You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
2

[–] Eideard [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I get what you are saying, but this is not about the actual display per say, rather it is about breaking the first amendments establishment clause, namely from a christian symbol being on government land.

"a cross displayed on government property, approved by the mayor and borough council, endorses religion in clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment."

The same holds true for nativity scenes, 10 commandments, other crosses, etc. which have all been removed because of the establishment clause.

Of course the other option here is to allow any religious display, but in the past when that has happened, then the Church of Satan will put up their displays and everyone freaks out, and then everything gets removed.

So when looked at that way, and the point of the satanists, is that it is clearly an advancement of Christianity endorsed by the local government, if it really is not that important, why is it that alternate religions are met with disdain and gnashing of teeth?

Here is an example of their work, when this happens:

http://www.vice.com/read/heres-the-first-look-at-the-new-satanic-monument-being-built-for-oklahomas-statehouse

0
1

[–] WillisJaxson 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I understand that. I'm just saying this piece of art is simply depicting a soldier at a grave. How else are you going to depict a grave as an artist? I simply don't put this display in the same category as a nativity scene, 10 commandments, or bible display. To say the piece is endorsing religion and excluding others is a real stretch of the imagination imho. Clearly the plaintiffs need a good pussy grabbin'.

0
1

[–] Eideard [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I know you are focused on the art, where I am focused on the law, both positions have merit, sure.

I guess, to me, focusing on the art, is more seeing the bee to spite the hive.

On that topic, don't you think a tomb stone, which predates a cross on a grave (started around the 19th century), be just as effective? Halloween decorations use them quite effectively. I know it is silly and fairly pedantic, just was wondering if you would be just as OK with such a change?