POL/REL: "The United States was founded on the Christian Religion"

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Well, nevermind on everything. Got this off of Wikipedia:

Unlike countries where holidays are required by law, there are no national holidays in the United States. However, the United States Congress has created federal holidays for employees of the United States Government and the District of Columbia. Most states have declared state holidays to coincide with these federal holidays. In spite of numerous attempts, the United States has never established true national holidays. (However, most labor contracts provide for extra pay or other special consideration for those required to work on officially-recognized holidays.)


So there you go. Technically the US doesn't have any national holidays.

Edit: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...#United_States

As you point out, that seems to be a bit of a technicality. Federal holidays are de facto national holidays.

It's sort of like how the Redskins only officially have one jersey retired... but nobody's worn #44 since John Riggins (just to name one).

[Solecismic]

We're a country that traditionally protects minorities from the will of the majority. No question we still have a lot of work to do on that front, but we're far better at it than any country on earth.

If anything's the motto of this relatively new melting pot we call the United States, it's that we welcome (not just pay lip service to) those who think differently.

[lungs]

From Thomas Jefferson's autobiography:

"The bill for esablishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ" so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."

How would you interpret this passage?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by lungs

From Thomas Jefferson's autobiography:

"The bill for esablishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ" so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."

How would you interpret this passage?

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. I strongly believe that the Constitution's protections are clearly meant for everyone, but just because I strongly believe that the protection should be for "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination," it doesn't believe that I don't personally hold to passionate faith in Christ. The two aren't mutually exclusive. It seems that many on both sides of this continued debate (not just on this board, but across society) fall into "Well, so-and-so wrote that EVERYONE deserved protection, so they must not have been 'Christian' so this is not a 'Christian nation.'" vs. "Well, x% of the Founding Fathers attended church services regularly, so therefore this is a 'Christian nation.'"

The fact is, IF most of the guys were "Christian" (whatever the heck that means, and I frankly don't see why it matters so much to people), then of course at least some of their "Christian" values made their way into the framing of the Constitution. Were those values necessarily unique to "Christianity?" Not necessarily. Ultimately, the entire debate appears to me to be primarily a battle of who gets to put their preferred label on the matter ("founded on Christianity" vs. "founded on humanism" or "founded on freedom" or "founded on Deism" whatever), which is just plain silly. I have never understood why so many people seem to get their panties in such a wad over this. I couldn't care less what label gets put on the government. Just give me less government--far, far less government.

[clintl]

I think it's pretty much irrefutable that the primary influences for the design of the Constitution and US government came from the ideas of Enlightenment philosophers like Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Montesquieu, and not from the Bible. Biblical political metaphor assumes a monarchy as the highest form of government, a form that most of the Founding Fathers particularly detested.

As for SkyDog's point above, I agree completely with him that supporting freedom of religion (inclusive of all religions) shouldn't be mutually exclusive with faith in Christ. Unfortunately, there seems to be a vocal contingent of conservative Christians who can't accept that.

[King of New York]

"I think it's pretty much irrefutable that the primary influences for the design of the Constitution and US government came from the ideas of Enlightenment philosophers like Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Montesquieu, and not from the Bible. Biblical political metaphor assumes a monarchy as the highest form of government, a form that most of the Founding Fathers particularly detested. "

Bingo. And I think that's why people get their pants in a wad over this: because many of the founding fathers are commonly misrepresented and misunderstood today.

The founding fathers all believed in God, but in a remote, deist God who did not interfere in the day-to-day workings of the world. Thomas Jefferson rewrote the new testament and expunged all references to the divinity of Jesus and to miracles: the Virgin birth, the resurrection, everything. He took them out because he did not believe them. He may well have considered himself a Christian, but my guess is that most Christians today, if they understood his thinking on religious matters, would disagree with him about that.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Well, so-and-so wrote that EVERYONE deserved protection, so they must not have been 'Christian' so this is not a 'Christian nation.'"

I don't see anyone saying that at all, Skydog. In fact the argument is that it's precisely because they were Christian and deliberately excluded any reference to Christianity in the Constitution that the argument they intended a secular nation is emphasised.

Ultimately, the entire debate appears to me to be primarily a battle of who gets to put their preferred label on the matter ("founded on Christianity" vs. "founded on humanism" or "founded on freedom" or "founded on Deism" whatever)

Not at all. The only people claiming that the nation is "founded on x" are the Christians. The counter argument to that is that it is quite deliberately not founded on any individual religion at all. I hear no one else claiming that their religion or philosophy is the foundation.

I know very little of the US Constitution and much of this debate I'm hearing for the first time but I think any rational reading of the articles included in this thread so far must conclude that the Founding Fathers clearly intended that religion be excluded from the Constitution. Any attempt to justify "founded on Christianity" from what I've read so far requires a very twisted interpretation of the texts.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

I don't see anyone saying that at all, Skydog.

Sure. I hear that one all the time, from both sides.

Not at all. The only people claiming that the nation is "founded on x" are the Christians. The counter argument to that is that it is quite deliberately not founded on any individual religion at all. I hear no one else claiming that their religion or philosophy is the foundation.

I hear that one all the time, too, just by nature. Secularism would be considered a "philosophy," would it not?

...and what does "founded on" mean to begin with? I'd prefer the term "based on," and it is clear to me that the primary intent is that the nation be based neither upon secularism nor religion nor spirituality, but upon individual freedom.

[cartman]

SkyDog's libertarian streak is coming out strong in this thread!

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

I don't see anyone saying that at all, Skydog. In fact the argument is that it's precisely because they were Christian and deliberately excluded any reference to Christianity in the Constitution that the argument they intended a secular nation is emphasised.



Not at all. The only people claiming that the nation is "founded on x" are the Christians. The counter argument to that is that it is quite deliberately not founded on any individual religion at all. I hear no one else claiming that their religion or philosophy is the foundation.

I know very little of the US Constitution and much of this debate I'm hearing for the first time but I think any rational reading of the articles included in this thread so far must conclude that the Founding Fathers clearly intended that religion be excluded from the Constitution. Any attempt to justify "founded on Christianity" from what I've read so far requires a very twisted interpretation of the texts.

I agree with the aussie...the founding fathers meant for christianity to play no part in anything outside of their own personal rights..thats one of the reasons i respect what they did so much.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by cartman

SkyDog's libertarian streak is coming out strong in this thread!

Well, duh. I'm more libertarian than anything else, that's for sure.

[Warhammer]

My .02...

I think it is clear that although many of the Founding Fathers were Christian, many were not. I think a more accurate description would be that they were part of the Western Judeo-Christian tradition. If you read the link that Jim put up, you see that the Deists actually share many of the core beliefs from the Judeo-Christian tradition. There is one God, he is perfect, there is a hereafter, etc. The main disagreement is over Christ.

The separation of church and state is to keep from having a state-sponsored religion. Being a Christian country is not state-sponsored religion. There are hundreds of religions that fall under the Christian banner. Many of those churches do not see eye to eye on MANY items. The separation of church and state was a reaction to the England of those times where those not of the Anglican faith had little opportunity to advance in life.

However, I think it is irresponsible for both parties to believe that they are completely right. First, the Founding Fathers were men of faith. They did believe in God, and felt that each of us had rights that were God given. That belief belongs to neither Christianity nor Judaism. Second, the separation of church and state crowd are going too far in denying that the Ten Commandments should not be allowed to be displayed anywhere. If you are a Christian, there are two major commandments given by Christ, love the Lord your God with all you heart, mind, and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself (which basically sum up, and go beyond the Ten Commandments at the same time). Those two commandments replaced the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are an excellent historical set of laws however. In many cases, if you abide by the Ten Commandments (or just focus on the last 7), you will violate very few secular laws.

I think it is very important to not have any state-mandated religion, but I think we have swung too far in the opposite direction where you can have pretty much any non-Christian symbol on public grounds, but you can't put a Christian symbol up there. Given that most of the country subscribes to Christian beliefs (although they may not be practising), that is tyranny by the minority.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Well, duh. I'm more libertarian than anything else, that's for sure.

As am I. I was just trying to rationalize internally how a "dictator" could have such strong libertarian leanings...

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Sure. I hear that one all the time, from both sides.

Surely the argument is: "It's based on Christianity" versus "No it isn't".

I hear that one all the time, too, just by nature. Secularism would be considered a "philosophy," would it not?

No. It's an absence of religion. That's not a subtle difference. There are any number of secularisms - communism, certain fascisms and liberal democracy amongst them. Secularism alone is merely an absence of religion.

But that's a red herring anyway. The argument is whether or not it's founded on Christianity - the thread title is "The United States was founded on the Christian Religion". The texts provided so far clearly show it isn't.

...and what does "founded on" mean to begin with?

I presume that ties it to the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

it is clear to me that the primary intent is that the nation be based neither upon secularism nor religion nor spirituality, but upon individual freedom.

I wouldn't disagree with that though, just as I see secularism essentially as an absence of religion, a crucial part of individual freedom is precluding religious or philosophical dictate. In this respect the intention was surely to leave people free to choose whatever religion/philosophy/spirituality they wish and not impose a particular one via government.

[cartman]

I think the argument was summed up best by the quote from a person making an appearance before a Senate committee (I believe it was the Maryland state senate):

"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

Here is the page from Snopes detailing the exchange:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/raskin.asp

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Second, the separation of church and state crowd are going too far in denying that the Ten Commandments should not be allowed to be displayed anywhere.

No one has seriously proposed "that the Ten Commandments should not be allowed to be displayed anywhere."

I pretty much agree with SD (shocking, I know) on this issue.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Surely the argument is: "It's based on Christianity" versus "No it isn't".

No. versus "It's based on secularism."

No. It's an absence of religion. That's not a subtle difference. There are any number of secularisms - communism, certain fascisms and liberal democracy amongst them. Secularism alone is merely an absence of religion.

Ah. Now I see where you're coming from. As you define it, sure. I've had others try to engage me in debate on this topic under the premise that basically America was founded on secularism, defined (as best as I can tell) as not just absence of religion/spirituality, but sort of some anti-religion/spirituality philosophy

In this respect the intention was surely to leave people free to choose whatever religion/philosophy/spirituality they wish and not impose a particular one via government.

Correct.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by cartman

As am I. I was just trying to rationalize internally how a "dictator" could have such strong libertarian leanings...

Well, my first choice in governmental structure is the "Benevolent Dictator" model. IT would be by far the most efficient method. However, given that there are none whom I'd trust to be that Benevolent Dictator, I say, "Give 'em only as much power as is absolutely necessary."

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Ah. Now I see where you're coming from. As you define it, sure. I've had others try to engage me in debate on this topic under the premise that basically America was founded on secularism, defined (as best as I can tell) as not just absence of religion/spirituality, but sort of some anti-religion/spirituality philosophy

There's no question that there is a particular secularism implied in the Constitution - that of liberal democracy. But I think it could be argued that it was the Constitution that defined liberal democracy as much as being be based on it. Certainly there was a philosophy there but one that was being developed through the Constitution itself.

Whether the intention was to define an anti-religious position I don't think could be extracted from what I've read so far and the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers would argue against that. But I can see where that argument comes from bearing in mind the experience of Europe and religious persecution and their determination to avoid a repetition of that. To that extent I can see the omission of religion from goverment as being "anti-religion".

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I say, "Give 'em only as much power as is absolutely necessary."

Oh how id love to argue that point

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Well, my first choice in governmental structure is the "Benevolent Dictator" model. IT would be by far the most efficient method. However, given that there are none whom I'd trust to be that Benevolent Dictator, I say, "Give 'em only as much power as is absolutely necessary."

Where's Frederick the Great when you need him?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I've had others try to engage me in debate on this topic under the premise that basically America was founded on secularism, defined (as best as I can tell) as not just absence of religion/spirituality, but sort of some anti-religion/spirituality philosophy

Those people are idiots.

(And for the record, I don't believe the nation was founded on Christianity or "secularism". I agree with SkyDog that it was based on individual freedom, among other things.)

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by cartman

As am I. I was just trying to rationalize internally how a "dictator" could have such strong libertarian leanings...

LOL! Sorry, just had to laugh at this.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Possibly. I did see that in 16 states, Good Friday is a federal holiday, but that's it.

Not true... I work for the federal government, and if Good Friday was a federal holiday, I'd be wondering why I don't have it off .

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I think we have swung too far in the opposite direction where you can have pretty much any non-Christian symbol on public grounds, but you can't put a Christian symbol up there.

Wha? Where does this occur? Menorahs, by themselves, aren't safe on public grounds, for instance.

Btw, I agree with those that say the US was NOT founded on the Christian religion. It was founded on, as SD mentioned, individual liberty and Enlightenment ideals. The founders had just gone through a tyranny of the Anglican Church and, taking the lessons from Roger Williams, realized that there needed to be religious liberty in order for individuals to be free. Hence, no mention of Christianity or any of its specific values in the US Constitution.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Wha? Where does this occur? Menorahs, by themselves, aren't safe on public grounds, for instance.

There was some local town over here that put up a manger scene and menorah on display outside the City Hall. Some locals complained, so they took down the manger scene. Then someone else pointed out that the menorah should be taken down, so they put up trees. Then someone realized that the trees don't represent Hanaukah at all, and were promoting Christmas. I don't recall what they wound up doing, but someone said they should go back to what they originally had because that wasn't promoting any one religion.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

There was some local town over here that put up a manger scene and menorah on display outside the City Hall. Some locals complained, so they took down the manger scene. Then someone else pointed out that the menorah should be taken down, so they put up trees. Then someone realized that the trees don't represent Hanaukah at all, and were promoting Christmas. I don't recall what they wound up doing, but someone said they should go back to what they originally had because that wasn't promoting any one religion.

Did they bring in Philip Glass to perform a non-denominational avant-gard song, only for Christmas to be saved by Mr. Hankey?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by cartman

Did they bring in Philip Glass to perform a non-denominational avant-gard song, only for Christmas to be saved by Mr. Hankey?

Beats the heck out of me. I need to go back through my travel logs for December, I should be able to figure out where I was and could find out what happened.

[Solecismic]

There's a woman in our town who, maybe 20 years ago, funded placing a string of lights around a big pine tree in our city's center. People would gather for the lighting ceremony, and she had speakers from various religions and other groups talk about holiday season.

She called it the Holiday Tree Lighting Ceremony. Over the years it has grown considerably, and attracts more than 10% of the town. It gets a lot of play in the town newspaper, and there are now other events going on that day.

This year, one of our new residents (meaning newer than me) was offended, and thought she should call it the Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony. He started hanging out at the local grocery with a petition, and managed to get enough signatures to place this on the ballot for our annual town elections.

Fortunately (or unfortunately), our Selectmen realized during the annual "Town Hall" meeting, when election items are discussed, that they didn't have the power to tell a private individual what to call her private tree lighting ceremony. So they changed the ballot item to some fuzzy statement where they proclaim that the "First Amendment does not prevent the free expression of religion." As if that's somehow under attack, and as if Washington was somehow waiting for our little town of 10,000 to weigh in on this issue.

The ballot measure passed. I just hope the poor woman who has spent countless hours on her ceremony, which means a lot to people judging by the attendance, isn't dissuaded from continuing in the future.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by cartman

I think the argument was summed up best by the quote from a person making an appearance before a Senate committee (I believe it was the Maryland state senate):

"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

Here is the page from Snopes detailing the exchange:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/raskin.asp

The debate in Maryland about this issue this year has been a font of quotables. Many of the best have come amidst the effort to impeach the judge in question. Great theater.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

You sure about that?

More information about that.

The original Treaty of Tripoli was written in Arabic, and never contained Article 11 (which is the section that the articles that started the thread stated). The English translation had somehow included it.

The treaty was broken in 1801 and re-signed in 1805, and Article 11 was removed.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

And I missed this before, but you know this isn't true. Let's keep the racist remarks to a minimum.

Again someone has no clue about what racist actually means. When the hell has Islam become a race?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Again someone has no clue about what racist actually means. When the hell has Islam become a race?

racism, bigotry, whatever you want to call it, I think the point still stands.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Again someone has no clue about what racist actually means. When the hell has Islam become a race?

The dictionary is your friend:

Main Entry: race
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics

Whether you would consider that previous comment to be racist or religious discrimination or whatever, it's not true so stop repeating it.

[Groundhog]

Thanks guys, it's been a good read so far and surprisingly civil! I'll comment some more when I've got a little time.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

More information about that.

The original Treaty of Tripoli was written in Arabic, and never contained Article 11 (which is the section that the articles that started the thread stated). The English translation had somehow included it.

The treaty was broken in 1801 and re-signed in 1805, and Article 11 was removed.

Article 11 apparently exists in the version signed by Joel Barlow, who negotiated the treaty for the US, and in the versions approved by President Adams and ratified by the Senate. That seems pretty definitive to me that the Founding Fathers did not have a problem with the notion.

[ISiddiqui]

That's true... the point wasn't this what the treaty says and therefore its law now, etc, etc... the point was that the founders didn't have a problem with such language and agreed to make it the law of the land for a few years in the early era of the Republic.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

it is clear to me that the primary intent is that the nation be based neither upon secularism nor religion nor spirituality, but upon individual freedom.

But doesn't that suggest, SD, that the founding fathers believed, in deliberately leaving out religion from the constitution despite their own religious beliefs, that individual freedom and religion are incompatible? That individual freedom could only be ensured by excluding religion ie in a secular society?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

But doesn't that suggest, SD, that the founding fathers believed, in deliberately leaving out religion from the constitution despite their own religious beliefs, that individual freedom and religion are incompatible? That individual freedom could only be ensured by excluding religion ie in a secular society?

Not at all. It is clear as a bell that they wanted everyone to have the freedom to have their own religous/spiritual/philosophical experiences.

Of course, I abhor "religion," but that's another discussion entirely.

[Mac Howard]

Isn't

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Not at all.

ie individual freedom is not incompatible with religion and

It is clear as a bell that they wanted everyone to have the freedom to have their own religous/spiritual/philosophical experiences.

somewhat contradictory?

[Ben E Lou]

I must have misunderstood what you were trying to say...

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I must have misunderstood what you were trying to say...

I suspect that real religious freedom can only occur in a secular society and your founding fathers realised that.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Well, my first choice in governmental structure is the "Benevolent Dictator" model. IT would be by far the most efficient method.

Amazing. I've said this same thing many times. I used to believe the rest of what you said, but I no longer subscribe to that point of view. I think there are too many areas that the goverment must be involved in. I really believe the closest we can get to the "benevolent dictator" is a strong constitutional republic.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

I suspect that real religious freedom can only occur in a secular society and your founding fathers realised that.

Hmmm...that just seems like a strange statement to me. Is it not more "free" to be able to exercise and discuss one's beliefs, and see others do so, rather than to have a society where such ideas are never brought up. I can see that they felt that such freedom required that the government be non-affiliated, but I have a hard time believing that they wanted all mention of deity and the worship thereof to be a societal taboo. A secular government? Yes. A secular society? I'm not so sure about that one...

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't see anything preventing Christians from displaying their faith. I do think it's a problem if public resources or land is used for that display.

The separation of church and state is just as important to the church as it is to the state. The founding fathers came from a place where their religions or religious expression or non expression was forbidden. They intended America to be a place where religion was private, sacred and fully protected.

I agree with most of your post, but these two things stood out to me. First, I don't see how having anything on public land makes it a defacto endorsement or establishment of said thing. I see no problem with menorahs, or the Islamic Crescents being placed on public land in honor of some action or holiday.

The second paragraph I agree with except for one word, private, and really then only depending on how you used it. If by "private" you mean a private decision that is not forced, then OK. If you mean "private" as in not in public venue, then I disagree. I do not believe that "freedom of religion" is any guarantee of "freedom from religion." People are Constitutionally protected to practice their religion in very public ways if they so choose.

[Solecismic]

1. Because land is a commodity, and using it for religious display is essentially public financial support of religion. It also implies there's a state religion.

2. I agree with you. The use of the word private means that no one should face any state pressure to conform to the societal norm.

The founding fathers seemed to make it crystal clear that they felt religion was important to a lot of people, including many of their own peers. They wanted to ensure that all their individual choices were protected. That's freedom.

In a world where church and state are separate, church can influence the development of the state. However, in a world where church and state are intertwined, state ultimately determines the direction of the church.

It's the latter, that throughout history, almost inevitably lead to violent regimes like the ones we see in the Middle East today.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

First, I don't see how having anything on public land makes it a defacto endorsement or establishment of said thing. I see no problem with menorahs, or the Islamic Crescents being placed on public land in honor of some action or holiday.

It depends on how it is placed there. Most city councils require you to go through an approval process to place things on public property. Now if there was an open policy for religious festivals (including pagan holidays and whatnot), then fine. But that doesn't always seem to be the case.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It depends on how it is placed there. Most city councils require you to go through an approval process to place things on public property. Now if there was an open policy for religious festivals (including pagan holidays and whatnot), then fine. But that doesn't always seem to be the case.

I agree that it isn't the case in some places, and I think those places open themselves up for lawsuits they cannot win. I do think there has to be some standards (such as sacrificing animals or public orgies probably should be a no).

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I agree that it isn't the case in some places, and I think those places open themselves up for lawsuits they cannot win. I do think there has to be some standards (such as sacrificing animals or public orgies probably should be a no).

Who sets those standards?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

1. Because land is a commodity, and using it for religious display is essentially public financial support of religion. It also implies there's a state religion.

I agree with your second point and your whole last section. Here, though, I still disagree. As long as it is open to use for the public, then groups shouldn't be excluded from use because they are religious. Displays that are appropriate to community standards should not be discriminated against regardless of whether there is a religious connotation or not.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Who sets those standards?

Me. I've put in my resume but they have yet to make the final offer.