How AI Systems Fail the Human Test
1 day ago
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
A Quick Note on the Mojave Cross
Last entry, I talked about the Supreme Court of the United States ruling about the cross in the Mojave desert. The ruling was wrong-headed and I am highly worried about the broader implications of allowing the cross to stand. However, at the moment I'm more worried by recent news that the cross was just stolen. This is not a solution. There are situations where violations of rights are so severe as to merit breaking the law to preserve them. This is unambiguously not one of those situations. Whoever did this should be ashamed of themselves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
A cross in a graveyard is absolutely horrifying, the broader implications is that there are no other steps between that and taliban style theocracy. So if a cross is allowed to stand in a graveyard, the USA's doom is imminent. O.O This is no joke. O.O
SJ, you don't seem to be paying much attention to the situation in question. The cross in question isn't in a graveyard but rather in a desert installation.
I'm not going to respond in detail to your sarcasm other than to note that violations of the First Amendment are serious business. There is no de minimus violation of civil rights. And there are good reasons why at actual federal grave sites we either give each group choice about the religious symbol (so for example at army cemeteries Jews get stars, Muslims get crescents, etc.) And at Arlington every gravestone is identical.
Yeah I wasn't paying too much attention to it.
And you have a point. A cross standing in a desert somewhere can only mean the end of the Republic. O.O
Granted many (most?) of the founding fathers were deists.
But I really do wonder if they imagined a US similar to what the guys of the ACLU have in mind.
Granted I come from a theology that says respect tradition, respect change! And granted that I am also someone who sees the Christian Right in the US as perhaps the most pivotal danger to human civilization in existence...
I really don't believe its reasonable to imagine today's hyper-secular interpretation of the constitution as what the founding fathers had in mind.
Yes how we approach it evolves (as it should) but then can we honestly imagine them saying no to the Lord's prayer in schools or outlawing the 10 commandments? Those are all latter secular developments.
Don't get my wrong, I support the current interpretation, but I question how honest it is for the secularists today to constantly appeal to it, when its highly unlikely our modern interpretation is what the founding fathers had in mind
Shalmo, that's historically not the case. Many of the religious aspects of government that are often take for granted date from the 1950s (In God We Trust on the money was only routine then, and "under God" in the pledge of allegiance). Although there were occasional calls for prayer by the early Presidents, this was in accordance with dictates from congress which many of them objected to. Madison for example, said that he regretted issuing such proclamations. And Jefferson refused outright. Putting a cross on federal land would have probably been seen as pretty close to exactly what the First Amendment prohibited. (Whether selling the land around the cross would have been acceptable to them is a different issue). Note that no one has "outlawed" the ten commandments. Rulings regarding that are a hodgepodge. Similarly, praying in school is not outlawed. What is not allowed is school-sanctioned or teacher-run prayer. This is outlawed due to the 14th amendment which among other things causes many constitutional restrictions which previously applied just to the federal government to apply to the state governments as well. So there's no issue there of founding intent since an amendment modified the Constitution.
Also, while we're at it, I'm pretty sure your analysis about the Christian right is wrong. While, I'd list them in the top 10 risks, I'd be very hard pressed to label them the most serious risk. But that's probably an argument for another time.
The question about what the Founding Fathers intended is an interesting academic question, but I think it needs to be bounded by the understanding that their intent was a product of their time.
It's difficult to believe that they could have envisioned a 21st Century American Society that looked much like what we actually have. Many of the flavors of Christianity that make up the Christian far right didn't even exist in the late 1700s.
It's fairly clear that entanglements between government and religion were to be avoided, but it's also clear that there are many ways for such entanglement to occur than the Founders could have anticipated.
Jay, that's a very fair set of points.
Post a Comment