We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  For example, here is how to disable FireFox ad content blocking while on Silicon Investor.
Politics : Politics for Honest Conservatives

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: sense who wrote (2765)6/20/2019 6:58:59 PM
From: sense   of 2780
Supreme Court seems inclined to retain cross on public land

My opinion: Clear error exists in prior SCOTUS rulings on "separation of church and state"...

The point here being that "war memorials that use crosses to commemorate soldiers who died".... means that the memorials commemorate "the SOLDIERS" religious expression... not "the governments"... so that any government exercise of choice in relation to directing changes in the soldiers preference in expression (even in death) would violate the First Amendment.

The First Amendment imposes limits on the Federal government... and removes its limits on anyone else...

The limit the first amendment imposes (on government) is one that denies the government the ability to choose in matters of religion... it excludes government having any preference... which allows that choices are instead ENTIRELY left to the states, or to the people... while the Federal government itself remains aloof... essentially mandated to be blind, deaf, and dumb in matters of religion.

Choice is a simple matter, in logic, that consists of a sorting in, AND a sorting out... this, and not that. You can't have choice without the INHERENT pairing of both inclusion AND exclusion... even if one or the other is ignored in asserting choices made as only positive (inclusion) or negative (exclusion) choices.

Current rulings are in error as they validate the government choosing "and not that" as being an act of not choosing... when it is in fact the definition of the act of choosing. On that basis, the government has been wrongly suppressing private expression of religious belief... by excluding it... while claiming any persons presence on government property, or their employment by government, or mere association with government... converts their expressions into "government" speech... which clearly is ludicrous. (That second error in logic is obviously rooted in a wrongful extension of government ownership... to include persons, the people... as a part of the property of the government that is thus made subject to their control. )

Exclusion is choice. The government is disallowed by the First Amendment from either including or excluding any GOVERNMENT involvement in... the direction of... or the prohibition of... others expressions of religious belief. That right to express private opinion... includes the right to express private opinion in public.

That expression "occurs in public" does not convert the private expression of an opinion made in public... into "government speech".

The question then does become one of the nature of the lines drawn between what is "government" expression and what is a persons "private" expression...

My employment status... does not convert my opinion into the opinion of my employer ?

Government... cannot deny government employees their private right to have and express opinions, including in those opinions that are tied to their PERSONAL religious beliefs... government cannot exclude that expression by a person (including an employee) without exercising a government choice... but government also cannot allow any PERSONAL beliefs to be asserted by the government (and not a person), as being the government's belief... without exercising a choice.

Given the rigidity of the prohibition... no expression should ever be considered "government" expression... as long as there are no tax dollars being applied in generating a "forced" expression... constituting a "practice". The prohibition applies equally, also, in relation to any expressions by others that are made apparent in the study of others philosophy, or art work ? Religion is a fact... it exists... it has impact... and government cannot impose its opinion as a choice by forcing others to ignore the fact... so that the study of history should somehow inherit the government's requirement to be blind to religious difference ? The government being "blind" to religion... requires the government being blind to personal choices in the the study of religion ?

The Federal government doesn't run schools... so has no business addressing religion in schools... as doing so would itself be an prohibited exercise of government choice.

On matters of religion... the Federal government is required to be blind... deaf... and dumb... in relation to the states, or personal expressions... which every person is fully entitled to have and express as a personal choice.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext