Statue of Liberty - Violates 1st Amendment?

[zamber]

Since the Statue of Liberty is a statue of a the goddess Libertas, does that violate the religion establishment clause of the First Amendment to the constitution? Here is a link to people that still worship and perform the rites of the Greco-Roman gods https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22972610 .

Is permitting the Greco-Roman goddess statue on Federal property not fair to other religions? How come the Greco-Roman get a statue to worship on Federal property and not Hindus?

 

Why do atheist have to pay for a statue of a religion on government property? Especially since there are people that can use it for their religious rites?

 

The Greeks who worship the ancient gods

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22972610

[mererdog]

20 minutes ago, zamber said:

Since the Statue of Liberty is a statue of a the goddess Libertas,

It is a statue inspired by depictions of Libertas, but also by depictions of Sol Invictus and by other works of art. 

[Dan56]

1 hour ago, zamber said:

Why do atheist have to pay for a statue of a religion on government property?

 

I believe it was a gift from France.. And atheist generally only have a problem with things symbolic of Christianity, so I imagine they don't have a problem with a statue that's symbolic of liberty, because its something everyone can relate to.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, zamber said:

Since the Statue of Liberty is a statue of a the goddess Libertas, does that violate the religion establishment clause of the First Amendment to the constitution? Here is a link to people that still worship and perform the rites of the Greco-Roman gods https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22972610 .

Is permitting the Greco-Roman goddess statue on Federal property not fair to other religions? How come the Greco-Roman get a statue to worship on Federal property and not Hindus?

 

Why do atheist have to pay for a statue of a religion on government property? Especially since there are people that can use it for their religious rites?

 

 

 

 

 

You raise interesting points.  I have to think about this.

 

Welcome to the board.  You look like fun.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I believe it was a gift from France.. And atheist generally only have a problem with things symbolic of Christianity, so I imagine they don't have a problem with a statue that's symbolic of liberty, because its something everyone can relate to.

 

 

Your understanding of Atheism is not deep.  When you express Atheist views, it is deeply painful.  

[Dan56]

6 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Your understanding of Atheism is not deep.  When you express Atheist views, it is deeply painful.  

 

There's really nothing "deep" to understand about atheism, they believe in nothing divine and no deity.. No deep study is required to grasp that simple concept... Sorry if my comment about Atheist not having a problem with Lady Liberty was painful? I had no idea they found the statue offensive. 😊

[zamber]

14 hours ago, mererdog said:

It is a statue inspired by depictions of Libertas, but also by depictions of Sol Invictus and by other works of art. 

Does that mean the Statue of Liberty is violating the constitution twice?

 

The group of people that worship the Goddess Libertas (Liberty) are called "Cultus Deorum Romanorum" and "Nova Roma." The people of this religion perform their wedding rites and other rites just like the Cult of Rome did. The big question is, why is the Federal Government paying for the maintenance of a statue of a religious figure?

 

Is there a way to post pictures on this web forum? I would like to post some pictures of neo-pagans doing their rites so people can know more about what I am talking about.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

There's really nothing "deep" to understand about atheism, they believe in nothing divine and no deity.. No deep study is required to grasp that simple concept... Sorry if my comment about Atheist not having a problem with Lady Liberty was painful? I had no idea they found the statue offensive. 😊

 

What I find painful is to have you speaking for Atheism.  Your understanding lacks depth.  Your twisting of my words lacks decency.  

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, zamber said:

Does that mean the Statue of Liberty is violating the constitution twice?

 

The group of people that worship the Goddess Libertas (Liberty) are called "Cultus Deorum Romanorum" and "Nova Roma." The people of this religion perform their wedding rites and other rites just like the Cult of Rome did. The big question is, why is the Federal Government paying for the maintenance of a statue of a religious figure?

 

Is there a way to post pictures on this web forum? I would like to post some pictures of neo-pagans doing their rites so people can know more about what I am talking about.

 

I would like to see the counter argument.  So far, you are making a solid case.  I'm still thinking about it.  There might be a Constitutional violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  

[RevBogovac]

3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

I would like to see the counter argument.  [...]

 

I - as an "outsider" to USA laws* - think you can probably find something in the direction of copyright-law: was it the designer's (I believe that was Eiffel, from the French tower) or commissioner's (was it NY city, state or Federal?) intention to depict these gods, or were they only used for inspiration as to depict some abstract notion (like - for instance - freedom). As it is at least a mixture of two known gods I would say the case is strong for the latter.

 

* but I must agree with Jonathan (again...) that this seems like a fun discussion.

Edited July 6, 2018 by RevBogovac
typos

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, RevBogovac said:

 

I - as an "outsider" to USA laws* - think you can probably find something in the direction of copyright-law: was it the designer's (I believe that was Eiffel, from the French tower) or commissioner's (was it NY city, state or Federal?) intention to depict these gods, or were they only used for inspiration as to depict some abstract notion (like - for instance - freedom). As it is at least a mixture of two known gods I would say the case is strong for the latter.

 

* but I must agree with Jonathan (again...) that this seems like a fun discussion.

 

 

The old gods have changes of name and form, but they never go away.  For instance, Lady Luck.  Nobody has to tell us who Lady Luck is.  Mother Nature looks like a lot of the old Earth goddesses.  Cupid is out in the open.  He's Cupid, bow and arrows intact.  At least his love arrows.  We don't talk about his lead tipped arrows.  Old Man Winter is still here.  So is Jack Frost.  Father Time is still with us.  So is Baby New Year and the Old Year.  Death rides a pale horse.  We know who the Reaper is.  The old gods are with us in abundance.

 

Look at the songs we have about Santa.

"He's making a list, checking it twice, he always knows who's naughty or nice.....

"He knows when you are sleeping.  He knows when you're awake; he knows when you've been bad or good....

That is one creepy old god with a beard, flying around the sky, punishing the wicked and rewarding the good.

 

Of course, Lady Liberty is a personification.  The gods are personifications.  At what point does celebrating Lady Liberty, become an impermissible endorsement of religion?  Is a change of name or a change of form enough to turn an old god into a secular icon?

 

We haven't even mentioned Nativity scenes.  You know, those secular displays of a Winter Holiday.  Or Easter, where we celebrate fertility as symbolized by a rabbit -- and eggs.  

 

It takes willful blindness or deep ignorance, not to see the old gods everywhere.  Lady Liberty is only one example.

 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

7 hours ago, zamber said:

Does that mean the Statue of Liberty is violating the constitution twice?

There is basically no symbol that does not have a religious use. That something can be religious in one context does not mean that it is religious in all contexts. Otherwise, government would be banned from using lower-case tees.

[Dan56]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

Otherwise, government would be banned from using lower-case tees.

 

  Never thought of that before, its obviously a government conspiracy to subconsciously promote Christianity   

[mererdog]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

  Never thought of that before, its obviously a government conspiracy to subconsciously promote Christianity   

Taken another way, all these little tees are clearly blasphemous. Taking a sacred symbol and using it for profane purposes... We should be ashamed.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I've had a few days to think things over.  In the end, this is a losing proposition.  America already has deeply held narratives about Lady Liberty.  Nothing will change this.  In addition, there is the weight of history.  Lady Liberty has been in New York Harbor for a long time.  She's not going anywhere.  Like it or not, that's the facts.

 

In addition, there are much more egregious violations of the Establishment Clause, both holdovers from the Eisenhower administration of the 1950's.  There is the new National Motto -- In God we trust -- all over the money.  There is also the forced insertion into The Pledge of Allegiance -- Under God.  Next to these affronts, the Statue is small change.

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

10 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

  Never thought of that before, its obviously a government conspiracy to subconsciously promote Christianity   

 

I find the overt, conscious, conspiracies much more troubling.

 

 

 

[mererdog]

9 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I find the overt, conscious, conspiracies much more troubling.

I think motive is key here. The purpose the symbol is being used for as opposed to which symbol is being used, you know? Its why I mentioned blasphemy. Religion has a lot of powerful tools that are readily adapted for secular purposes. While doing so can have the appearance of forcing religion onto the secular, what it often does is secularize the religious.

 

You can see this in the way that popular culture continually erodes away the religious aspects of Christmas in order to create a more effective marketing tool. 

Edited July 7, 2018 by mererdog

[RevBogovac]

On 7/7/2018 at 2:05 PM, mererdog said:

[...] Religion has a lot of powerful tools that are readily adapted for secular purposes. While doing so can have the appearance of forcing religion onto the secular, what it often does is secularize the religious.

 

You can see this in the way that popular culture continually erodes away the religious aspects of Christmas in order to create a more effective marketing tool. 

 

That's "just" Americans being lazy... Santa Claus is actually a derivation from Saint Nicholas; a clergyman who was made into a saint because of various good deeds involving children (especially giving them sweets to children so they got some reserves to survive winter). "We" (Dutch) commemorate him around his death anniversary (6. december), and continued to do so as "we" colonised the Americas. Unfortunately Coca Cola decided at the beginning of the 20th century that two holidays in one month was too much and adapted Santa Claus into this "modern" holidaymaker. The popularisation of American culture did the rest...

The "celebration" of spring/rebirth of nature with fertility symbols has nothing to do with Easter. It was a coincidence that the pagan celebration of the spring equinox and Judean Pascha coincided more or less so the early Christians adopted the pagan rituals as to convert pagans easier.  At the time it was a good idea, nut now it ridicules the most important Christian holiday. I personally like to commemorate the death sentence the philosopher Jesus fro Nazareth got because he did not want to denounce his teachings of equality before the gathered masses (who were there to celebrate the Jewish Pascha) thereby "immortalising" this philosophy and laying the foundation for our current culture.

 

PS@Jonathan; and I thought Jack Frost only entered our culture somewhere in the 19th century personifying (unifying?) the "old God" Old Man Winter (Western Europe) / Grandpa Frost (Eastern Europe)...

[mererdog]

8 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

That's "just" Americans being lazy...

It has more to do with Americans trying to more efficiently exploit profit opportunities. Economies of scale, and all that.

Piggy-backing the Santa myth on the Christmas holiday created more opportunities for "kid-friendly" merchandising while simultaneously cementing in the popular consciousness the notion that Christmas is primarily about gift-giving (and, therefore, gift-buying).

Perhaps as an unintended consequence, older children learning that they have been intentionally lied to about Santa often end up reexamining their beliefs regarding other Christmas stories.

[RevBogovac]

13 hours ago, mererdog said:

22 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

That's "just" Americans being lazy... [...]

It has more to do with Americans trying to more efficiently exploit profit opportunities. Economies of scale, and all that.

Piggy-backing the Santa myth on the Christmas holiday created more opportunities for "kid-friendly" merchandising while simultaneously cementing in the popular consciousness the notion that Christmas is primarily about gift-giving (and, therefore, gift-buying).[...]

 

True... for the 0,1% thinking and acting like that. For the 99,9 other %... well... maybe...