Satanist monument, the legislature is in violation of HB1330. You are incorrect. The text you are referring to is descriptive. The law does not provide for the placement of any other monument than the Decalogue one.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: the 1st Amendment, which bans the FEDS from establishing a state religion does not apply to the individual states
This is completely wrong.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/13 01:06:48
agnosto wrote: Actually, section 2, Subsection D states that it will be placed in a location where there are numerous other monuments.
You said that by not allowing the Satanist monument, the legislature is in violation of HB1330. You are incorrect. The text you are referring to is descriptive. The law does not provide for the placement of any other monument than the Decalogue one.
Laws don't have the luxury of being descriptive. That language is in the law for a specific reason, to illustrate how the State is not promoting one religion over another, as it states in the paragraph in question.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
2014/01/13 04:44:52
Subject: Satanists unveil design for statue at Oklahoma state capital
agnosto wrote: Laws don't have the luxury of being descriptive.
Of course they do. In fact, HB1330 is being descriptive for the very reason you suggest: it seeks to establish a record of facts in line with Breyer's Van Orden opinion -- probably because its proponents cannot rely on the actual holding in Van Orden. What HB1330 does not do is provide for the placement of any further monuments and therefore no one is in violation of HB1330 for failing to consider the demon statue.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/13 04:45:52
