You make a very good observation. Government laws are and have been used against people. Look at the “hate laws,” etc. God gave us a free will, but government always wants to take away our freedom.American society and much of our political discourse is predicated to the proposition that we must get the government, as much as possible, off of our back. There are groups that talk about the military being too large, we’re told taxes are too high, we don’t want the government to mandate much of anything in regards to healthcare, there are also too many bureaucrats in too many government offices.
But when it comes to religion everybody seems to say “give me more government.” I just wonder what happens if the laws don’t turn out the way we imagined them to be. What if these laws turn into a way to limit freedoms. Great Britain had laws on the books for centuries that effectively barred Catholics from all government service and limited their roles in the military and some extent the country’s economic life. Could something like that happen here? Maybe if we start thinking that these harmless laws favoring this type of prayer over another can’t be used against us at some other time.
ChadS
It’s one thing to say you have no problem with religious texts being placed on public property because it’s a religious text you believe in and is sacred to your tradition. Would you feel the same way if it was Buddhist text, or Muslim, or Wiccan? I think that if we allow one religious text on public property then we should not be surprised or in the least upset when a group with beliefs we don’t believe in demands the same access and freedom.Wisconsin has a unique history with religious issues. Back in the 1950s, the Fraternal Order of Eagles donated Ten Commandments markers to cities to commemorate, I believe, the work done at the time of a flood. The markers are simple stone tablets about four feet tall and are not at all heavily engraved. It takes effort to read the writing. The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued to have those markers removed. Cities ended up selling the small plots to whomever, fencing the marker, and putting up signs saying that it was on private property and was not municipally sponsored. There were hard feelings in some communities over the marker suit with yard signs in support of keeping them seeming to go up everywhere.
I have no idea how having a barely legible marker in a park is having a law promoting an establishment of religion. The arguments in favor of wiping all religious references away from the public seem contrived to me, though I am sure others strongly disagree. Judge Crabb’s opinion in the National Day of Prayer is also one that I find hard to follow. Prayer before a legislative session is fine, but a resolution that harms or forces nothing on anyone is not.
The bottom line is that I worry about it being a slippery slope if juries ever start knowingly using their findings to enact case-by-case law.
You sound like some of the atheists that I debate.It’s one thing to say you have no problem with religious texts being placed on public property because it’s a religious text you believe in and is sacred to your tradition. Would you feel the same way if it was Buddhist text, or Muslim, or Wiccan? I think that if we allow one religious text on public property then we should not be surprised or in the least upset when a group with beliefs we don’t believe in demands the same access and freedom.
ChadS
As long as the government does not establish a religion, I have no problem with the expression of religion on public grounds. Only atheists want freedom from religion.It’s one thing to say you have no problem with religious texts being placed on public property because it’s a religious text you believe in and is sacred to your tradition. Would you feel the same way if it was Buddhist text, or Muslim, or Wiccan? I think that if we allow one religious text on public property then we should not be surprised or in the least upset when a group with beliefs we don’t believe in demands the same access and freedom.
ChadS
Great post!J
The bottom line is that I worry about it being a slippery slope if juries ever start knowingly using their findings to enact case-by-case law.
This is a statement I will whole-heartedly agree with. The thing that worries me is that if that symbol or this religious icon is allowed here, what happens when that is turned into something that I can’t support then?As long as the government does not establish a religion, I have no problem with the expression of religion on public grounds. Only atheists want freedom from religion.
So the government CAN favor one religious group over another?You need to review what the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause actually say. You would then see the insanity in this ruling, which will soon be overturned by the Supremes.
I agree with much of this, except on incorporating your religion into your job. If you run as a proud member of the NRA and gun rights are important to me, you can bet I expect you to act and vote consistent with that membership. Likewise, if you claim to be pro-life, Catholic or other Christian and that is important to me, I expect that to be reflected in your job.Personally, I have no problem with expression of religion on public grounds, provided that the taxpayers aren’t paying for it. For example, I would have no problem if a priest volunteered to come in and say a prayer before a meeting of Congress. But I DO have a problem with an official congressional chaplain drawing a salary for it. I have no problem with a local church donating a plaque of the Ten Commandments to put on a courthouse wall. But I DO have a problem with the courthouse actually buying such a plaque.
Also, since politicians and judges, in order to perform their duties effectively, have to have a degree of objectivity and neutrality to them, I think that a political figure who incorporates his religion into his job, is automatically biased, and reasonable people would do better not to vote for him again. But they’re not nearly as bad as the politicians who wear their religion on their sleeve in order to garner votes. Those people are insulting the intelligence of the religious community. (The sad thing is, it often works.)
As for the Government’s assimilating more and more power, I believe in a more libertarian form of Government, as envisioned by Thomas Jefferson. They should provide us with military defense, a court system and a police force. And local governments can take care of all the little things like building public schools and paving roads. But that’s ALL that governments should do. We should NOT be policing other countries, we should NOT be stopping immigrants at the border, we should NOT be arresting people for smoking pot, we should NOT be regulating banks and corporations, and we should NOT be telling people when and where they can pray. (And yes, I voted for Ron Paul.)
Well said. Also, I think a lot of Democrats are unwilling to challenge the power of judges, because the issue of activist judges is played up in the media as part of the “conservative” agenda. They insinuate that all the activist judges are liberals. Not true. I’ve heard just as many stories of right-wing activist judges. The problem is one of Government seizing too much power, particularly, judges stealing power away from jurors. But the media likes to turn it into a left-versus-right debate. I think the best thing this nation could ever do is abolish the poltical parties, and take every issue one at a time, and base desicions on logic, not loyalty.We can all agree that a state religion is never a good thing.
I am tired of judges telling me that ONLY they can interpret the law! That idea is so prevalent that I saw that statement in a college textbook. Hog Wash!
Today we live in an age of judicial judicial tyranny. **Jurors have the right to judge both the facts and the law! ** The government does not like its laws vetoed by a jury. The courts seek to limit the power of juries in various ways. The ultimate purpose of jury nullification is to reign in the abusive power of the judiciary.
There is a struggle between those who believe in juror activism and those who believe in judicial activism. The only way that the average citizen can negate bad laws is to **rufuse to enforce bad laws in a trial by jury. **