|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Phelps plans Shepard monument; Scot turns Buddhist
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
no, scott, i'm saying the same standards should apply. do you honestly feel that this phelps monument is in any way equivilent to the 10 commandments one? do you not think that there are a myrid of criteria and standards that all prospective monuments are screened on? don't you at least suspect that this fails a few of them? do you think this one should automatically pass just because its religious?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
What nicolemrw said.
There are, I assume, rules and regulations about where one can place advertising hoardings and what one can put on them in the US? Surely, Messrs Pepsi and Coke would not be allowed to advertise their produce by displaying, say, an explicit depiction of the sexual act on the grounds that it is offensive? The defamation of Mr Shepard, I would have thought, is rather more offensive. A similar principle could, therefore, be legitimately applied.
Freedom of Speech is not an absolute. The municipal authority who owns the park could properly object that the proposed monument would adversely affect the park's ambience. Mr and Mrs Shepard presumably have rights of their own, particularly the rights not to see their late son co-opted as an anti-poster boy for Mr Phelp's particularly neanderthal brand of bigotry. The Police might legitimately object to the statue on public order grounds.
I'm not an expert on US law, there might be no reasonable grounds on which a person might object to this statue, and naturally Mr Phelp's rights should be upheld to the letter of the law. But it should be the letter of the law that killeth. If there is the slightest opportunity to prevent the erection of Mr Phelp's monument, then it should be prevented. We may be obliged to tolerate opinions we disapprove of, we are not obliged to encourage them.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
do you not think that there are a myrid of criteria and standards that all prospective monuments are screened on? don't you at least suspect that this fails a few of them?
I think that the two monuments are likely to fail the same tests and pass the same tests. Perhaps if you have something specific in mind you could be more precise.
You and Mr. Callan are discriminating between two expressions on the basis of moral value judgements. How would you answer the atheists who object to the 10 Commandment monument?
As much as I despise Phelps, he has the same right to public express his opinions as I have to public state that those same opinions are sick and hateful. You can't have one without the other.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
i think you are not thinking deeply enough, scot. i am sure that there are regulations that would prohibit, for example, the ku klux klan from erecting a monument in the park. things such as (i'm just guessing here, but i'd be seriously surprised if i were wrong) that it would tend to harm the city in the eyes of the world, or that it could be inflamatory. erecting a monument in a public park is not a right. i don't know how it works in other places, but here in nyc, as far as i can tell from what i've seen, a monument or statue, or whatever can be offered to the parks dept, but they are in no way obligated to take it. to think that this is a free speech issue is absurd.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
btw, in case you are interested, here are the guidelines for donating works of art to nyc parks. i can see several of the guidelines that most likely would disqualify this proposed monument if the guidelines there are similar:
guidelines
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Big Chaz:
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Well I take my biretta off to Dr Phelps. At least he is honest enough to say what he really means, unlike all the mealy mouthed wankers who claim to 'love the sinner and hate the sin' which amounts to saying:
"As a Christian I love you, but I just hate what you are"
Phred gets straight to the point. He really hates you 'cos the Bible tells him to.
Do you always have to see eye to eye with someone before you love them? Isn't life and freidship prity boaring like this?
Well it must look like that if you take the worms out of the can. But, if that's the case, how do you explain the chlamydian velocipede?
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
...how do you explain the chlamydian velocipede?
(emphasis by me)
An STD bicycle? You're a freak.
I'm totally reaching on assumptions here, but I assume you mean to connect what you might interpret as an increase of STDs as being related to god's judgement on increased homosexual activity. This means you're stupider than even I thought. Both homosexuality and STDs have been around for a long, long time - and the only thing likely to have increased is public awareness.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
No, on cyclists, you dumb bottom. Haven't you read Leviticus?
[ 16. October 2003, 20:07: Message edited by: Fiddleback ]
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
No, on cyclists, you dumb bottom. Haven't you read Leviticus?
No, I have not read Leviticus. Do you mean to tell me that there's some biblical passage concerning mindless hatred of gays that's somehow connected to cyclists? Tell me more. I like a good laugh.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
The incidence of increased STDs (not to mention infertility) among cyclists represents God's judgement upon them? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Does this mean we need to wipe the bicycle seat before we sit down?
Maybe they should start providing those paper toilet seat covers with a bicycle purchase?
Latex seat condoms?
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
No, I have not read Leviticus. Do you mean to tell me that there's some biblical passage concerning mindless hatred of gays that's somehow connected to cyclists? Tell me more. I like a good laugh.
Yes, but God will not be mocked. You know that, don't you matey?
Let me put it this way. One side of my stainless steel cheese grater which I have just washed up has the word 'cheese' embossed on it while the other has 'carrots'. What do you think the manufacturers (Prestige Quality Kitchenware Ltd UK) would do if they knew that I had been grating cheddar on the side designated for carrots and similar root vegetables? They'd be fucking livid I can tell you. They'd hate me. You just figure that out if you can't be arsed to read Leviticus.
[ 16. October 2003, 21:48: Message edited by: Fiddleback ]
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Yes, but God will not be mocked. You know that, don't you matey?
Bah, I know no such thing. If christianity in general isn't a mockery of god, Phelps certainly is. Actually, you're pretty funny too.
quote:
You just figure that out if you can't be arsed to read Leviticus.
I propose some quid pro quo. I'll read your Leviticus if you read some of my toilet paper. Just keep your gratings out of this.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Fiddleback, I researched Leviticus about bicycle seats. Biblical scholar that you are, you were correct. Right there at 16:13 is the reference. I have quoted it here in its entirety for the rest of the Ship.
quote:
and put the incense on the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the bicycle, or he will die.
This, of course surprised me as I had been under the impression that the bicycle was invented by Leonardo Da Vinci. So I looked in my Midrashim to see what it said about the passage. Sure enough the bicycle seat referred to was used by a homosexual person and all of the people who rode it after him suffered the wrath of God in the form of saddle sores and aching knees.
What also surprised me was that other passage in Leviticus about Levite Priests and gel shorts.
Sometimes you just never know.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Big Chaz
Shipmate
# 4862
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Well it must look like that if you take the worms out of the can. But, if that's the case, how do you explain the chlamydian velocipede?
Whossshhh! sorry mate, right over my head. Who and what am I explaining?
[My Jihad against UBB errors leads me to rip of your mouse-arm and flog you with it.]
[ 16. October 2003, 23:23: Message edited by: RooK ]
Posts: 91 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I'm gonna spare you the details, Chaz, but believe me when I say the concept of a chlamydian velocipede is unspeakably foul. Where the hell do you get this shit, Fiddleback?
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
What do you think the manufacturers (Prestige Quality Kitchenware Ltd UK) would do if they knew that I had been grating cheddar on the side designated for carrots and similar root vegetables? They'd be fucking livid I can tell you.
Oh come on. You're very well aware that von Campenhausen demonstrated quite convincingly that the καρρωτ and its cognates used in this document is post-classical and in context can cover any vegetable, fruit or dairy product.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
I think that the two monuments are likely to fail the same tests and pass the same tests. Perhaps if you have something specific in mind you could be more precise.
You and Mr. Callan are discriminating between two expressions on the basis of moral value judgements. How would you answer the atheists who object to the 10 Commandment monument?
Nicole's helpful link gives a number of reasons why those responsible for municipal parks might choose to discriminate between the proposed Phelps monument and the 10cs. The criteria of park use, for example. Do children use the park, for example? If Mr and Mrs Representative-Atheist were taking their children to the park do you really think that they would object equally and indifferently to the 10 Commandments and the Phelps memorial when they were obliged to explain the context of both works of art to their offspring.
I'm not an atheist, so it would be wrong to claim that I can speak on their behalf, but if the positions were transposed I would not necessarily object to coming across, say, an extract from Lucretius or Bertrand Russell on a monument, whereas I would object vehemently to, say, a monument to Mao or Stalin. There is a difference
between disagreement and offense. Presumably in Wyoming there is a planning process, a consultation process when these monuments are erected.
It is entirely proper and reasonable for a public authority to establish a work of art which has a reasonable degree of public backing, even if it doesn't have unanimous acclaim. The establishment of a work of art which is acceptable purely to Mr Phelps does not fall into that category. For a parks authority to allow the establishment of a work of art on municipal property which causes offense to the ratepayers and which would cause all kinds of headaches in terms of maintenance (to avoid its defacement would require round the clock surveillance I imagine) would constitute the grossest misuse of the ratepayers money. Wyoming may be different, but in the UK (and New York) this is elementary local government.
quote:
As much as I despise Phelps, he has the same right to public express his opinions as I have to public state that those same opinions are sick and hateful. You can't have one without the other.
No-one is suggesting that Mr Phelps be imprisoned or killed for his opinions or their expression thereof. What Nicole and I are suggesting is that the ratepayer is not obliged to enshrine them on municipal property.
If Mr Phelps were to sign up as a Shipmate I imagine that the expression of his opinions in the robust manner he usually prefers would swiftly fall foul of the Hosts and Admins. This is not, I imagine, because the Hosts and Admins are opposed to freedom of expression but because the purpose of the Ship is not to act as a vehicle for Mr Phelps' homophobic ravings.
In the same manner the purpose of a municipal park is the creation of an elegant form of rus in urbe for the enjoyment and recreation of the inhabitants of, and visitors to, a given municipality. The establishment of a monument of the type proposed by Mr Phelps is not in conformity with this objective and therefore it is entirely appropriate for the local authority to reject his proposal.
The fact that you seem unable to grasp this elementary and, I would have thought, uncontroversial proposition illustrates in graphic form the intellectual bankruptcy of libertarianism.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Callan, you are apparently not as bright as I previously thought. The fact that one monument is more offensive than the other is only a difference of degree, not type. The fact that one expression is more popular than the other does not afford it more protection under the law.
Nicole, which of the NYC guidelines do you think allows Exodus 20, but not Leviticus 18?
It is not the role of the government to allow or disallow religious views and expressions. As tomb pointed out, your religious view may be the next to go. Better that the government stick to regulating actions rather than thoughts and speech.
It is up to the rest of us Christians to loudly, publically and frequently repudiate Phelps and the bile he spews. Shame on us if we try to leave our job for the Parks Department.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Better that the government stick to regulating actions rather than thoughts and speech.
Hmm, isn't putting up a monument an action? Then again so is standing on a street corner yelling at folks ... where's the line between actions and speech? If taking a gun and shooting someone is wrong, is it right to shout from the street corner something that causes someone else to take a gun and shoot someone?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
I wondered if anyone would point that out. Yes, putting up a monument is an action. So is saying something. Since the purpose of those actions is to communicate an idea, I think they should be considered "speech".
I believe that the line between speech and action should be drawn according to purpose. If the primary goal or result of an act is to materially affect another person, then it is an action. If the primary goal or result is communication, then it is speech. I'm sure someone will have a more refined set of definitions, but that's how I see it.
quote:
If taking a gun and shooting someone is wrong, is it right to shout from the street corner something that causes someone else to take a gun and shoot someone?
Barring some sort of direct command, how can my words cause someone to shoot someone else? If someone reads this thread and then vandalizes Phelps's memorial, am I responsible because I spoke out in condemnation of it? Surely a free adult is responsible for his or her own actions.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Just seeking information here: are there no equivalents in the US to the English notions of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring an offence? Or incitement to commit violence? Or incitement to racial hatred? Or affray?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
scot, i am trying to be patient, i really am, but you are making it difficult. bit by bit here.
did you actually look at the proposed momument? it is not mearly a matter of a bible quote, but a "memorial" to the death and "entry into hell" of a specific person. quite a different thing. now straight off the bat, the nyc regulations suggest a _minimum_ of 5-10 years for a memorial to a specific incident or person. although it has been five years, for an incident of this type i think it could quite legitimatly be claimed that a longer waiting period is in order.
secondly, the question of appropriate location. where do you think an appropriate spot for a memorial to the "entry into hell" of a 21 year-old is? in a childrens plpayground prehaps? i don't think so. i can't think of any place that could be considered appropriate for that.
thirdly, the question of maintanence. given the response of people simply on this thread, (remarks about sledgehammers) i think that the parks dept. would have a legitimate reason for thinking that this monument would be extrmly high maintanence, and to reject it on those grounds.
then theres artistic merit. i'm not an artist, but frankly, the proposed monument looks like a tombstone. ugh.
i could go on but i won't.
it is not a "right" to erect a monument in a public park. if everyone had this right, there would soon be no more _park_ left. you can offer a gift, but there is absolutly no requirement for it to be accepted.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I flatter to deceive. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
However the issue is not one of freedom of speech. It is one of use of municipal facilities. The good burghers of Wyoming are quite entitled to say we want the 10cs in our park (which we pay for) and not the Phelps memorial.
You say that the government should regulate actions and not speech. I think a case can be made out that the erection of a lasting monument in a public park, drawing on public funds for its upkeep falls within the former sphere rather than the latter. You also say that it is the responsibility of the Church to condemn Phelps rather than depending on the Parks Department to do it for us. I agree, but if the interest of the Parks Department and the faith of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ happen to coincide it is entirely legitimate to bring the fact to their attention.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
The two monuments. One is a statement of beliefs held by a large number of people, on which an even larger number place some importance, and to which some might find offensive. The other, an attack on an deceased individual stating as fact something which no human on earth can know for certain.
I see a significant difference.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
The two monuments. One is a statement of beliefs held by a large number of people, on which an even larger number place some importance, and to which some might find offensive.
Sharkie,
you come close to convincing me that Scot is right - thyere's no point in just protecting the freedom to speak things "held by a large number of people, on which an even larger number place some importance".
Freedom of speech only counts if it it protects offensive bollocks as well,
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
It seems to me that there is a distinction between allowing Fred Phelps to stand in a park in Wyoming yelling his head off about this unfortunate young man and his supposed destination, and allowing Fred Phelps to force an unwanted monument on the good citizens of the state.
To forbid the former is to restrict his constitutional right to free speech - although there might be municipal bye-laws against preaching or speaking to a crowd in a recreational area - I don't know how Wyoming orders such things. Is the right to free speech so sacrosanct in the USA that I'm allowed to speak anywhere at any time?
To forbid the erection of a memorial is to forbid an action. What he puts on the memorial is secondary to that. If he thinks the decision unreasonable, no doubt he can litigate. I would be surprised to find that the right to free speech includes erecting monuments anywhere I choose with whatever I choose to write on them. If it is alleged that the existing, ten commandment monument sets a precedent, I would hope a reasonable lawyer could distinguish the two cases. I can think of a number of differences, such as that one inscription is a quotation from a widely known book, the other includes a personal attack on the memory of a named individual.
On a lighter note, I used to listen to a very entertaining Radio 4 programme called 'Old Harry's Game' in which the central character, played by a comedian, was the devil. In one episode he explained to a victim "This is my gloating face. It's the one I wear when I greet American evangelists at the gate!". Is it very wrong of me to hope that's true?
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
after thinking it over, i think i can sum up what i mean this way:
all the 10 commandments monument proves is that you can't disapprove a monument on religious grounds. it does not, however, mean the corrollary, that you must approve a monument on religious grounds. and there are many other reasons for disaproving this proposed monument.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Sharkie,
you come close to convincing me that Scot is right -
That was not my intention. I am having trouble putting my thoughts into words, so I'll bow out.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Tomb, you started this. Where are you now?
Dyfrig, I'm not a lawyer but I believe there are equivalents to some of the
concepts you listed. However, we are not talking about abetting,
counselling or procurring an offence, nor incitement to commit violence.
Incitement to racial hatred does not sound like a concept which has a US
analogue, but I could be mistaken.
Nicole, don't let me tax your overworked patience. Say what you really
think. I hope it's more convincing than your argument that the Phelps
monument should be banned due to lack of artistic merit.
By the way, are municipalities in your world allowed to discriminate on any
basis that appeals to the parks commissioner, or is there a list of groups
and views to which he must restrict his discrimination? Enquiring minds
want to know.
Mr. Callan, you previously made reference to the NYC guidelines for monument
donors. That document stipulates that the donor must provide for the
ongoing maintenance of the piece. I'm not sure why upkeep is a factor here.
Surely you aren't grasping at straws of practicality because your case is
weak on principle?
I'm curious about your basis for claiming that the citizens of Wyoming are
entitled to discriminate between displays of religious art on public
property. Members of minority religions in this country have found many
battles to prove otherwise. Perhaps they didn't consider the justification
you are using. Let's hear it.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
ya' know scot, i'm beginning to wonder what your motive really is here. it would be nice if you would actually address the issues i've raised, though. i shall restate.
1. there is no freedom of speech issue involved because there is no right for anyone who wants to, to raise a monument in a public park. if everyone was granted such a right there wouldn't be any room left in the parks.
2. a direct quote from my last post:
quote:
all the 10 commandments monument proves is that you can't disapprove a monument on religious grounds. it does not, however, mean the corrollary, that you must approve a monument on religious grounds. and there are many other reasons for disaproving this proposed monument.
(i should have said "there are many other valid reasons etc.")
once again, i would like to see you actually address my points.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
ok, let me put this more concretely.
say i decide that i want to memorialoize my father in a public park. i commision a statue. its the most dreadful, awful, ugly looking thing you'd ever want to see. not only that, but it's covered with sharp spikes, very dangerous to little kids running around. and i offer it to the local park to put in the playground. quite rightly they turn it down.
so i take it back and put a bible verse on it and offer it to them again. so now your saying that they have to take it because its religious???
[ 17. October 2003, 19:38: Message edited by: nicolemrw ]
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eanswyth
Ship's raven
# 3363
|
Posted
As someone who has, in fact, had a memorial installed in a public park, I can give an example of what actually happens. This park is a municipal park owned by the City of San Diego, California.
We lost two friends in one month a few years ago and I wanted to establish a memorial in the park where a large group of us spent most every Sunday afternoon. I had to contact the city Parks Department and get their approval on what and where the memorials would be. We wanted two benches, one for each friend, with his name and DOB/DOD on a plaque. We were given the option of purchasing the same style concrete bench used throughout the park and they would maintain it, or supplying one of another style, but we would have to provide sufficient funds to pay for X years' upkeep (can't remember how many). The text on the plaques could not contain religious content and had to be signed off by the Parks Director before the manufacturer could start work. I could express my preference for location within the park, but they could veto based on their intended use of the park.
I'm not arguing whether they have the right to ban religious content, just sharing what the process looks like. In fact, San Diego has lost some big lawsuits about religious content on public land. They chose, instead of removing the "offending items", to sell the land to private parties. I think they are now being sued over doing that without the consent (vote) of the citizens of the city.
Posts: 1323 | From: San Diego | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Have you always been slow, or are you writing before your morning coffee? Nobody (especially me) claimed that any old thing must be allowed just because it has a bible verse on it. We are talking about a monument which appears to be similar in form to many monuments in many parks. Presumably its form meets the standards set by the Casper Parks Department.
What we are arguing about (at least those of us who are paying attention) is whether the damned thing can be rejected solely on the basis of its "unusual" religious content. If religious expressions were banned from the public park, then this one could be banned. However, that is not the case. Popular religious expressions are allowed in the park and that means that unpopular religious expressions must be allowed too.
I am going to hold a grudge for a long, long time over being made to defend Phred in any way. However, if there's one thing that irritates my bowels more than hate-mongering pricks masquerading as "gospel preachers," it's the goddamned thought and speech police.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
We are talking about a monument which appears to be similar in form to many monuments in many parks. Presumably its form meets the standards set by the Casper Parks Department.
its not the physical form thats the question here, i simply chose that for my hypothetical example because its the simplest to illustrate. the point is that the only reason you seem to be saying that they can not turn down this monument is because it contains religious content. that because it contains religious content it must be accepted irregardless of any other concerns or issues. this is plainly rubbish.
another example if you prefer. is the city obliged to accept a gift that will very likely cause it to be embroiled in expensive litegation (since theres a at least the potential for the shepard family to sue for big bucks on the grounds of something along the lines of mental distress. even if they didn't win, the city could still potentially be tangled up in law cases for years)
is the city obliged to accept a gift that could cause it signifigant bad publicity and concordent loss of revenue from businesses deciding they'd rather not be associated with it, and loss of tourism money?
is the city, for that matter, obliged to accept a gift from someone who does not live in the city?
and you have not yet addressed my point that this is not a freedom of speech issue because you have no automatic right to place a monument in a park.
btw, accusing me of all people as being soft on freedom of speech is the most absurd thing anyone has ever said. its the thing that i'm most fanatical about in the world. but this isn't a freedom of speech issue and all your convolutions and rants against the "thought police" won't mae it into one.
if it were a matter of phelps wanting to protest, demopnstrate, march etc (which in fact he is doing, if you read the casper tribune you will find out that he's planning picketts of six casper churches) then i would say that is absolutly his right. and it is his right.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
We are talking about a monument which appears to be similar in form to many monuments in many parks.
Similar in form, yes. But it's where it differs from similar monuments that is telling ... most such monuments will have words like "in loving memory of", the words on Phelps proposed monument are totally different.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matrix
Shipmate
# 3452
|
Posted
Scot,
We're not slow, or stupid, or caffiene deficient.
We are aware of something that you patently are not, that at times there are competing freedoms. Your freedom of speech cannot be used as a freedom to incite hatred. Get it?
This is not about thought police, or anything else, it's about competing freedoms. And freedom of speech does have limitations, don't be so dogmatic that you can't see the obvious!
--------------------
Maybe that's all a family really is; a group of people who miss the same imaginary place. - Garden State
Posts: 3847 | From: The courts of the King | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
it's not a freedom of speech issue. there is no freedom of speech issue involved!
you might, possibly, convince me that there is a freedom of religion issue involved. even that i think would be doubtful. but not freedom of speech!!!
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eanswyth
Ship's raven
# 3363
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Have you always been slow, or are you writing before your morning coffee? Nobody (especially me) claimed that any old thing must be allowed just because it has a bible verse on it.
Dear Scot,
Please address the person to whom you are responding. As this came right after my post, my blood pressure spiked for a few seconds because I thought you were addressing me until I read further.
Love muchly,
E
Posts: 1323 | From: San Diego | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
My apologies, Eanswyth. I must have neglected to refresh my screen before responding. My comments were not intended for you.
Nicole, in my experience, artistic expressions are commonly treated as "speech." In this case, the speech and religion issues are intertwined. By allowing a monuments of this sort in the first place, the city has created forum for the expression of different views. In other words, it is a forum for public expression, or speech, and they may not discriminate arbitrarily between those seeking to use it.
At least one of the existing works of art in this space is religious in nature. The proposed piece is also religious, but of a less popular nature. Therefore, if the city allowed one monument but not the other solely on the basis of the religious views expressed therein, they would be effectively endorsing a religion over another.
However, since you have MatrixUK and his masterful grasp of the US Constitution on your side, I am considering surrender.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Callan:
If Mr and Mrs Representative-Atheist were taking their children to the park do you really think that they would object equally and indifferently to the 10 Commandments and the Phelps memorial when they were obliged to explain the context of both works of art to their offspring.
There's an atheist here in California who has argued successfully against the use of the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance that is frequently said in schools. He doesn't want his daughter having to say those words or having to be odd one out if she doesn't say them. His entire case rests on the first amendment prohibition of established religion. Right now, those two words as used in the pledge are unconstitutional in the western states under the jurisdiction of the ninth circuit court. The case will be heard by the Supreme Court in its current session.
Atheists might not object equally to the 10 commandments monument and the Phelps monument, but that doesn't mean someone won't someday take Caspar, Wyoming to court over the 10 commandments monument.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
I'm with Scot on this one. I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state (50 years of being a non-Christian here in the good ol' USA will do that to you) and also a believer in the tenets of the ACLU (maybe I'll even give them some money after reading this thread).
The law, as I understand it, isn't crystal clear about religious monuments on public property. If it were, the Moore/10Commandments case wouldn't be on the list of possible Supreme Court cases.
My personal opinion is that any permanent display of a particular religious belief in a publicly-owned space opens the door to permanent displays by other religious beliefs. Whenever I read a letter-to-the-editor or whatever from a politician calling for posting the Lord's Prayer in public school classrooms, my (mental) response is "Fine. I have no objection to exposing the kids to moral principals. And so I'm sure you won't object when I show up with copies of the Buddhist Heart Sutra and photos of Baha'u'llah and the Pope to hang right alongside." If ardent Christians want large religious symbols placed in prominent public spaces, they're going to have to accept that other people have the right to display their religious symbols in those same places. Considering all the conflicting beliefs and dozens, if not hundreds, of little groups claiming to be religions which would push even my incredible tolerance for different beliefs over the edge, I think the government should err on the side of caution with respect to permanent displays.
On the other hand, ephemeral expressions of free speech are a bit different. Phelps has the right to hold a rally in that public park and espouse his views, just as a pro-gay group does, or the local churches to hold a hymn and carol Sing there at Christmas.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I wonder if Fred Phelps's dad used to beat him "in love".
I gather that's what made Charles Manson the way he was.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Re free speech and the "monument":
The 10 Commandments are articles of religion. If you're going to make room for them, then you should make room for those of other faiths.
But what Phelps has planned is hate speech, incitement to riot, and libel/slander. Very different stuff.
Re what to do:
Blanket the place with Good Shepherd items. Appropriate both in theme and name.
Plant vines to cover the monument. Climbing roses come to mind.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Atmospheric Skull
Antlered Bone-Visage
# 4513
|
Posted
Scot, if the administrators of a public building invest in a coat of graffiti-resistant paint, while at the same time maintaining a historic inscription on the building's exterior; and if the inscription is of the Ten Commandments and the graffiti is of the "God Hates Fags" variety; are they guilty of infringing the graffitists' right to freedom of religious expression?
It's entirely possible, I guess, that under the US Constitution the answer is "Yes", and that public officials have no right to guard against the defacement of public property if that defacement can be construed as expressing something. But if so, I would venture to suggest that the US Constitution is, in this regard, rather silly.
Phelps has the right to express his revolting world-view, but the administrators of public property are not obliged to allow him to use it as a forum. I mean, surely?
--------------------
Surrealistic Mystic.
Posts: 371 | From: Bristol, UK | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MatrixUK:
We are aware of something that you patently are not, that at times there are competing freedoms. Your freedom of speech cannot be used as a freedom to incite hatred. Get it?
You clearly don't, since the US doesn't have such a law. If you want to get into a discussion about the US Constitution, it would be beneficial for you to have an actual clue and stop trying to overlay UK law on US issues.
Thanks muchly.
And Scot is correct on this one.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
A bit of ignorance always helps to keep the hell fires burning.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
We're back to one of the big cultural divides here. The law in the UK is different from the USA; freedom of speech does have limits in the former, and this does affect our attitudes. The sort of statue described would never be allowed in the UK, and I'm interested to see that several American shipmates have doubts about it as well.
In the midst of all the rhetoric flying around, it may be worth observing that, although we limit freedom of speech in the UK, we do not live in a police state. Nor are those laws used in an arbitary way, and they certainly don't restrict any mainstream religious views. On this side of the pond such limits seem eminently reasonable; let's not get too worked up by the fact that the view on the other side is rather different.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Wanderer, as ken noted above, it's not the mainstream that needs protections.
Godfather Avatar, as nearly everyone on this thread has noted, we are talking about discriminating on the basis of content, not form. Your illustration would work better were you to ask if the building administrators could allow someone to spray paint Exodus 20 while prosecuting someone for painting Leviticus 18. The answer is a resounding NO.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
offspring
Shipmate
# 4726
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
Phelps has the right to express his revolting world-view, but the administrators of public property are not obliged to allow him to use it as a forum. I mean, surely?
the administrators of public property have alredy created a forum by allowing the ten comandments. the city's plan seems a good one to me.
Posts: 71 | From: US | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
