When one of these monuments begins to exert coercive forces which limits the expression of freedom of religion or lack thereof of the public, then I will be suitably concerned.
When one thinks of all the things which government has the capacity (historically) to do to screw you over, to be concerned or worried over the effect an inanimate object will have over you and the damage it might do to your liberties seems a might bit misplaced.
Ostensibly, one could conceive that a monument bearing a swastika would be more onerous to more people, and yet being a secular symbol, not run afoul of the principle with which the plaintiffs choose to make their case. Yet neither a monument featuring a cross nor a swastika in such cases has any further capacity to cause demonstrable harm than the other, at least of the type which is argued most in these cases.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 29/4/10 01:58 (UTC)When one thinks of all the things which government has the capacity (historically) to do to screw you over, to be concerned or worried over the effect an inanimate object will have over you and the damage it might do to your liberties seems a might bit misplaced.
Ostensibly, one could conceive that a monument bearing a swastika would be more onerous to more people, and yet being a secular symbol, not run afoul of the principle with which the plaintiffs choose to make their case. Yet neither a monument featuring a cross nor a swastika in such cases has any further capacity to cause demonstrable harm than the other, at least of the type which is argued most in these cases.