Philadelphia Says BSA's Land Use in Jeopardy

[cjmiam]

And further it should be noted that youd never see the establishment clause applied to different religions, just Christianity. It was not our founders intent that students in our schools be shielded from religion. Some kids have even been prohibited from wearing crosses or bringing the Bible to school. They have been required to take sexual education classes totally against Christian values. Some school districts even had the audacity to call The Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem offensive to some and ban it. If these arent direct attacks at a certain group of believers in an attempt to silence them I dont know what is. And yes, it does create the perfect atmosphere for atheistic views to be promoted.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

cjmiam writes:

Well, how about my Healthy American professor that ridiculed me and laughed off my spirituality and devotion to God in a lecture class of 250 students. When he told me to use some logic, what do you think he was driving at?

 

Without some context, I can't tell. What did you say?

 

When my high school science teacher wouldnt allow my short answers on tests to include my opinions about creation, what do you call it.

 

Creationism isn't a science.

 

And please remember, I did not leave out the answer she wanted. I simply embellished what was the correct answer with my beliefs and she still marked it wrong. If thats not closed mindedness and discrimination in an attempt to create a disbelieving (atheistic) populous I dont know what is.

 

Well, you don't know what is, then. If you took a test on orbital mechanics and added that angels pushed the planets around in their orbits (an actual religious belief that used to be popular), I don't think you understand orbital mechanics.

 

And further it should be noted that youd never see the establishment clause applied to different religions, just Christianity.

 

Wrong; YOU may never see it, but it isn't hard to find if you actually look for it. Of course, in the US, it's usually Christians who violate it, since they're in the majority.

 

It was not our founders intent that students in our schools be shielded from religion. Some kids have even been prohibited from wearing crosses or bringing the Bible to school.

 

And the ACLU (and other organizations) have defended students in their right to do this. But how does this support your assertion that schools teach atheism?

 

They have been required to take sexual education classes totally against Christian values. Some school districts even had the audacity to call The Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem offensive to some and ban it. If these arent direct attacks at a certain group of believers in an attempt to silence them I dont know what is. And yes, it does create the perfect atmosphere for atheistic views to be promoted.

 

But that isn't what you said. You said atheism was being indoctrinated. Removing the religious references from the pledge simply makes it neutral, it doesn't promote atheism. You seem to consider not promoting theism to be promoting atheism, when it's just a level playing field for both.

[evmori]

Merlyn,

You don't post or talk. You spew. Christians usually violate the establishment clause? How? By wanting to have a creche displayed at the county courthouse? How is this establishing a religion? And what about the menorah right beside it? No one ever tries to get that removed!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

Here's a more recent article about the land issue:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/6836417.htm

 

The city has told the Cradle of Liberty Boy Scout Council that it is ending the agreement under which the Boy Scouts had free use of city property at 22d and Winter Streets, a council executive said yesterday.

 

William T. Dwyer III, executive director of the Cradle of Liberty Council, confirmed that he received a phone call in the second week of this month from Joyce Wilkerson, the mayor's chief of staff, advising him of the city's decision.

...

 

Dwyer said moving from the city would destroy the city scouting program.

 

"What it takes away is our urban presence totally," Dwyer said. "It takes us out of Philadelphia. We can't support it without the dollars and without the presence. We become, all of a sudden, a suburban program. But the kids who need it most are the ones in the city."

 

Lipson said that council executives were going to ask the city representatives for time to work out the problems.

 

"Give us some time and some good planning. I think we can bring about change, and everyone will be happy. We say give us time. We want to end discrimination in Philadelphia. It's painful because you wish it would happen for a lot of reasons. Discrimination is wrong," Lipson said.

 

Barbara Grant, spokeswoman for the mayor, said any options would be considered at the meeting on Friday.

 

"We know there's a problem," Grant said. "If there are alternatives that surface, we'll certainly consider it, but we have to obey the law."

...

 

 

[Twocubdad]

I'm sure Merlyn will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I remember that the Supreme Court case involving holiday displays on public property was exactly as you describe. Both a creche and menorah were displayed and both had to be removed. Of course such a ruling is going to effect more Christian displays than those of other faiths. When was the last time your saw a Hindu shrine on the courthouse lawn?

 

I have to confess that I don't really understand the reasoning behind wanting such a display in front of the courthouse or town hall. It seems to me they would be more appropriate and more meaningful at a church or synagogue or in front of the home of a person of that faith.

[NJCubScouter]

Ed says:

 

And what about the menorah right beside it? No one ever tries to get that removed!

 

Ed, I have seen you say things like this several times. It is not true. (See TwoCubDad's post) Jewish symbols (including menorahs) have been mentioned in some of these lawsuits seeking to remove religious symbols from public places. I think there was one case in which a court said that a nativity scene was a religious symbol but a menorah was not. Sounds ridiculous to me. But one bad decision does not mean that Jewish symbols have been exempted from the constitution (nor should they be; I do not think any religious symbols should be displayed on public property.)

 

[Twocubdad]

Along the same line of logic, I think the courts have also ruled that Christmas trees and Santas are not religious symbols. Santa is a no-brainer, but you can make a reasonable argument either way for trees.

[evmori]

NJ,

In some case you are correct but the removal of the menorah never makes the 6:00 news the removal of the creche does.

 

Still, how does having either on the courthouse steps establish a religion?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[NJCubScouter]

Ed says to me:

 

In some case you are correct but the removal of the menorah never makes the 6:00 news the removal of the creche does.

 

I don't know, I don't get to watch the 6 o'clock news. Since Jewish people only make up about 1 percent of the population nationwide, maybe more towns try to display Christian symbols than Jewish ones, so that's what you hear about more. Just a guess. Or are you suggesting something else?

 

Still, how does having either on the courthouse steps establish a religion?

 

I don't have my Establishment Clause research file handy, so I'll have to get back to you on that. I know Merlyn has suggested some cases you might read for the answer. I would note, however, that the clause refers to "establishment of religion," not "establishment of a religion. That little word makes a difference in this case. Without getting into specific quotes, I know that some decisions have said that the clause means the government should not be "promoting" religion and that displays of religious symbols do that. I agree.

 

[evmori]

Display = establish? That's a new definition! If that's the case the see = do!

 

I don't think so!

[packsaddle]

Sometimes I ask myself, "Why, oh why didn't I take the BLUE pill?"

 

cjmiam, I understand your comments and I am sympathetic with your complaint, at least at its base. I guess I need to step forward and confess to perhaps qualifying (on a part-time basis anyway) as one of those evil liberal professors. I can't and won't defend the classroom actions of someone that you may have had for some course in the past, but I would never respond to a student in any way but an objective, informative manner. My students would back this claim up, and they also would not tolerate such conduct as you describe in a professor. I also don't teach that subject (what the heck does a Healthy American class teach?) and my dean knows I'll walk if he confronts me with 250 students in one course.

Furthermore, although I have taught human reproduction in the past, it was strictly clinical in nature. The students were confronted with a list of topics and their interests largely determined the order and content of discussions. I was impressed with the wide range of knowledge for some and the ignorance of others. My goal was to provide a basic knowledge level of how human reproduction works and to dispel the incredible number of myths that people seem to cling to. The childbirth films, I think, led to greater abstinence for all.

 

My courses (various topics in biology) have lent themselves to neither pro- nor anti-war nor -Americanism nor -religion so maybe I have been spared those issues. After reading your post several times, however, I am still not clear how one person would indoctrinate another about condoms. Or did someone advocate their use? Still not clear what kind of issue is possible for such an object. In my class they were presented in terms of operation, limitations, risks. The students, I assume, made their own decisions on whether to use or not.

 

I try not to lump people into stereotypical groups (one of the reasons I am uncomfortable with the concept of race) but rather I try to take people as individuals and their ideas one at a time, to be judged on the merits of each (or lack thereof). Am I wrong?

One of the reasons I try to be faithful to this policy is because I know how unfair such lumping treatment as you describe is. The 'liberal professor' comment, I might add, could also be used as a case in point.

[Twocubdad]

The short answer, Ed, is that the courts have said that the display of religious symbols on public property equal the unconstitutional establishment of religion. Like it or not, until it is changed, that's the law of the land.

 

But to answer your question -- and to continue you metaphor -- display=promotion=establishment. While you may not choose to see the use of public resources for the display of religious symbols as the promotion or establishment of religion, I don't see how it isn't. Displaying a religious symbol may not "establish" a religion in a grand, formal sense, but it certainly promotes a religion. No one would argue that erecting a large Nike swish on the courthouse square doesn't promote sneakers. No, displaying a religious icon is not the same as passing a law making Christianity the official religion of the United States, but it does further the cause of the particular religion.

 

Let me ask you this: why would you choose to publicly display a religious emblem? Forget where for the moment, it could be on your lawn, the bumper of your car or hanging around your neck (all of which would be perfectly legal, by the way.) Ultimately, does it not go back to the Great Commission to spread the Gospel? By proclaiming your faith publicly are you not trying to witness to others? Even if it is a small, subtle way isn't your purpose to bring others to your faith?

 

All of which is a great thing. That we live in a country where you are free to persue those goals is one of our cherished freedoms. But I have to wonder why you would feel the need to involve the government in that?

[evmori]

"Let me ask you this: why would you choose to publicly display a religious emblem?"

 

Because I can!

[NJCubScouter]

Ed, I think you missed TwoCubDad's point.

 

But in any event, you say you would choose to publicly display a religious symbol because you "can." Point is, you are not the government. The government cannot display a religious symbol, at least not when it is for the purpose of promoting religion. (Not necessarily "a" religion, just religion.) That is how the courts have interpreted the establishment clause, however much you might disagree.

 

By the way, the First Amendment also does not mention the right of expressive association, and yet that is the right on which the BSA won the Dale case. So if you want to get rid of all court decisions based on interpretations rather than the express words of the Constitution, all I can say is: Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

[evmori]

NJ,

I didn't miss his point.

 

How do you distinguish the difference between just displaying & displaying to promote?

 

Ed