When religious expression turns to religious establishment

[newcriminal]

"We are here to take a stand on Christianity. Up to this point we have been the silent majority but look out we are starting to take a stand. If they don't like this country, they can go someplace else," said Nancy Sweeten, (right) who stands outside the Wentzville City Hall with her husband Carl on Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2018. Photo by Laurie Skrivan

56 min ago
By Chad Flanders
Chad Flanders teaches law at St. Louis University School of Law.

Can a city put a large, permanent banner proclaiming “In God We Trust” at the front of its meeting hall, so that all those coming before the city board with business end up staring directly at it? This is the question now being debated and argued over in Wentzville, and it is interesting because it implicates so many different lines of First Amendment law. What makes it even more interesting is that all those lines don’t point in the same direction.

The first line is the idea, well-established, that it’s OK when the government uses phrases like “In God We Trust” on coins and dollar bills, or even gives cities’ names like Corpus Christi (“Body of Christ”). These forms of religious expression are thought to be so minor, so innocuous, that they don’t amount to an establishment of religion by the government. They are just slogans, sayings — no one should be especially offended by them. In a way, their very triviality saves them (which doesn’t stop many atheists from — unsuccessfully — challenging them in court).

But there’s also another line of First Amendment law involved, which is the idea of so-called legislative prayer. This also is sanctioned, more or less, by tradition. We’ve always done it. The U.S. Congress will lead off its sessions with a prayer, and so will many other smaller legislative bodies — from state legislatures to city councils. These are more controversial, but they have generally been approved, provided that the invocations and prayers before the start of official business tend not to be too sectarian, and provided that people of all faiths (or no faith at all) are given a chance to lead the prayer.

These two lines seem to some as backing the idea that the Wentzville display is OK. It just says “In God We Trust,” which fits in with the idea of ceremonial deism. It also fits in with the idea that the legislature can do some things — like say a prayer — which recognizes the role of faith in people’s lives.

http://www.stltoday.com/opinion/columnists/when-religious-expression-turns-to-religious-establishment/article_8d11f3d7-1ef2-5f98-9cbe-e667c1a94608.html

[LanternWaste]

1. By Jove, those signs are oppressing me.

By Jove, those signs are oppressing me. (just minimizing and trivializing the point as a whole... because no one ever does that)

[newcriminal]

3. Have no fear, they should lose.

This gets us to a third line in First Amendment law, the so-called “endorsement test” for whether or not an action by the government amounts to an impermissible establishment of religion. Despite suggestions from some justices that the U.S. Supreme Court should ditch the test, it still remains as a key way of assessing when expression crosses over into establishment.

The test asks, in so many words, would a reasonable observer, seeing this display, feel excluded from the community, that they are worth less, if they don’t happen to share in the sentiment behind the display? Would a person stepping up to the podium in Wentzville and who was an atheist feel like he or she could get a fair shake from the board? Or would people feel like outcasts from the very community that they believe themselves members of?

[Igel]

5. I've felt excluded from all kinds of things.

That's what it means to not be part of the mainstream culture.

Change the culture so it emphasizes other aspects, and others get excluded. That's how it works. Things have to work a way in order to work; if there are 20 ways of doing things, the other 19 aren't "the way".

[longship]

2. In Cthulhu we trust!

Make sure that you are eaten first!

One nation under Cthulhu!

[3Hotdogs]

4. George explains it again.

It is probably logical that most of the peeps in that photo are also anti-abortion.

Carlin: "Why, WHy WHY is it that people who are anti-abortion are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?"

[nil desperandum]

6. Apparently Carlin never met someone who'd served in the infantry.....NT