imported post
Ethan_Frome wrote:
Blues, of course, no fight picking here. As you are, I am too just trying to be heard out.
I would pick 1. The question from my perspective that needs to be asked is if the gov't is endorsing religion. I think the government purchasing in affect "jesus scopes" (my term as I'm tired of writing rifle scopes with Christian Scripture engraved on them. Doh!) for military use is an endorsement likening it somewhat to displaying the 10 commandments on gov't property.
As to the bolded emphasis, I would submit that, legally-speaking, your perspective is meaningless to the law. So is mine. The law is
supposed to be answerable only to itself, the ongoing national tolerance for judicial activism notwithstanding.
Further, the only legal question to be asked is if the government is
establishing a religion, not simply allowing expressions of religious thought to exist in the most unobtrusive of ways on some government property. If I happen to own a Russian-built AK-47 that was made during communist rule, am I *endorsing* communism by using it? Am I *endorsing* a cruel regime just because it says on the receiver, "Manufactured in The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?" Should I acknowledge that the rifle came from a cruel regime? Sure. It would be pretty stupid not to, because it's a fact that everyone who looks at the inscription already knows. Should the government "allow" religious expressions on their rifle scopes or in sovereign states' Supreme Court buildings? Sure. For several reasons. One, they don't have the authority to deny that "allowance" constitutionally-speaking and, two, the question that truly needs to be asked whenever government involves itself in squelching any kind of expression is, who is harmed by it? In this case, as in most surrounding the stifling of religious speech, absolutely nobody. You can't seriously be saying that you, simply by virtue of being an agnostic, are actually
harmed by those inscriptions, can you? If so, you are equating those inscriptions with things like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or inciting to riot, or engaging in speech that would constitute a conspiracy where there's an intended victim, or victims, that can be harmed. Please assure us all that you don't believe that your "feelings" rise to the level of real, harmful crimes.
Whatever, I am a bit lost as to your position. You said before that Madison and Jefferson would support your take (or something to that affect, not going back to quote it verbatim), which is exactly why I worded #2 the way I did. In the first posts of yours, before I entered the thread, as well as every post since, you are standing for the proposition that you should be protected by the government from exposure to religion if that exposure originates even in the most tangential of ways through tax-payer funds. By that logic, your only choice could be #2, yet you pick #1 and then proceed to describe exactly #2's premise in response to conservative85 when you said:
If I was a soldier who received this scope on my rifle, for personal reasons and beliefs, I would be like WTF is this. I would be bothered. I would definitely feel like it was the government endorsing a religion onto me. I would also probably feel like I had to keep quiet about it and just accept it. And the way my mind works, I would think what a bite in the ass it is that as an Agnostic, I’m probably the only soldier in the army who feels awkward about my life potentially depending on my rifle’s scope with Christianity Scripture advertised on it. Whether that is construed negatively by some religious folks or not, I think, as stated, those types of feeling pressure`from me as an American from my government is what the First, in part, is trying to allow me protection from.
You have basically picked #2 while claiming a belief in #1, so I will still have to ask you for some citation of Jefferson or Madison or, like Hawkflyer said, from
anywhere, that supports the notion that the First mandates that the government involve itself in how, when, where and to whom a private individual or company may speak freely of religion. Just so you know that I am not intentionally sending you out on a wild goose chase, I will inform you right now that no such citations exist, but you mentioned Madison and Jefferson, so the ball's in your court on that score. I am convinced that the least troublesome avenue for you to take is to just say, "Oops, yeah, I'll cede the point that Madison and Jefferson saw it more like y'all than like I see it" because, my friend, that is the indisputable truth.
The First Amendment speaks to only
one aspect of religion; State Establishment. It prohibits the federal government from establishing one, period. It doesn't take into account the hurt feelings, or the feelings of being pressured of some individual citizens, or feelings of awkwardness or any of the complaints you say you would have in the above quote or any of your other posts. It speaks ONLY to Congress' 100% restricted status from dealing with religion, other than to remain constantly vigilant in refraining from establishing one like the Church of England that they were sacrificing everything to separate from.
Hawkflyer did as good a job as anyone can of attempting to enlighten you. As these kinds of discussions often go, it gets frustrating for one side of an argument to present such concise and historically-accurate recitations of provable fact(s) only to have disjointed, inconsistent and inaccurate replies come back as though no argument were even put forth. OK, I'm certainly not as articulate, nor as knowledgeable about the Constitution and Bill of Rights as some, so why don't we look to the people who were intimately familiar with founding principals and documents and see what the Establishment Clause really means.
George Washington, in his Farewell Address, said "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail
in exclusion of religious principle."
James Madison (sorry, didn't mean to beat ya to the punch) said, "We have staked the whole future of American civilization,
not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions ... upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves
according to the Ten Commandments of God."
In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court held "The happiness of a people and the
good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality...." The Court also wrote: "It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs
whether any free government can be permanent where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitutes no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape."
Now, you may find some inconsistency with a self-proclaimed agnostic holding up religious speak to justify his take on the meaning of the 1st Amendment. But it is not inconsistent at all. While I don't claim any faith in any religion, I do believe deeply in the genius of our Founding Fathers, and believe equally as deep in the prudence of maintaining every single Article, Section, paragraph, sentence, word and punctuation mark of the Constitution as sacrosanct until such time as the constitutional process of amendment alters or repeals it. As such, I look to the Founders for my understanding, not my own internal questions or discomforts with religion in my own life.
Beyond that though, I am not bothered by religious expressions. Heck, I live in the Buckle of the Bible Belt, Alabama, and I'm exposed to some kind of religiosity almost every time I go out of the house. I'd be curled up in the fetal position in the corner if I let other folks' religious views make me uncomfortable! Besides that, I'm with George Washington, in that I think religion serves a good purpose for society. The overwhelming majority of Americans are Believers to one degree or another, and I know from having grown up in So Cal, where there's much less religion being practiced than "middle-America," and living here in Bama for the last 18 years, that where the highest concentration of devout religious folk are is where crime is lower, life is more easy-going, people are more charitable, the Constitution is held in higher regard and society generally benefits from the shared faith moreso than where people generally share a lack of faith. Almost all of my friends here are devout Christians. I am neither moved to join them, nor am I ostracized from enjoying whatever else it is that we share in common. Bottom line, all of my life-experience (54 years so far) has shown me that George was right, "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Does that mean that a Bible reference on a rifle scope is something I personally believe
needs to be there? Nah, I really couldn't care less if it's there or it isn't. But I do care about government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, and it surely has in this instance. It would likewise be sticking its nose where it doesn't belong if it were to place yours or my or anyone else's *feelings* above constitutional law.
Sorry for the length, but some things just can't be conveyed in a few short quips. (Shrug)
Blues
