Isn't that lending a Christian name to a publicly funded municipality?
Where do YOU draw the line at public money and religious acknowledgement?
2006-09-28 09:22:42 · 9 answers · asked by Lawn Jockey 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The legal standing under the US Constitution and the First Amendment is that church and state can not be entangled under the entanglement clause. What this means is that if a state or city does something which is merrily incidental to the religious aspect, then it will be allowed. However, if the connection is too strong than their is a legal test called strict scrutiny. Under this test, there must be no Less restrictive means available to accomplish the goal set out. Thus the issue is what is the goal of naming a city? It would seem to me that this type of entanglement does cross the line, and likely would not be allowed.
2006-09-28 09:47:11 · answer #1 · answered by goldsteinandclegglaw 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well if we name streets after trees, aren't we lending Druid culture to a municipality?
And then of course there are Native American names.
But my favorite is the town of Amherst which was named after Lord Jeffrey Amherst who purposely gave smallpox infected blankets to the Native Americans, thereby killing many of them. One of the first instances of germ warfare. I would rather have my town named after a saint, and I am not Christian.
2006-09-28 16:31:46 · answer #2 · answered by WendyD1999 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Should not be allowed. To go further, all of our laws are based on Christian principles, so we should not have them. Right? I think you may be on my side when I say that the Constitution never has and never should include the separation of church and state. If you read the amendments, it never states the that the two shall be seperate.
2006-09-28 16:26:24 · answer #3 · answered by matt b 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The 'separation of church and state' is a myth. The 1st amendment reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
There is NO mention of the fallacy of separation of church and state.
2006-09-28 16:32:04 · answer #4 · answered by credo quia est absurdum 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is crossing the line, when they want to change the names of cities.
2006-09-28 16:25:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's just a name, it isn't supporting or funding a religion with tax dollars.
2006-09-28 20:59:07 · answer #6 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You mean like San Diego? Or maybe San Francisco? How about San Antonio? Shall I go on?
2006-09-28 16:27:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
There are so many more pressing church-state issues than this.
2006-09-28 16:25:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say its ok if the name was of historical signifigance.
2006-09-28 16:29:54 · answer #9 · answered by joer80 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋