(December 14, 2013 at 12:24 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Generally, I agree. Now extend that logic to political displays and monuments.That's largely irrelevant, given that the establishment clause is specifically focused on religion.
Quote:Free expression is free expression regardless of content. The point of "make no law establishing" was not to exclude religion from policy making and public discourse. It was to prevent the state from stifling such discourse by establishing a single approved point of view.It actually goes further than that, but those parts aren't relevant to the discussion here. The establishment clause has been repeatedly tested over the years, including several times in relation to religious displays, and the Supreme Court on nearly all occasions has affirmed that such displays violate the Establishment Clause: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishm...s_displays
Quote:It is disingenuous to say that one type of opinion is allowed because it is partisan (but secular) one but another is not allowed because it is religious.Not really, since as I've mentioned previously, the establishment clause deals only with religion.
Quote:Maybe you think we should tear down all the statues of Dr. King. He was a Christian preacher and having monuments to him is promoting his religious vision for a fair and just society.Dr. King is first and foremost, a civil rights activist, and what he is most remembered for is his work with civil rights. As you've said previously, the establishment clause does not prevent people from using their religious beliefs to influence policy making.
Tearing down statues of Dr. King would be pointless, as such statues celebrate the man and his achievements, rather than some religion. There would be no grounds for them to be removed.
