Nope. I'm assuming you're familiar with the legal concept of the "reasonable observer". The monument was just there, by itself, with no surrounding context, which means a reasonable observer would perceive it as a religious monument, rather than something to do with US history.
In front of a church I'd tend to agree. But on public land? Not so much. Also, which religion? There are two entwined here. Now the easiest way to clear up any potential ambiguity would be a plaque setting out the nature of the recognition.
THIS ARTICLE[/URL] pretty much sums it up.
I'll give it a look. Again, not every claim is an equal one and it will depend on the actual litmus. If the Ten Commandments is historical recognition the Satanists won't have a leg to stand on.
I don't follow you at all here. You seem to be arguing that if, in erecting religious monuments the government has to be inclusive of other religions, then when it erects monuments to people it is therefore mandated to erect monuments to everyone.
If that's what you're saying, I have a hard time seeing that as even worth considering.
No, the quoted paragraph was simply a discussion of monuments and what they tend to recognize. At least that was the part you quoted before your response.
Well, I suppose if you want to hold out for the legal climate to change to where the government will be allowed to promote and endorse Christianity while excluding all other religions....knock yourself out. I wouldn't hold my breath though.
You can keep misrepresenting my part of go after establishing the reasonableness of your own. Rather, I don't think recognition is promoting, except in a thing sense that any recognition could be called that and we recognize individuals and groups all the time for extraordinary contributions to the compact.
Ok, so when you said, "I noted it wouldn't work to advance and wasn't in this instance advancing a religion", what exactly is the difference between advancing a religion and advancing a religious viewpoint?
A "religious viewpoint" is only a perspective. A religion is a context. Anyone can have a viewpoint. I can have a view of politics without endorsing or investing in it.
I wrote: "And my response would be that erecting a tomb for the U.S. Grant doesn't entitle every officer to the same recognition, though some may have it conferred."
See above. Too ridiculous to bother with.
That's what I'd write if I a) didn't have a counter or b) didn't understand what I was attempting to counter. But it remains true that a monument erected to an individual or a group doesn't establish the same claim by any other. And so, a case by case examination of the point and the merit.
Exactly. Government erecting a monument to Christianity while excluding all others confers preferential status to Christianity and relegates the other faiths to second-class status. That's illegal.
Here's what actually happened. You asked what would constitute preferential treatment of a class. I answered: "Something that carries a discernible advantage, like opportunity for employment, advancement or the like. At best you could argue status, but I don't know that any monument ever did more that reflect a status."
No one has a right to a statue or recognition and giving recognition isn't excluding anyone. Now if the litmus was a "Christian's only need apply" you'd have a point, instead of a repetition/declaration of the same toothless assertion you've parroted prior.
Well what else do you think it says when the government erects monuments to Christianity in public spaces, while excluding all others? If that's not "Christianity only in our public spaces", what is
?
Same answer. Recognizing Grant isn't "excluding" all other officers who served ably in the Civil War. Excluding is something different.
Sorry, but my education isn't in question, while your ability to meet a rational rebuttal, at this point, is another thing altogether. So unless you actually want to argue that we don't and can't know the world isn't flat or that barium doesn't exist the point is made and you're simply being a poor sport. Science can tell us a great deal. It simply can't tell us everything.
Now wait a second. When I noted that my side of this issue has been consistently winning in court, you brought up previous court rulings regarding slavery when you responded "Why did Courts once rule people were property?". So you first brought up the "legal opinions change" concept in the context of slavery.
Yet when I flip that around and adopt the same line of reasoning and apply it to the other side of the slavery issue, suddenly it's "a different animal".
Rather, I've said prior that there are things fundamental to the compact that are only altered with an enormous effort and there are considerations that aren't as integral to the stability of the compact.
For instance, when some were opining that homosexual marriage would lead to NAMBLA victories at some point I responded that much of our law is predicated on contract and contract rests, in large part, on capacity and the ability to give informed consent, that to attempt to advance NAMBLA would be to threaten that foundational truth upon which so much of the law rests, making it all but impossible to achieve absent the sort of upheaval that would make other worries moot.
Trying to have it both ways, eh?
No, you're just not paying attention.
