"Ben Kaufman" <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote

"It's all about keeping a clearly religious symbol, a Christian cross,
on
public land. Whether it's city, state, or federal land should make no
difference. It is illegal."

... snipped for readability.

The facts that the Soledad cross is not in a cemetery and no one
considered it
to be a memorial until after efforts to take it down began refutes your
assertion that they are exactly the same issue.

No, they are both Christian Crosses on public land. For the scope laid out,
they are exactly the same thing. If you wish to move the goal posts to save
face, fine do so, and most already think you're in the right anyways just
because of gut hatred for Christianity, so whatever. But, we will both know
you hold a double standard. Christian Crosses on public land are ok if they
are in a cemetery, and not just on grave stones there by personal choice,
but on monuments commissioned by the government.

The vast majority of memorials in Arlington are not crosses.

Really means nothing, and you know that.

For example, out
of the thirty-seven listed in the url below only two are crosses, the
Argonne
Cross WWI memorial and the Canadian Cross of sacrifice.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/memorials.htm

You need to add the monument to the Mexican civil war, as well as other
crosses on that public land.

I also put forth that these structures were erected at a time of
insensitivity
to non-christians and non-whites. They are now of historical significance
so I
don't think anyone will be replacing them any time soon.

All fine and all moot. They are still crosses on public land. There's been
instances of much older monuments being removed than the Canadian Cross of
Sacrifice recently, so I can't really even see the significance of that
argument.

"Ben Kaufman" <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote

"It's all about keeping a clearly religious symbol, a Christian cross,
on
public land. Whether it's city, state, or federal land should make no
difference. It is illegal."

... snipped for readability.

The facts that the Soledad cross is not in a cemetery and no one
considered it
to be a memorial until after efforts to take it down began refutes your
assertion that they are exactly the same issue.

No, they are both Christian Crosses on public land. For the scope laid out,
they are exactly the same thing. If you wish to move the goal posts to save
face, fine do so, and most already think you're in the right anyways just
because of gut hatred for Christianity, so whatever. But, we will both know
you hold a double standard. Christian Crosses on public land are ok if they
are in a cemetery, and not just on grave stones there by personal choice,
but on monuments commissioned by the government.

The vast majority of memorials in Arlington are not crosses.

Really means nothing, and you know that.

For example, out
of the thirty-seven listed in the url below only two are crosses, the
Argonne
Cross WWI memorial and the Canadian Cross of sacrifice.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/memorials.htm

You need to add the monument to the Mexican civil war, as well as other
crosses on that public land.

I also put forth that these structures were erected at a time of
insensitivity
to non-christians and non-whites. They are now of historical significance
so I
don't think anyone will be replacing them any time soon.

All fine and all moot. They are still crosses on public land. There's been
instances of much older monuments being removed than the Canadian Cross of
Sacrifice recently, so I can't really even see the significance of that
argument.

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 17:14:48 GMT, Fester <not@home.com> in news
message <cspBg.31600$so3.18596@southeast.rr.com> wrote:

Liz wrote:

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 18:32:36 GMT, Fester <not@home.com> in news
message <8v5Bg.29754$so3.1180@southeast.rr.com> wrote:

Liz wrote:

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 15:43:12 GMT, Fester <not@home.com> in news
message <k03Bg.29747$so3.7840@southeast.rr.com> wrote:

Liz wrote:

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 22:35:38 GMT, Fester <not@home.com> in news
message <_YPAg.29713$so3.8740@southeast.rr.com> wrote:

[----]

Public art in parks and elsewhere is a perfectly
acceptable use of taxpayer funds. The fact that such art may carry
religious significance does not constitute an establishment of religion.

Certainly art can express religious themes, and as part of an
exhibition or craft/art sale and show, can be displayed in a public
arena. The government has not purchased the art nor is it endorsing
the art, it is merely providing a temporary venue for the art no
matter what its theme. Are you now suggesting that the cross in
question is an work of art and not a memorial, that it is a part of an
exhibition of larger body of work that is religiously neutral.

It need not be part of a larger body to be artistic expression. See below.

Are you suggesting that it *is* a work of art rather than a memorial?

I'm suggesting that it is both.

LOL. I am sure that its supporters would be willing to call it a
baseball diamond if that meant that the cross could remain where it
is. Keep going. What else is it? Maybe we could hang swings from
the outstretched arms and call it playground equipment.


[----]

I remember years ago, in the NY Met, viewing some
spectacular canvases by Titian, IIRC, of Jehovah and his good angels
battling Satan and the evil angels, and casting them down to hell.
Large, beautiful and dramatic. From your comments, you and I would
certainly agree that there is no problem with a public museum displaying
such pieces. What if the mayor and city government decided that one of
these would be an excellent adornment for city hall? Would that cross
the line, in your opinion?

To me, yes. The difference being that the purpose of a museum is to
display art, and art is displayed based not upon its theme but on the
quality of the artistry. The purpose of city hall is not to display
art, but to conduct government business. A religious painting in such
a building is in no way essential to the purpose of the building,
therefore the religious aspects must be taken into account as per the
tests that the Supreme Court has found applicable.

But public is art is routinely displayed at city hall. I would be OK
with a Titian hanging in city hall, due to its artistic and historical
merits, which would outweigh the objections against it's primary purpose
for being there. I would certainly object to a cross.

I would probably object to taxpayer money being spend on a Titian
rather than improving the fire department. You could argue that the
painting was an investment, but it is neither liquid nor secure, and
as decoration, it is too expensive and subject to deterioration
outside of controlled conditions of a museum. Government has a
responsibility to keep the taxpayers funds safe and use them for their
intended purpose else corruption will follow. As an example, the
State of Ohio, under the inept governorship of Robert Taft authorized
the 'investment' of $50 million in Workers' Compensation funds in rare
coins. Coins came up missing and only $13 million of the original
investment was returned to the BWC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coingate

Speculative investments or disbursements that do not further the
services the government is authorized to provide is possibly illegal
and always misuse of public money.

But I digress.

Parks are different, in that one of their principal purposes is to allow
people to express themselves, including through artwork. For that
reason, I am inclined to find more flexibility to be justified in the
law WRT to free exercise there.

Yes, people can express themselves. However, the cross is not a
personal expression. It is a government expression.

Does the religious painting have a secular purpose? In this case, I
would say no it does not. If the purpose is merely decoration, then a
landscape or historical photographs of the town would be appropriate.
In fact, I can't think of a secular purpose for a religious painting
displayed in a city hall.

I would say that a work of art that the citizens want to see there
serves a secular purpose.

I'm sure you would. LOL

How about this example: I was recently in
Union Station in DC, and the grand waiting area was ringed with statues
of Mercury (I think that's who it was). Does the display of this pagan
god represent an establishment of paganism?

If Amtrak, who owns and has their headquarters in Union Station,
wishes to put up a 30 foot cross or neon lighted Star of David in the
middle of the bowling alley or bistro, then that is their decision.

(Amtrak is a corporation not a government agency. The government owns
Amtrak's preferred stock, but that does not change its character from
a corporation, as the common stock is held by private investors.)

Amtrak does not own the station. It is government property.

Please site your source. Every reference to current ownership I have
found says that Amtrak owns the Station.

[----]

My bottom line point, is that our Constitution describes a balance among
competing ideals. We have the establishment clause, but we also have
the free exercise and free expression clauses. I do not think that our
founders intended one clause to be more important than the other or for
it to be more broadly interpreted at the expense of the others.

Exactly, the government can not coerce people to support or
participate in religion against their will. Individuals have the
right to religious expression (as long as that religious expression
does not violate the secular laws of the US, which is why human
sacrifice, even if it is a valid religious practice, is not allowed)
without interference from the government. They, otoh, do not have the
right of support or endorsement of their religion or religious
activities from the government. The balance between these two clauses
is what the individual can do and what the government can not do