eagle scout ordered to take god out of park project

[Beavah]

So what IS "the best"?

 

The best is behavin' like civil human beings. Like what we teach the kids.

 

Some things are just too small to be worried about, even if they're "wrong" according to some document somewhere. We don't really care that Willy Coronado's WOSM patch is too low on his uniform, or that he's wearin' grey loops with a SM position patch.

 

Some things we might find personally annoying, but we allow them and keep our mouths shut because it's meaningful and important for other people.

 

and on and on.

 

Not everything has to become an adversarial, technical argument. And if we turn everything into an adversarial, technical argument, we use up the good will and tolerance that keeps society together. Win the battle and be left holdin' nuthin' but ash.

 

------

 

Sorry, Calico, what you're describin' ain't possible. History, science, literature, all human knowledge are viewpoints, not "facts." Ideas. Ethics, aesthetics, theology are also viewpoints. Important ones. They often have as much or more impact on science and history and sociology than vice versa.

 

Yeh wouldn't want public information displays to be about science, written by non-scientists expressin' their opinion, eh? Might get some really odd science that way. Most importantly, kids or the public who only got that view of science would become biased or impoverished. Similarly, why would anyone want displays about religion, written in a way no religionist would express things? That doesn't lead to education or understanding; it leads to bias and impoverished understanding.

 

In da end, you've banned one whole major branch of human thought from public lands. The folks who are "experts" in that field cannot contribute their own writings, and in some cases even experts in other fields can't be allowed to put forth their opinion. Religion must be closeted.

 

That is book burning, my friend, just a high-tech version of it. Or at least, it's a good way to convince a lot of citizens to vote against acquisition and funding for public lands and endeavors where their viewpoints are excluded.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[evmori]

Therefore, this set of stones is an Astronomy display.

 

And you know this how? It is nowhere in the article. Do you know the Scout personally to know he meant this to be an Astronomy display? You seem to be assuming a lot Calico!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

A blessed New Year to all

[CalicoPenn]

It's a visual depiction of the solar system, with each planet placed the corresponding distance from the sun. How is this not an astronomy display?

 

I've got to say, It's rare that anyones argue that history isn't a set of facts. Now those sets of facts may be interpreted through different viewpoints, but the basis of those viewpoints is fact. Same with science. Theories and hypothesis are interpretations of facts, but the facts remain steady. But I'm willing to keep an open mind. Convince me that the fact that a gull is a bird is just an interpretation, or that Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941 is just an interpretation.

[Beavah]

Convince me that the fact that a gull is a bird is just an interpretation, or that Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941 is just an interpretation.

 

Naming something is a core act of interpretation. By creating the term "bird" we say "this concept of 'birdness' exists" and some things have it and some things don't. That is an interpretation of the raw observation of nature, where all that really exists is our observation of the gull. The made-up term "bird" divides critters into divisions of "birdness." It's even a fuzzy one at the edges... do featherless but homeothermic flying dino-precursors to modern birds have "birdness"? How about platypuses?

 

Pearl Harbor Day is a better example, though it's a bit recent. We have indirect evidence (written accounts, still a few surviving eyewitnesses, etc.) and some limited direct evidence (remains and video from the bombing) that something happened on that day. For other "historical events" the evidence, both direct and indirect, becomes more sketchy, eh? In fact, which evidence was kept and recorded, and which evidence was destroyed and forgotten is itself a type of human interpretation of what is valuable and what isn't. So we have to interpret the evidence. For Pearl Harbor, there's some question of whether some members of the government knew about the attack earlier, etc.... stuff that's no longer clear from the evidence.

 

More important, though, is that including Pearl Harbor, or the invention of the steam engine, or the role of Thomas Paine in the Revolution in an educational exhibit is an act of interpretation. Da creator of an interpretive exhibit chooses what to include, and thereby offers an interpretation of what was meaningful or important or just plain interesting. That's how history is "written" - by selection and interpretation of data.

 

Dat's how all human knowledge works, eh? We choose what data to keep or to pay attention to. We choose what is worthwhile or interesting to incorporate into our understandin'. All human knowledge is a selection and interpretation of our experiences and observations.

 

Yah, and that's why efforts to suppress religious viewpoints are so pernicious, eh? It's an interpretation that such viewpoints are valueless and should not be selected for inclusion in the bank of human knowledge we pass along to our kids in the public realm. That is "book-burning."

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

So Beavah, would you agree that allowing a scout to put up a street sign that says "Elm Street" also must allow that scout to erect a sign that says e.g. "god hates fags"?

[Beavah]

Yah, Merlyn, I know yeh like to play da edges of every argument, eh? Again, that's legal thinkin', rather than usin' practical judgment. Nuthin' to say that yeh can't say "no" to a Fred Phelps addition to a street sign and "yes" to a poetic addition to a planet walk.

 

Because, yeh see, that's about how the vast majority of our fellow citizens would decide, eh? And even in law, there is a "reasonable man." Much like da standards for pornography and such; for some topics which require common sense judgment, yeh go with the norms for the community.

 

Fred Phelps is anathema even in most Baptist circles, let alone among da rest of us Christian types. Feel free to criticize him all yeh like. Da thing is, yeh look a lot like him to us, just on the other extreme. Yah, sure, you're smarter than picketing the funeral of a 6-year-old LDS kid. But it does seem like yeh wish our ideas to just go away, and not "infect" your public space.... and will use "tactics" to try to achieve that, eh? (from lawsuits to efforts to defund us to bannin' our notions from "public" places to blamin' the organization for every bad act of a pedophile) Plus yellin' at us a lot, of course .

 

Somewhere between those two extremes lies rational civility, where a tasteful stone with a poetic reference to God can be welcomed and tolerated as an expression of a branch of human thought meaningful to some of our fellow citizens.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[evmori]

Exactly! It's a depiction of our solar system with God as the Creator. That doesn't make it an Astronomy display.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

A blessed New Year to all

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

Yah, Merlyn, I know yeh like to play da edges of every argument, eh? Again, that's legal thinkin', rather than usin' practical judgment. Nuthin' to say that yeh can't say "no" to a Fred Phelps addition to a street sign and "yes" to a poetic addition to a planet walk.

 

Well Beavah, I'd say you're the one clearly advocating censorship; you'll allow ideas you agree with, and disallow ideas you disagree with. You judge whether certain ideas can be expressed based on how well you like them. That's genuine censorship.

 

[evmori]

Well Beavah, I'd say you're the one clearly advocating censorship;

 

You are, too, Merlyn. You advocate the removal of God from all government stuff by claiming this is endorsing religion, yet you have yet to say what religion this endorses. And remember, Christianity isn't a religion. It is a belief.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

A blessed New Year to all

[CalicoPenn]

Ok - I give up - I'm starting to feel like a character on Monty Python - My Brain Hurts!

 

Since we are being told that a name is at core an interpretation, and since a number and/or date is merely a name we use to interpret figures and days, there can be no such thing as a fact, since we would use words to express a fact, and words are pretty much names of concepts and therefore just interpretation. So I get it now - there is no such thing as a fact. A Gull may be a bird, but its not a fact that its a bird because Bird is just a name that we use to identify similar species like Gulls but Bird is really just a name and that name is just an interpretation. Ok - so there can never, ever be a fact because our words are not capable of expressing fact since words are just an interpretation.

 

At the same time, an astronomy exhibit that mentions the word god can never be an astronomy exhibit because it mentions the word god. Never mind that the Catholic Church hired people as Astronomers (you know, those folks that studied the objects in the "heavens", a science known as, hmmm - Astronomy) - it's obvious to me now that because they were working for "God" that they weren't studying astronomy at all - they must have been studying Theology, which of course means those Astronomers weren't Astronomers at all, but were Theologians. I guess that means that Michelangelo wasn't an Artist - he must have been a Theologian since he was hired by the Church. And all those musicians that created hymns - nope, they weren't musicians - they were Theologians too. A walking tour of the architecture of Notre Dame Cathedral isn't a walking tour of architecture at all - its a walking tour of Theology.

 

Ok - I'm heading off to get an aspirin - or twenty.

 

Calico

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

You advocate the removal of God from all government stuff by claiming this is endorsing religion, yet you have yet to say what religion this endorses.

 

Oddly enough, I have yet to say what religion that endorses because it doesn't endorse a specific religion. However, that does not mean it's constitutional.

 

And remember, Christianity isn't a religion. It is a belief.

 

So Christianity could be outlawed, as it is no longer a religion protected by the first amendment? Is that really what you mean?

[evmori]

Well if you state it endorses religion, pick one! If ya can't then how is it unconstitutional?

 

No you can't outlaw Christianity, it's a belief. You might be able to in the old USSR or other communist countries.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

A blessed New Year to all

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

Well if you state it endorses religion, pick one! If ya can't then how is it unconstitutional?

 

Because the first amendment doesn't just prohibit the government from promoting a particular religion, Ed. See Engel v. Vitale for example.

 

No you can't outlaw Christianity, it's a belief.

 

But you said it wasn't a religion; that means it isn't a religion that is protected by the first amendment's religion clause, right?

[evmori]

The 1st Amendment guarantees us as American the freedom of religion. It also guarantees us the government will not force us to believe in a specific religion or persecute us for not believing in a specific religion. The God stone in this display is in no way a violation of the 1st Amendment.

 

No Christianity isn't a religion. So it doesn't fall under the protection of the 1st Amendment. Then again, since it isn't a religion, it needs no protection.

 

Hope you enjoyed your Christian holiday off work, Merlyn.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

A blessed New Year to all

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

The 1st Amendment guarantees us as American the freedom of religion.

 

Yes, Ed, but you're claiming Christianity is NOT a religion. If it isn't a religion, the first amendment's religion clause doesn't apply to it.

 

It also guarantees us the government will not force us to believe in a specific religion or persecute us for not believing in a specific religion.

 

Yes, Ed, but you're claiming Christianity is NOT a religion. If it isn't a religion, the first amendment's religion clause doesn't apply to it.

 

Do you still want to assert that Christianity is not a religion?

 

The God stone in this display is in no way a violation of the 1st Amendment.

 

I think it is, Ed. So did Arvada city officials.

 

No Christianity isn't a religion. So it doesn't fall under the protection of the 1st Amendment.

 

And Christian churches are no longer tax-exempt, right?

 

Then again, since it isn't a religion, it needs no protection.

 

If you think only religious speech needs protection, you're misinformed.

 

Hope you enjoyed your Christian holiday off work, Merlyn.

 

Saturnalia?