(February 19, 2015 at 4:50 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: I don't have a problem with her memorial referencing her faith; under those circumstances it is not governmental endorsement, which is what the Constitution essentially forbids.
And yes, it was a poorly-chosen battleground.
1. I find it's more an issue if people don't AGREE to the religious reference so that it either violates First or Fourteenth Amendments for someone. If everyone AGREES to the expression then it's just free exercise/expression, and not seen as imposing or establishing it OVER people who believe otherwise.
I've pointed out that Justice is a faith-based concept, and you might see Lady Justice as a goddess type figure. But if people AGREE to that concept then it's not seen as "imposing religiously in a BIASED exclusive way"
2. I agree with GC that the Cross does not have to be associated with "advertising Christianity" but can be seen as a personal expression.
personally I feel that when people go to court complaining of "what this symbolizes" that is FORCING an interpretation to be recognized by govt. So that is equally messed up.
If a Cross causes people to congregate and obstruct someone's property, that's a physical issue. If it blocks one's view of the sky that is a problem just like a sign that a property owner didn't consent to and is affected by PHYSICALLY.
but trying to get the state to ENDORSE an interpretation as a religious imposition, how much is that in the mind of the beholder?
If you were going to be HONEST about imposing on people with other beliefs, why not look at the ACA mandates that violate the BELIEFS of people that health care should not be taxed on a federal level but that is a violation of beliefs in states' rights. the Belief in right to health care through govt should be treated equally as the belief in states' rights and keep this at a state level to be voted on; so both sides agree it meshes with their BELIEFS.
But here, there is clearly agenda if the beliefs of secular or atheists are defended in one case, on the level of "offending and excluding beliefs" but this is not even considered in the case of federal mandates on health insurance. which is not only an imposition on belief but a TAX.
so that is even more discriminatory against citizens who don't believe in federal regulations on choices of paying for health care.
if THAT isn't being considered excluding beliefs, when there is a financial penalty against someone's salary taken automatically,
what are we doing arguing over a cross on a memorial that isn't affecting half the American population?
