provoman Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 Provo Fire Department has order what is being referred to as commemorative badges. Provo Fire Chief Gary Jolley said: "If you went to BYU, or you grew up in Provo, you always spent some time in the Tabernacle at events,". Fox 13 also reports that the badges were designed and order for the Temple opening. "It is a church-related thing on a government-issued piece of uniform," Jolley acknowledged. Should public officials wear, as a presumably mandatory part of a uniform, items that appear to promote a particular religious institution.
provoman Posted January 14, 2016 Author Posted January 14, 2016 A related matter, here is what a Federal Court determined about "crosses" placed along Utah highways to honor fallen State Troopers. ""We hold that these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion," Would a Firefighters badge that has "City Center Temple" on it, convey to a reasonable observer that the Fire Department "prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion"?
The Nehor Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 I doubt they are mandatory and do not really promote the religion. If anything it says the screwball Mormons need public help to keep their meetings from turning into a disaster.
Sleeper Cell Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 1 hour ago, provoman said: A related matter, here is what a Federal Court determined about "crosses" placed along Utah highways to honor fallen State Troopers. ""We hold that these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion," Since it is widely known in Utah that the LDS church does not use the cross as a religious symbol, just what was the message that the state was conveying to the "reasonable observer?" That the state of Utah prefers the non-LDS Christian churches to the LDS church?
provoman Posted January 14, 2016 Author Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sleeper Cell said: Since it is widely known in Utah that the LDS church does not use the cross as a religious symbol, just what was the message that the state was conveying to the "reasonable observer?" That the state of Utah prefers the non-LDS Christian churches to the LDS church? Not a topic for this thread. And your question was addressed in rhe Court ruling; with that, you could read the ruling to find the answer. Edited January 14, 2016 by provoman
Sleeper Cell Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 30 minutes ago, provoman said: Not a topic for this thread. And your question was addressed in rhe Court ruling; with that, you could read the ruling to find the answer. Then why did you bring it up? 1
Crypto Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 " commemorative badges " Plenty of places and things have commemorative events, with various commemorative trinkets. (Badges, patches, plaques, etc) I see no problem celebrating various different cultures with commemoration. I don't think it should be a required uniform piece though either, since there are those of a different belief. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 5 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said: Since it is widely known in Utah that the LDS church does not use the cross as a religious symbol, just what was the message that the state was conveying to the "reasonable observer?" That the state of Utah prefers the non-LDS Christian churches to the LDS church? No, it was an anti-Muslim, anti-Buddhist, anti-Jewish, anti-Hindu thing.
Popular Post halconero Posted January 15, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 15, 2016 Taking the Establishment Clause out of its original context creates undue restrictions on the expression of celebratory symbols and ceremonies such as this. Take my own country, Canada. Look at our coins, our constitution, and our heritage and you can begin to understand the establishment of a state religion within our country. We have the head of the Anglican and Episcopalian Churches as the Head of State for our nation, and though her reign and that of her descendants was established legally under the Canadian constitution, her power is still ultimately derived from the notion that she has been chosen by God. Such a notion is celebrated on every one of our coins, from the discontinued (but still accepted) penny to the $2 'Toonie', all of which bear her likeness and the phrase "Elizabeth II D.G. Regina," or Elizabeth II, Queen by the Grace of God. This is felt more significantly in our sister monarchy, the United Kingdom, wherein the clergy of the Church exercise legislative influence and authority in the House of Lords. In the time of the American Revolution this influence was exacerbated in the funding of the Church, the privileging of its members with military and governmental promotions, and the persecution of disestablished faiths (British Catholics). It was the same in other European governments, whether Republic or Monarchy, to favour or establish a religion within their realm, whether Catholic, Dutch Reformed, Lutheran, Orthodox, etc. So when the Founding Fathers of the Constitution inserted the Establishment Clause, I doubt they were talking about commemorative pins for local municipalities, but rather the favouring of a specific religion through tax, employment, governmental, or militaristic privileges. Now...I know there's the argument out there that the Constitution is a living document, whose interpretation doesn't need to be forever based in the intentions of the Fathers, and its one I actually agree with. Even so, I think the context of an Established Religion needs to be considered when looking at issues such as this. Just as I said in another thread, some Americans take the notion of tyrannical government too far when perceived 'leftist' legislation is passed, the opposite occurs with innocuous celebrations of local events, architecture, or ceremonies. Were a largely Jewish community to celebrate the remodeling of a large synagogue/landmark, I would have absolutely zero concerns if local municipal governments made an optional pin commemorating it. 5
strappinglad Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 I think it was a mistake to put the temple on the badge. I suppose it was used because of the fire dept. connection with the tabernacle and the fact that it burned. Why such a badge was ordered I don't know. It's a political " fox paws " .
Calm Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 It is the most noteworthy fire in Provo history, isn't it? And the fact that it still only exists because of the efforts of the fire dept should be celebrated, but I agree that politically it can say something else given its current status. 1
provoman Posted January 15, 2016 Author Posted January 15, 2016 8 hours ago, Crypto said: " commemorative badges " Plenty of places and things have commemorative events, with various commemorative trinkets. (Badges, patches, plaques, etc) I see no problem celebrating various different cultures with commemoration. I don't think it should be a required uniform piece though either, since there are those of a different belief. Statehood, celebrate it with badges. Birthday of a City, celebrate it with badges. The opening and dedication of a purely religious building that is not open to the public, not something public official should celebrate with their badges.
Avatar4321 Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 good for them. They should celebrate however they want 1
provoman Posted January 17, 2016 Author Posted January 17, 2016 16 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: good for them. They should celebrate however they want Even if it means violating the law and violating Constitutional principles?
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 19 minutes ago, provoman said: Even if it means violating the law and violating Constitutional principles? I'm about as separation of Church and state as they come. But that is a stretch even for me.
The Nehor Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 On January 17, 2016 at 1:08 PM, provoman said: Even if it means violating the law and violating Constitutional principles? People who are up in arms and worried this will result in some sort of theocracy need to go outside. 1
RevTestament Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 On 1/14/2016 at 9:22 AM, provoman said: Provo Fire Department has order what is being referred to as commemorative badges. Provo Fire Chief Gary Jolley said: "If you went to BYU, or you grew up in Provo, you always spent some time in the Tabernacle at events,". Fox 13 also reports that the badges were designed and order for the Temple opening. "It is a church-related thing on a government-issued piece of uniform," Jolley acknowledged. Should public officials wear, as a presumably mandatory part of a uniform, items that appear to promote a particular religious institution. First off it is recognizing a building - not a religion. Second, you said "presumably mandatory." Is it? Can they continue to wear an old badge commemorating some other building or logo? Third, liberals need to be disabused of the notion that it is illegal for a government official to mention God. That is not in the constitution. The constitution says that the government shall make no law establishing a religion. The courts have gone way too far in interpreting this clause to mean a complete and total silence on religion. I don't believe that this badge is passing a law establishing any religion for the people to follow or that they must follow which is the intent of the clause. The intent of the clause is to prevent the government from officially requiring people to recognize or follow one religion over another - not to prevent any mention of them - that is ridiculous. What? Government officials can't say he is methodist? or whatever? A President can't say he believes in God? He can't pledge allegiance to the flag under God? Obama was breaking the constitution if he says he is Christian? (even though he is lying with Taqiyya?) Give us a break already from liberalism run amok...please.
thesometimesaint Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 Your third is a misnomer. Liberals say no such thing. The US Constitution doesn't say establishing a religion. It says respecting AN establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... . The Freedoms of of Religion and Speech give Obama and every other citizen the right to claim whatever religion, or non-religion they want. BTW Obama is a Christian. It was conservatives who didn't like Obama's pasture Jeremiah Wright. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright
oremites Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: It was conservatives who didn't like Obama's pasture Jeremiah Wright. That's true, some did not. However, as far as I remember, none of them complained that his choice of religious leaders was in any way a violation of the constitution. No one said that he shouldn't have the right to attend whatever church he wanted. Their complaint was that his his choice of religion revealed the type of person / leader he was. Very similar to complaints about Mitt Romney, actually.
Recommended Posts