Oklahoma town to buy statue of Jesus and place it downtown.

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

AreaCode7O7

Senior member
Mar 6, 2005
931
1
0
Completely separate and unrelated question (seriously - there isn't a good parallel between my scenario and the OP):

If the US were given some of the world's great religious artwork, like Michaelangelo's David or the Sistine Chapel ceiling, would you be for or against public funds to maintain and display it?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Completely separate and unrelated question (seriously - there isn't a good parallel between my scenario and the OP):

If the US were given some of the world's great religious artwork, like Michaelangelo's David or the Sistine Chapel ceiling, would you be for or against public funds to maintain and display it?

As before, the Lemon test. As many US museums already do, the preservation of historical works of art has a clear secular purpose, displaying art for its own sake does not advance one religion over another, and it does not excessively entangle the government and the church.

Buying a giant Jesus statue for no other reason than that it is a Jesus statue is none of those things. Great works of art are great works of art that happen to be religious. This is a statue that would not be bought if it were not a religious symbol.
 

AstroManLuca

Lifer
Jun 24, 2004
15,628
5
81
And for the record, the "Lemon test" is as follows:

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
 

AreaCode7O7

Senior member
Mar 6, 2005
931
1
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Completely separate and unrelated question (seriously - there isn't a good parallel between my scenario and the OP):

If the US were given some of the world's great religious artwork, like Michaelangelo's David or the Sistine Chapel ceiling, would you be for or against public funds to maintain and display it?

As before, the Lemon test. As many US museums already do, the preservation of historical works of art has a clear secular purpose, displaying art for its own sake does not advance one religion over another, and it does not excessively entangle the government and the church.

Buying a giant Jesus statue for no other reason than that it is a Jesus statue is none of those things. Great works of art are great works of art that happen to be religious. This is a statue that would not be bought if it were not a religious symbol.


Yep, exactly why I tried to disconnect my question from the OP. The thread prompted the question in my mind but I didn't think it was important enough for its' own thread.

Many of the great works of art don't "happen to be religious" though, they were commissioned specifically to be religious. They just happen to be great. :)

If the town voted to have a great artist produce a religious work, and they would not vote to have the same artist produce a secular work, would you oppose that? In one case, a great piece of artwork would exist, in another it wouldn't. Is that different from maintaining an existing piece of religious artwork?

Again, that question doesn't apply to the OP because it doesn't sound like this piece of artwork is anything of note.
 

herm0016

Diamond Member
Feb 26, 2005
8,447
1,070
126
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: herm0016
so everyone here that is against this is for destroying all publicly owned art with any religious theme? including many of the nations capital and public buildings, national monuments, grave sites. places like Arlington National Cemetery (its full of crosses), historical churches that are owned by state and national parks, any Church on any public property including churches weather in use or not in national parks, state parks, etc? this is what you are advocating. that no religious symbols can come in contact with any government agency for any reason, whether that be history or education, preservation or conservation.

I don't know exactly how this one got started, but it's complete bullshit; Arlington is NOT full of crosses.
<snip>
And surely you can recognize the difference between honoring a fallen soldier in the manner they've requested versus spending tax money on a symbol which specifically endorses one religion.

i should have said: crosses and other religious symbols paid for by your tax dollars, I know the gravestones are not crosses. I love how everyone automatically assumes people are idiots, though, in most cases it is true.
my point was more about art, the fact that lots of art has religious content, and the states and localities have paid tax money for it, to display it, in their offices and museums and such. should all of this be sold back or just gotten rid of also? what about states rights, i remember that being a very important part of our constitution, a part that is rarely cited now, and i believe this is one of our fundamental problems, the aggregation of power in the federal government.

the 10th amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

they are not "establishing" a religion. if the majority of the people in the town were Jewish, and they wanted to put up a menorah, they can do that too. just like abortion, education, gay marriage, and a host of other issues, this is a local government issue.

the first amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

local governments are not congress. a statue or piece of art is not a law and thus not covered also.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,235
10,810
136
Originally posted by: Specop 007
If they voted for it, whats the problem? Ohhh, YOU dont like how THEY want to spend THEIR money is that it?

Gotchya.

The vote was 6-2 with one member abstaining.

Read the damn article, the city did not vote on it.

Edmond is just a little yuppie, snotty town. And in Oklahoma to be snotty you have to go to a Mega Church.
 

herm0016

Diamond Member
Feb 26, 2005
8,447
1,070
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: dphantom
That would be proper in a democracy, but we are not one. We are a republic who are represented by those we elect. They decide. If we do not like their decisions, we vote them out.

We're not a democracy? Gah, whaaaa? :Q

<queue founding fathers rolling in their graves>

we have never been a democracy, the founding fathers did that for a reason. we are a federalist republic.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Originally posted by: herm0016
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: herm0016
so everyone here that is against this is for destroying all publicly owned art with any religious theme? including many of the nations capital and public buildings, national monuments, grave sites. places like Arlington National Cemetery (its full of crosses), historical churches that are owned by state and national parks, any Church on any public property including churches weather in use or not in national parks, state parks, etc? this is what you are advocating. that no religious symbols can come in contact with any government agency for any reason, whether that be history or education, preservation or conservation.

I don't know exactly how this one got started, but it's complete bullshit; Arlington is NOT full of crosses.
<snip>
And surely you can recognize the difference between honoring a fallen soldier in the manner they've requested versus spending tax money on a symbol which specifically endorses one religion.

i should have said: crosses and other religious symbols paid for by your tax dollars, I know the gravestones are not crosses. I love how everyone automatically assumes people are idiots, though, in most cases it is true.
my point was more about art, the fact that lots of art has religious content, and the states and localities have paid tax money for it, to display it, in their offices and museums and such. should all of this be sold back or just gotten rid of also? what about states rights, i remember that being a very important part of our constitution, a part that is rarely cited now, and i believe this is one of our fundamental problems, the aggregation of power in the federal government.

the 10th amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

they are not "establishing" a religion. if the majority of the people in the town were Jewish, and they wanted to put up a menorah, they can do that too. just like abortion, education, gay marriage, and a host of other issues, this is a local government issue.

the first amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

local governments are not congress. a statue or piece of art is not a law and thus not covered also.

Well said.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: herm0016
i should have said: crosses and other religious symbols paid for by your tax dollars, I know the gravestones are not crosses. I love how everyone automatically assumes people are idiots, though, in most cases it is true.
my point was more about art, the fact that lots of art has religious content, and the states and localities have paid tax money for it, to display it, in their offices and museums and such. should all of this be sold back or just gotten rid of also? what about states rights, i remember that being a very important part of our constitution, a part that is rarely cited now, and i believe this is one of our fundamental problems, the aggregation of power in the federal government.

the 10th amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

they are not "establishing" a religion. if the majority of the people in the town were Jewish, and they wanted to put up a menorah, they can do that too. just like abortion, education, gay marriage, and a host of other issues, this is a local government issue.

the first amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

local governments are not congress. a statue or piece of art is not a law and thus not covered also.

My apologies for misrepresenting you on the Arlington graves. I've heard several people mention the crosses under the mistaken assumption that the graves at Arlington were in the shape of the cross, so I assumed that was what you meant as well, an unfair assumption to make.

As to your argument, several people in the thread have pointed out that the language of the First Amendment is interpreted according to the establishment clause, which includes two readings of the amendment. The first is literal; Congress cannot make a law establishing a National religion. The second reading, and the one pertinent to this discussion, is the prohibition of "the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose." The town attempting to erect a statue of Jesus, the central figure of the Christian religion, solely for the Christmas holiday is clearly a violation of that reading of the First Amendment as it is preference for one religion over another and is not done for secular reasons. Thus, it is unconstitutional.

Justice Souter said it simply and succinctly: "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: herm0016
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: herm0016
so everyone here that is against this is for destroying all publicly owned art with any religious theme? including many of the nations capital and public buildings, national monuments, grave sites. places like Arlington National Cemetery (its full of crosses), historical churches that are owned by state and national parks, any Church on any public property including churches weather in use or not in national parks, state parks, etc? this is what you are advocating. that no religious symbols can come in contact with any government agency for any reason, whether that be history or education, preservation or conservation.

I don't know exactly how this one got started, but it's complete bullshit; Arlington is NOT full of crosses.
<snip>
And surely you can recognize the difference between honoring a fallen soldier in the manner they've requested versus spending tax money on a symbol which specifically endorses one religion.

i should have said: crosses and other religious symbols paid for by your tax dollars, I know the gravestones are not crosses. I love how everyone automatically assumes people are idiots, though, in most cases it is true.
my point was more about art, the fact that lots of art has religious content, and the states and localities have paid tax money for it, to display it, in their offices and museums and such. should all of this be sold back or just gotten rid of also? what about states rights, i remember that being a very important part of our constitution, a part that is rarely cited now, and i believe this is one of our fundamental problems, the aggregation of power in the federal government.

the 10th amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

they are not "establishing" a religion. if the majority of the people in the town were Jewish, and they wanted to put up a menorah, they can do that too. just like abortion, education, gay marriage, and a host of other issues, this is a local government issue.

the first amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

local governments are not congress. a statue or piece of art is not a law and thus not covered also.

Well said.

No, not well said.

The 1st amendment has been incorporated to the states through the 14th amendment. (and it has been this way for quite a long time).

Furthermore the means by which the funding for this statue was arrived at most certainly is a law or ordinance (you have to pass a budget sometime) and so therefore is most certainly unconstitutional.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: herm0016
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: dphantom
That would be proper in a democracy, but we are not one. We are a republic who are represented by those we elect. They decide. If we do not like their decisions, we vote them out.

We're not a democracy? Gah, whaaaa? :Q

<queue founding fathers rolling in their graves>

we have never been a democracy, the founding fathers did that for a reason. we are a federalist republic.

The CIA World Factbook lists the U.S. as a "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition." That's quite a mouthful. I've always thought of us as a "representational democracy," but okay, I will bow to the technicality.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: herm0016
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: herm0016
so everyone here that is against this is for destroying all publicly owned art with any religious theme? including many of the nations capital and public buildings, national monuments, grave sites. places like Arlington National Cemetery (its full of crosses), historical churches that are owned by state and national parks, any Church on any public property including churches weather in use or not in national parks, state parks, etc? this is what you are advocating. that no religious symbols can come in contact with any government agency for any reason, whether that be history or education, preservation or conservation.

I don't know exactly how this one got started, but it's complete bullshit; Arlington is NOT full of crosses.
<snip>
And surely you can recognize the difference between honoring a fallen soldier in the manner they've requested versus spending tax money on a symbol which specifically endorses one religion.

i should have said: crosses and other religious symbols paid for by your tax dollars, I know the gravestones are not crosses. I love how everyone automatically assumes people are idiots, though, in most cases it is true.
my point was more about art, the fact that lots of art has religious content, and the states and localities have paid tax money for it, to display it, in their offices and museums and such. should all of this be sold back or just gotten rid of also? what about states rights, i remember that being a very important part of our constitution, a part that is rarely cited now, and i believe this is one of our fundamental problems, the aggregation of power in the federal government.

the 10th amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

they are not "establishing" a religion. if the majority of the people in the town were Jewish, and they wanted to put up a menorah, they can do that too. just like abortion, education, gay marriage, and a host of other issues, this is a local government issue.

the first amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

local governments are not congress. a statue or piece of art is not a law and thus not covered also.

That's funny, because 100 years of jurisprudence and the 14th amendment say otherwise.
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
33,932
1,113
126
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Some of the south is so messed up I think that if that happened it would just attack the North again, so it's best to keep them in the mix and disorganized.

If the North promises not take over Southern forts this time, there wouldn't be a reason for another attack. :p
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Completely separate and unrelated question (seriously - there isn't a good parallel between my scenario and the OP):

If the US were given some of the world's great religious artwork, like Michaelangelo's David or the Sistine Chapel ceiling, would you be for or against public funds to maintain and display it?

As before, the Lemon test. As many US museums already do, the preservation of historical works of art has a clear secular purpose, displaying art for its own sake does not advance one religion over another, and it does not excessively entangle the government and the church.

Buying a giant Jesus statue for no other reason than that it is a Jesus statue is none of those things. Great works of art are great works of art that happen to be religious. This is a statue that would not be bought if it were not a religious symbol.


Yep, exactly why I tried to disconnect my question from the OP. The thread prompted the question in my mind but I didn't think it was important enough for its' own thread.

Many of the great works of art don't "happen to be religious" though, they were commissioned specifically to be religious. They just happen to be great. :)

If the town voted to have a great artist produce a religious work, and they would not vote to have the same artist produce a secular work, would you oppose that? In one case, a great piece of artwork would exist, in another it wouldn't. Is that different from maintaining an existing piece of religious artwork?

Again, that question doesn't apply to the OP because it doesn't sound like this piece of artwork is anything of note.

Yes, I would oppose a town commissioning a great artist to make a religious work. I think you might have confused my point as to the art's significance. The Sistine Chapel is not noteworthy because it has a picture of god in it, it is noteworthy due to its exceptional beauty. When the government collects important/beautiful works of art it does so because they are important/beautiful. It does not do so out of a desire to collect jesus knicknacks. So when I say they are great works of art that just happen to be religious I'm referring to the intent of the institution doing the collection, not the intent of the author.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Completely separate and unrelated question (seriously - there isn't a good parallel between my scenario and the OP):

If the US were given some of the world's great religious artwork, like Michaelangelo's David or the Sistine Chapel ceiling, would you be for or against public funds to maintain and display it?

Would that be the David with the fig leaf or without one?? Just give me an opinion.
 

AreaCode7O7

Senior member
Mar 6, 2005
931
1
0
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Completely separate and unrelated question (seriously - there isn't a good parallel between my scenario and the OP):

If the US were given some of the world's great religious artwork, like Michaelangelo's David or the Sistine Chapel ceiling, would you be for or against public funds to maintain and display it?

Would that be the David with the fig leaf or without one?? Just give me an opinion.

David doesn't have a fig leaf in the original incarnation. :)
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Intelligent design? Nothing smart about spending $3900 on a 26" statue, WTF
They should've let the south win and be a seperate Country.
Some of the south is so messed up I think that if that happened it would just attack the North again, so it's best to keep them in the mix and disorganized.

Okay, so let me get this straight.

Step 1. Oklahoma does something lefties hate.
Step 2. Lefties say Oklahoma just like the south.
Step 3. This is now a south-bashing thread.

The generalizations you guys are capable of here are just staggering.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,165
1,637
126
Originally posted by: Specop 007
If they voted for it, whats the problem? Ohhh, YOU dont like how THEY want to spend THEIR money is that it?

Gotchya.


It's unconstitutional, in fact, it's so unconstitutional, you could even go as far as calling that type of behavior anti-constitutional.



 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: techs
What the f*ck is going on in Oklahoma????

The usual I guess: http://www.businessinsider.com...the-bad-economy-2009-6

And you dug out a thread the better part of a year old because?

When possible I try to avoid starting entirely new threads over very small news stories. I'd have posted in OT but would have been pointed back to PN anyway. The topic was essentially the same, crazy religious Oklahoma elected officials.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
For those on the fence about this, you basically have to think about what you would do if some community wanted to use public funds for a Mohammad statue (minus bomb turban, of course). Or a Buddhist symbol.

If one religion can do it, then the rest can. That is good enough reason alone to keep the Xtian symbols at bay.


What if Tom Cruise wanted a big statue of the Mothership at City Hall?