Seth wrote:
That is not, however, a distinction that groups like the FRFF make. They object to ALL religious displays on public property, regardless of their nature, who owns them, and who erected them.
That's not true. They don't object to holiday displays wherein there is a group of varying symbols, including secular - like all those holiday displays we see around. The FFRF limits its objections now to where someone is excluded.
No, it doesn't. It attacks any religious display it sees, and it ignores the fact that the display may exist as the sole religious expression not because anyone has been excluded, but merely because nobody else cares to erect and maintain another display. The notion that the city is required to solicit competing displays or that the sole person requesting a permit must be compelled to provide "balance" are both entirely unsupported. The city may issue a permit for a display to any person who puts in an application, and it must make arrangements to issue permits to EVERYONE who requests a permit, in some fashion (whether by dividing up the space or rotating the displays), but it is under no obligation to go out and find competing displays, it merely has to process all such applications the same, in a content-neutral fashion.[/quote]
That is simply not a correct statement of the law. You'll need to refer to the cases where privately funded displays on government property have been found to be unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Your statement is one of desire for what the law should be, and not for what the SCOTUS says it is.
Seth wrote:
They incorrectly view the ministerial process of a government agency approving the installation of a display of ANY sort on public property as being an unconstitutional act if that act happens to be the approval of a religious display. They are wrong in this.
They aren't totally wrong. If a town votes to allow installation of a giant crucifix with dying Jesus on it on the top of city hall, that would be unconstitutional regardless of who funds it.
Not if the area is established as a display space and the decision about what to display is based only on the health, safety and welfare aspects of the display, not the content.[/quote]
If the display space only has room for one thing, then it will be unconstitutional.
Seth wrote:
If the town sets aside a place atop city hall where private displays may be erected
Yes, that states merely the truism that IF a town creates a public forum, then it must be content neutral and nondiscriminatory.
But, if the state allows a cross to be placed atop the building, even if it is privately funded, and hasn't created a public forum, then that is unconstitutional.
Seth wrote:
and sets up a neutral application system open to all by which displays are permitted, then a group wishing to erect a crucifix would have as much right to erect that display as the FFRF would have to erect it's own secular display. For the city to discriminate based on the content of the display would be a First Amendment violation of the free-speech rights of the applicants.
Yes, but cite me an actual court case where the FFRF has sued to stop a public forum from being created where private persons may put up messages and symbols of their choice without discrimination as to content.
You SAY they oppose that, but you haven't shown any example of them ACTUALLY opposing it.
And, writing letters is not necessarily opposing that. Towns aren't always clear about what they're doing, and the FFRF will often send letters to towns making inquiries under the freedom of information act and otherwise for information as to what the town is doing and how the town is doing it. Quite often, the town's content neutrality and fair procedures coincidentally start after the FFRF has written them a letter.
Seth wrote:
I use the "democracy" argument to highlight the irrationality of expecting democratic rule in one area and not in another.
It's not irrational when we have a constitution that says that the majority can't vote to infringe freedom of speech, etc. There is nothing irrational about limitations on government power.
Precisely my point. And those limitations happen to include a limitation on government's power to inhibit the public exercise of religious speech and freedom in the interests of competing religions: Secularism and Atheism.[/quote]
If that is your point, then why would you "highlight the irrationality of expecting democratic rule in one area and not in another?" IF it's not irrational to expect that, then why would you highlight that's irrationality?
Seth wrote:
Our system, however, is not a democracy, which I pointed out, so the reality is that it doesn't apply to the way things actually are in the US, where there is rather more nuance applied to such questions than just whether or not the majority approves or does not approve.
It is a democracy in the conventional, modern English usage of the word, which makes it essentially synonymous with representative republic, or parliamentary system. We have the former, which is a democracy, although it is a constitutionally limited republic. Just like the UK is a democracy, even though it still has a monarchy.
Problem is, Socialists don't recognize that distinction or conventional usage. They think that democracy means mob rule, or alternatively minority rule.[/quote]
Well, I don't know any socialist who has said that. Most of them seem to me to think it means liberal parliamentary democracy. The more extreme ones aren't concerned with democracy at all, and merely want there to be an end to capitalism, and they think democracy is an illusion anyway, so they don't mind supporting guys they think are in their camp, like Chavez, who has them snowed into thinking he's creating the dictatorship of the proletariat.
