tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post4541971224028175725..comments2024-03-01T07:35:49.740-08:00Comments on Come Reason's Apologetics Notes: Religious Symbols, Public Land, and the Charge of OffenseLenny Espositohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04064209669748618955noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-15028958056940425512015-10-12T14:01:28.586-07:002015-10-12T14:01:28.586-07:00The legal argument hinges on whether or not the sy...The legal argument hinges on whether or not the symbol can be viewed as an endorsement of religion by the government, NOT on whether the symbol is offensive to anyone. Fortunately, offense is not the standard applied in cases like this. If it were all speech would be prohibited because everything offends someone.<br /><br />You correctly summarized the problem in this statement "It was troubling for this person to look up at the cross every day and see what he considered an endorsement of a specific religion."<br /><br />Yes, this person was offended by the apparent endorsement of a religion. But the offense itself is not the problem; it is the endorsement part that is the problem. Once the government no longer owns the land, endorsement is moot. The Constitution is satisfied.<br /><br />Whether or not "religious motivations factored into the founding of our nation", the issue is whether such an arrangement can be construed as an endorsement of religion. In this case it was and therefore a remedy was in order. Offense does not disappear with a change of ownership; but the possibility of endorsement does.FriendOfKenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11931368842906362815noreply@blogger.com