This nation was founded "under God,"

Really? Where does it say that? I can't recall that line appearing anywhere in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.

But monuments and recognition of religion is important to the survival of a religiously oriented country

Religions make plenty of money, they can afford to put up their own monuments.

(as opposed to a socialist country where the state is put above God in importance).

What are you talking about? Standard socialism acknowledges the separation of church and state, just the same as the United States.

It could end up causing the government to step on the free exercise of religion by taking away tax benefits of churches that refuse to perform gay marriages.

No, it couldn't, no more than the legalization of interracial marriage threatened the free exercise of religion.

Wicked have told me of things that delight them, but not such things that your law has to tell.



I know that, but frankly because some states were abusing their citizens the federal government had to step in. It went to such extent that peoples of the rest had to do something about it.



You mean secede? Haven't they tried that already?



My point is that it is a matter where intuition rather than precise law does better job of governing.



You never heard of white supremacist churches?



Because it's wrong???

And besides, how can anyone own a town?



How bill of rights is supposed to do anything to something which was created 77 years later.



Oh, come on. We both know that a number of US states were openly condoning slavery and later suppression of human rights of black people. Clearly somebody had to do something and the only one who could do anything was the federal government.



First and foremost in terms of censorship and then in terms of multiculturalism.

Religions make plenty of money, they can afford to put up their own monuments.

Of course, but the question I'm putting to you Falkus, is where to draw the line. If one cannot use cross as a part of a public memorial, what about angels? Or Michelangelo's Creation of Adam?

You are wrong.

The precise wording reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...."  This, by extention, applies to all other jurisdictions as well, including cities and states.

By supporting a church, or religious ceremony, they are respecting an establishment of religion.  This goes beyond "Separation of Church and State".  This basically means no place can treat any religion differently than any other.  If the city supports one church, it has to support all of the equally in order to meet this clause.

Yes, that is correct. But the point is, the federal government is not the same as the state governments, who aren't the same as the local governments, hence the same rules don't always apply. Local governments can do things like tell you what color you can or can't paint your house, but that would seem to be an infringement on one's right to property if enacted at the state or federal level.



No, they can simply elect not to enact laws the federal government is pushing. There's nothing stopping any state, say Louisiana, from saying 'we will lower our drinking age to 12', as long as they're willing to take a cut to their income from federal sources.



I don't trust intuition when it comes to my rights, because intuition is not repeatable, and depends on the honesty of the judge.



As churches which enforced a rule of disallowing certain people entrance? Actually no. I'm curious how it turned out.



So? It's my property! Maybe you think it's wrong for me to burn piles of money or own an SUV. But it's my property. That means I can set whatever stupid, arbitrary rules I want. If you don't like my arbitrary rules, get off my property. On the flip side, you can set whatever stupid, arbitrary rules you want on your property. If I'm visiting your house and you tell me I must drink all liquids upside down or get out of your house, well, if I don't do what you ask, you can have me dragged out for trespassing.



The same way someone can own a house, but bigger.



I don't understand. The Bill of Rights represented the rights of individuals and the states when dealing with the federal government. The relationship between individuals and their states was dealt with by that state's respective constitution (all states have them).

It was determined that some states were not respecting the absolute rights the Bill of Rights recognized, and therefore the government decided it had to step in to fix this abuse of power.



Yes... But I'm not seeing the connection to the issue at hand. What does slavery have to do with religion?



Ah, agreed. But that's because the cross has a non-religious aspect to it as well. Can the government put up a crucifix at town square?

Sheesh, gotta say, until the very last couple years, it seemed less like a battle, and more like the city just repeatedly ignoring the courts.  Now it sort of seems like the courts ignoring the constitutions.  I have to say, this really does seem like a pretty cut-and-dry case of the state (and now federal government) favoring a religion.  What I would guess people who want the cross there actually object to is the law banning preference for religion, not correctness of the early rulings.  They seem to think the state should be able to favor a religion, but don't want to change the actual constitution to allow it.  Ironically, I bet many of the complain about "activist judges" in other situations. ;)


Actually, according to your link, the plaintiffs in the 2006 case are "the Jewish War Veterans, a Muslim, and several San Diego citizens."  Of course, even if it only were atheists complaining, would that matter?  Do atheists no count?  Do their rights not get considered?


Like I said, what you actually seem to object to is the idea that the state (or federal government) isn't allowed to show preference to a religion.  It's doesn't seem to be the case that you don't think this is actually a religious issue, but rather that you think it is a religious issue, and that the state should be allowed to show preference for a religion.  The correct course of action would seem to be changing the constitutions, rather than trying to argue that it's not actually a religious monument.


Heath, I've gotta ask:  what's your stance on gay marriage?  I haven't been able to figure it out from the posts you've made lately. ;)  Really mate, let's keep that discussion to its own thread, and not just allude to it with every single post in every single thread. ;)  If you think churches have a fundamental right to tax benefits, I'm happy to debate that in its own thread.

Except that your intuition doesn't seem to match up with mine.  Laws are there to solve cases where people disagree, like this one.  Both sides might feel it's completely obvious that they're right, as I'm sure both do in these cases.






Well, personally, I have no problem with censorship of the government.  The government isn't a person.  It's rights should be limited.  No one is arguing that you or I can't put up a cross monument on our property.  That would be censorship to be afraid of.  But limiting what messages the government can send, or what it can spend it's money on?  That doesn't bother me.

Also, no one is saying the government can't use crosses as symbols of reverence for the dead.  Federal cemeteries are full of crosses marking grave sites of soldiers (and full of plenty of other religious symbols as well).  The question is whether the government can use a cross (or a 10 commandment monument, or whatever) to promote one religion while not promoting other religions in the same way.  In the case Heath linked to, the cross didn't seem to be originally built as a war memorial, but rather as a religious symbol.  The war memorial was built well afterwards, and no one is trying to remove that aspect of the park.  In the case I linked to, the 10 commandments monument had nothing to do with reverence for the dead, it was just a promotion of a religion.

Sorry, but this is a hot topic that is current and it bleeds over into the other discussions and is germaine to this discussion.  So I'll bring it up whenever I see the connection.  (Maybe you don't live in California and don't realize that this topic is in every news broadcast every day right now.)

For example, the biggest issue with our church supporting Prop 8 was its potential to affect the free exercise of religion.  Otherwise, the church does not typically get involved in political issues.  Obviously, this is a separation of church and state issue that is current and a hot topic.

The right to tax benefits is itself a separation of church and state issue and belongs squarely in this thread.

Actually, I lived in San Diego, so I know a little more about the "real story" here.  The monument is viewed by most there as a memorial to veterans, not a particular religious support.  The fact that it displays a religious emblem is, I think, a ridiculous reason to remove it from public lands, particularly when it has been there for almost a hundred years and is practically a state monument of historical significance.

Most in the community, of all religions, don't really want to see it removed, so this is more like the courts getting in the way of the will of the people over something which is only marginally religiously oriented.


You need to read between the lines.  Note that the 2006 lawsuit (not the previous lawsuits) state this fact, AND it was the ACLU representing them.  Essentially, you have people of all religions saying "who cares?" and then the ACLU digging up some people of different religions and using them as proxies for the religions when in fact the vast, vast majority of people in those religions don't care.

And why does it matter?  Because the idea of separation of church and state is primarily to avoid the persecution of atheism, not the right of atheism to weed out all religion from our public forum.  So an atheist would have to prove that this somehow persecutes them, whereas a Muslim or Jew would have to show that their religion is being undercut by preference for another religion.  Thus you have the ACLU digging up religious people to fight the battle as of the 2006 lawsuit.


What?  There are 2 points:

1) This is a monument for veterans that's been there for almost a hundred years and is of historical significance.  For this reason, it should not be considered primarily a religious monument.

2) Even if it were a religious monument, our nation was founded on faith in God, a nation "under God," and similar notions.  You are misconstruing the argument.  The state is not preferring a religion by allowing the monument.  It would be different if the state were redirecting taxpayer funds to a purely religious cause, but honoring a religious way that was the foundation of our society is different from supporting a religion through official spokespeople or taxpayer funds.

I.e., our founders never meant for religion to be suppressed but to be celebrated, and were concerned with the chilling effect of supporting some religions over others.  This falls outside those concerns, as no one except the ACLU people seem to think it supports a religion.

In other words, there's no "wall of separation" for the principle of separation of church and state.  It's a very complicated separation, not a simple decision based on something just being religiously oriented.

Okay, fair enough, let's hear the argument then.  Why should church groups be tax exempt, if they don't agree to follow the laws of the land?

And why do you feel prop 8 affected your right to exercise your religion?  In what way does someone else's marriage mean you can't do whatever you like in your home, including following whatever religion you choose?  How does gay marriage limit your free exercise of religion?

Wait, it's been there almost 100 years, and is a memorial to veterans?  Which veterans is it a memorial to?  From your link it sounded like the memorial wasn't added until 1998, and is a memorial to veterans in the korean war.  I guess I have a hard time buying the argument that it wasn't originally intended as a symbol of christianity.


Does a majority wanting it there really matter if having it there violates the state constitution?  The reason that part was added to the constitution was to protect minority groups, so I think it's entirely appropriate for a group in the minority to appeal to the clause.



Again, do majorities matter in this case?  And, more to the point, again, why does it matter if its mostly atheists?  Aren't atheists subject to the same laws?  Don't they have the same rights?


Actually, the clause in the california constitution seems to pretty clearly be there to stop the government from promoting or favoring one religion.  I don't think it's merely to stop persecution.


Okay, and if there were just one, single religious person, should the constitution not apply?  Can a single person, who no one else agrees with not raise a case and win it?


According to your link, the memorial to veterans has been there only since 1998.  It was for many years referred to as an Easter Cross.  In 1954 the cross was dedicated to "our lord and savior Jesus Christ."  It sure sounds like a religious monument to me.  Also, no one, from what I can tell from your article, is trying to remove the memorial, just the cross which predates it.


This is just what I was saying in my post:  You seem to think it's okay for the government to have religious monuments because the nation is (in your view) a religious one.  But the CA constitution seems to say otherwise.  Honoring a religion, whether or not it was the foundation of society, is very much is an act in support of that religion, and thus is barred by the CA constitution.  Like I said, what you seem to disagree with is the CA constitution.


Exactly.  Religion is to be celebrated, but not by the government.  The chilling effect of supporting one religion is a very real thing.  Even if only one person feels it.


Does it matter if only the ACLU think it supports a religion?  Do people in the ACLU not have rights under the CA constitution?


I don't know, Heath.  The CA constitution is even clearer than the US constitution on this.


[emphasis added by Tycho]
To me, this seems like a pretty open-and-shut case (as it did to the judges the first 3 times it went to court, apparently), and the disagreement is more about what the constitution should allow than over what it does allow.


Also, Heath, what are your thoughts on the case I pointed out?  Do you think the town should allow the 7 aphorisms monument?

For example, the biggest issue with our church supporting Prop 8 was its potential to affect the free exercise of religion.

Why would any homosexual couple want to get married in a church that opposes their union in the first place?

Most in the community, of all religions, don't really want to see it removed, so this is more like the courts getting in the way of the will of the people

Isn't the whole point of the courts not to bow down to the will of the people in order to avoid the tyranny of the majority?

2) Even if it were a religious monument, our nation was founded on faith in God, a nation "under God," and similar notions

Under god does not appear anywhere in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. It appears only in the pledge of allegiance, and was, in fact, only added to the pledge in 1954, as part of the anti-communist fervor sweeping the nation.

The United States was not founded on the basis of any religion or religion in general. It was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment.

I.e., our founders never meant for religion to be suppressed but to be celebrated,

It's not the suppression of religion. It's just simply not supporting it.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:01, Thu 13 Nov 2008.

Probably for the same reason people who disagree with the Catholic Church would wear flamboyant clothes and go up to receive communion - to prove they can.

Probably for the same reason people who disagree with the Catholic Church would wear flamboyant clothes and go up to receive communion - to prove they can.

Assuming that the church does lose its license to conduct marriages for refusing to conduct homosexual marriages, so what (which is a rather big assumption, since I don't believe that it can actually happen under the laws of the united states)? It can still conduct the religious aspect of the marriage, and isn't that the important bit to Christians? Everything else is just paperwork.

Personally, I consider this whole line of argument irrelevant. After all, we legalized interracial marriage, and all these horrible things that would threaten religious freedom didn't happen back then, I don't see why that's going to change today.

And the Catholic church has the right to refuse them.  No one's forcing them to give communion to those excommunicated, and gay marriage isn't threatening hetero marriages.

Because, at least in the case of the Catholic Church, a marriage which is not conducted in a church, by a priest, is not considered to be fully valid. It's like God wasn't invited :) Plus of course the fact that many people would far prefer to get married in the same church their parents did, where their community is, rather than next to the line for driver's licenses.

They could still get the marriage ceremony in the church, which is my point. They'd just have to fill out the paperwork for the government elsewhere.

Yeah, I have to say this seems like a red herring.  The catholic church currently has the right to refuse non-catholic straight couples from getting married in their churches.  If non-catholic straight couples can't use the law to force catholic priests to marry them, I don't see how gay couples would be able to.

Here's some more fule for the fire: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...e_us/obama_catholics

Yeah, not sure if that's a good move by that bishop.  Single-issue voters don't have any influence on anything other than that single issue.  Politicians will know whether they have that vote or not from the start, and can then ignore catholics for the rest of the campaign.  Their view on health care, the deficit, wars, poverty, AIDS, foreign policy, etc., will have no impact on their vote, so there's no need for politicians to consider the catholics views on such things.

Also, the bishop could end up driving people away from the catholic church.  His stance only really affects those who would otherwise vote for a pro-choice candidate, who clearly take a less hard-line view of church positions already.  If they feel the church is trying to force their vote, they may decide to change their church rather than change their vote.

Also, the bishop could be putting his diocese in danger of losing its tax exempt status, by becoming an overtly political body.  I'm not sure if the IRS is ready to start enforcing the non-political rules of tax exemption for churches (there are a number of churches who want them to, so that they can sue and try to get the rule overturned.  It's not clear to me how that would end up playing out if it happened), but in a few years they might be.

On the other hand, it does seem like the religions growing the fastest in the US these days are the ones that take a clear stand on very divisive issues.  People do seem to like having someone to be against.  So it could be that by demonizing the pro-choice side, the bishop could end up drawing people in.

What might happen if the trend continues?  What if evangelicals get involved?  If evangelical pastors start telling their church members that they'll go to hell if they vote for a catholic, with the bishops cry foul?  Could the reality of bishops withholding communion from people who vote for pro-choice candidates undermine the idea that catholic politicians won't be puppets of the church (which is what JFK had to convince voters of when he ran for president)?

And, since Heath hasn't had a chance to bring up gay marriage yet ;), what about the LDS church bankrolling the opposition to proposition 8 in CA?  Will (should?) people start treating Mormons differently because of this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html
A Mormon theatre artistic director recently resigned after artists started refusing to let their work be performed in his theatre because the director donated $1000 to the proposition 8 campaign.  I've read statements by people saying they're planning to go to Salt Lake city and protest the LDS church, and even some claiming they plan to boycott the entire state of Utah over it (how much time did they really spend in Utah to begin with, I have to wonder).

Is this the natural result of churches becoming overtly political?  I wonder if these churches will end up regretting linking themselves so tightly with secular issues that people start to view them as just another political faction.

I don't think the Bishop was trying to play politics, however. I suspect he's one of those rare people who refuses to 'compromise with the devil', even when it furthers his own goals in the end. And honestly, I'd expect the same of anyone who shared the Catholic belief in abortion. I mean, if there were a politician who shared all your beliefs in regards to civil rights, had a fantastic health plan that would cost the country almost nothing, and the perfect exit strategy, but also wanted to kill all old people, you would most likely vote against him based solely on the 'killing old people' issue, wouldn't you?



Which may not be a bad thing. I don't think the Church could, in good conscience, allow people to commit sins without their knowledge. After all, the RCC believes that mortal sins will keep us from God, and so the Bishop's warning is in fact a warning, not a command. Do you think bleach would sell better if it didn't have labels about not putting it in your eyes, drinking it or mixing with ammonia? Well perhaps, but I don't think that's a desirable state for us to be in.



I believe a church can take an official stance on a political issue, but not on a candidate.

I really don't mind people expressing opinions, even contrary opinions, or affecting politics, based on their moral beliefs. And I think churches have a responsibility to disseminate the facts of their moral beliefs to their adherents. On the flip side, those people need to be willing to accept the results of sticking to those moral beliefs.

Keep in mind, though, that what's a sin, in the Catholic view, is abortion.  What the bishop is calling a sin, though, is voting for a politician who is pro-choice.  That's an important distinction, I think.  It's one thing to tell the church members "you can't take communion if you have an abortion," it's another to say "you can't take communion if you vote for someone who has an abortion," and yet another to say "you can't take communion if you vote for someone who allows other people make up their own mind about abortion."  The bishop in this case isn't just saying abortion is wrong, but also that not forcing people to agree with you about it is wrong.


Oh, I agree to an extent (though, anyone who tells you that your vote is a sin is playing politics).  But I think by being unwilling to consider other issues, he may end up having no influence over them.  If catholics follow his lead on this, the catholic opinions on anything other than abortion cease to matter politically.

Also, it's not just that he doesn't want to compromise with the devil, but he doesn't want to compromise with people who compromise with the devil. ;)  It's a lot of degrees of separation here:  He's telling catholics what to do (1 degree of separation), on the issue of who they can vote for (2nd degree), based on what that person is willing to tell others they can or can't do (3rd degree).


And this is sort of why I think he might be making an error here.  Catholics by and large already agree with his position on abortion.  What his stance does is take other considerations off the table.  It forces people who already agree with him about abortion to not consider other issues, which I think could drive people away.


Yes (though, "killing all old people" is a poor analogy to legalizing abortion).  But that's my vote.  How the bishop votes is his business, he can be a one-issue voter if he likes.  He can even try to convince others that it's the only issue that matters.  When he starts coercing them, though, then it seems likely to backfire, in my eyes.


Again, though, his message is far stronger than "abortion is a sin."  Catholics are very aware of that stance by this point, I would imagine.  To go from there to "voting for a pro-choice candidate is a mortal sin," seems far stronger though.  By trying to force peoples votes, I think the church could drive them away, and thus end up having less influence over their own behavior (ie, what they themselves do, as opposed to what they vote to allow others to do).  For example, a person who might agree with the catholic church's stances, and try to follow them might decide the church has gone too far by trying to control people's votes, and thus leave the catholic church, and stop following its edicts.  Will many people do this?  I don't know, really. But apparently 54% of catholics votes for Obama.  When a church declares that more than half of its members aren't welcome anymore, that's gotta have some impact.


True, though at times it can be difficult to tell which is which.  In any given race, one could pick an issue that the candidates disagree on, and declare that an important issue, and say a vote for candidate X will land you in hell!  Which sort of is an easy end-around for the not supporting a candidate rule.


Yeah, I agree with you on this.  It's the last bit that's the tricky part, though.  I think a lot of religious groups want to disseminate their moral beliefs, but don't like to accept the results of doing so.  Heath being worried about churches losing tax exempt status for discriminating against gays could be an example.

I think your point of contention is based on whether voting for a pro-abortion candidate is a mortal sin. I'd have to double check, but I believe by Catholic doctrine, supporting the politics of abortion is considered a mortal sin. I could be wrong, but I do believe that is the case. It isn't that the bishop is making stuff up, he's sharing genuine Catholic doctrine. If that is the case, I think most of your arguments lose their strength, except for the one about the results of that stance.

Yes, the Catholic Church is suffering for its hardline stance on a number of issues, not just abortion, but contraceptives, female priests and probably a few other ones. Its losing a lot of members. Its also losing political and financial strength (a lot of people won't donate to Catholic charities in places like Africa because, even though the Catholic charities do a tremendous amount of work for very little administrative overhead, they refuse to teach about contraceptives). But I think the Church is willing to suffer that, and it's never become a serious conversation about whether they should change their policies in order to attract more members. The RCC would rather be right and ignored, then compromise and make good, sweeping changes.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.  But to me, it seems like you can vote for someone without agreeing with every one of their policies.  I voted for Obama, even though I don't agree with him on corn-based ethanol, for example.  I don't feel like voting for him has made me "pro-corn-based ethanol."  Catholics also consider it a mortal sin to be Muslim, yes (or any religion not Catholic, right)?  If the bishop declared that no one could take communion if they voted for anyone who favored policies that make being muslim legal, it would seem very strange to me.  Telling people they can't vote for someone who's not part of their religion would be bad enough.  Telling them they can't vote for someone who simply lets other people not be part of their religion seems to be taking it far too far.

The Catholic church also opposed the death penalty, if I'm not mistaken, but no bishops seems to be announcing that it's a mortal sin to vote for politicians who favor it (or even for those who think the decisions should be made at the state level rather than the federal).  Catholics seem willing to "compromise with the devil" on some issues, but not others.


Yes, but there's a difference between changing ones own policies, and trying to force people to force their views on others.  It's one thing to say "X is a sin, and people shouldn't do it," but saying "X is a sin, and anyone who disagrees is automatically the worst person ever, and you can't even look at them," would clearly be over the top.  The RCC can maintain a firm anti-abortion stance without telling their members how they have to vote.  Saying "this is the catholic point of view, please keep it in mind when you vote" seems reasonable, whereas "this is how you must vote to be catholic.  If you don't vote how we tell you, don't come back," seems likely to be counter-productive to their cause.

You might not agree with them, but in a way, you are permitting them. My previous example, equating abortion to killing old people, really is apt in that, in the eyes of the Church, they weigh about the same on the sin scale (if anything, killing old people might be considered a lesser sin). I think if a candidate ran on the 'lets kill old people' issue and I voted for him, you would have to recognize that, in a way, I am giving implicit support to that issue.

Now granted, if I'm giving implicit support to something like corn ethanol, it isn't much of a problem. It's hardly a sin to grow corn for ethanol. But I think we all agree killing old people is, with few exceptions, a morally wrong thing to do. Hence the difference. I suspect the bishop would have spoken out the same way against a candidate who was pushing a 'safe sex' campaign - that campaign is a mortal sin, and we as moral people cannot support that.



They believe anyone baptised in a Christian (i.e. in the name of the father, son and holy ghost, therefore excluding the LDS Church and most likely Unitarians) has a shot at heaven. Some Catholics believe all others will go to Hell, some don't. Would the Church speak out against a politician who supported making Islam legal in the US? I really don't know. There's a degree of finality and lack of choice to abortion that doesn't apply to choice of religions. If Bob is raised Muslim, he can still be baptised and saved. If Bob is aborted at 3 months, he cannot. So abortion has a certain poignancy that most other issues don't.



That is true. I wouldn't say they're 'compromising with the devil', but turning a blind eye to cultural leanings. I do think the RCC should take more of a stand against the death penalty. I suppose the big difference is, abortion affects millions, the death penalty only hundreds (at least until Crinkles makes it into office ;) ). I know also that in most states, the death penalty is outlawed, or basically never used. It could be that this is a bigger issue in states like Texas, but I'm just not aware of it. I really don't know. I could ask some people closer to the Church if you'd like :)



I think you're making it just a little over the top, although not by much.

The idea is, a mortal sin is an affront to God, and it is intentionally choosing to expel oneself from the community. It is also a mortal sin to take communion while you have a mortal sin on your soul. Yes, technically this means about 90% of all Catholics commit mortal sins every week (discounting the young ones, of course).  Lusting in your mind and, worse, masturbation, are both mortal sins. Yet we all know that, statistically, Catholics engage in such behavior just as often as just about everyone else. So you can be pretty sure that almost all of those people who don't go to confession every week (and yes, there are people who do that) probably shouldn't be lining up for communion and, really, most churches should just close up their doors.

Now, is your complaint that, given that, the Church should be more aggressive in dealing with other issues? Should the bishop make it clear that anyone who has greased the monkey rod since his last confession is not welcome to communion, although he should listen to the rest of the service and donate his standard 10%? Yeah, I think you'd have a point there (although there are reasons why that particular sin, probably the most common, but the least discussed, is brushed under the rug, and that has to do more with modesty than a drive to collect more money).



It is counter-productive. However, if the belief really is that voting for someone is implicitly supporting immoral behavior and therefore itself immoral, again, I think the RCC has a responsibility to tell people that and of its natural consequences, just like they have a responsibility to teach about other immoral behavior a person is likely to have to decide on.