Should all displays of the Ten Commandments be ruled unconstitutional?

[zoidberg]

Edit: I should have added 'publiic' displays of the Ten Commandments. I read the appeals court ruling the upheld Glassroth v Moore, which required the Ten Commandments monument to come down. (see http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religion/glsrthmre70103opn.pdf) It's fairly long, but a good and very well reasoned read. I am convinced that the federal courts made the correct decision in this case. But the ruling leaves a very grey area regarding when a religios displays amounts to the establishment of religion. By Moore's words and actions, it's easy to determine that he meant to establish a religion. But that isn't always the case with religion displays. I know there is a statue of the Ten Commandments on the Capitol Lawn in Austin, but I believe it was put there by a private organization and it is one of many objects representing our heritage. So I don't that the statue there establishes religion. Where should the line be drawn? Does the 1st ammendment create such a seperation of church and state that all advancements of religion are to be banned?

[Walt Starr]

1. In many cases, they can stay up

If an outside organization puts up a ten commandments monument and maintains it, it should be allowed to stand so long as I can put up a statue of the Goddess and God engeged in an overt sexual act complete with a full depiction of insertion.

[Tyler Durden]

4. Walt, you rock.

And I want the right to have ritual masturbation cerimonies allowed next to the statue, same as the Fundies and their all-day prayer meetings.

[ima_sinnic]

6. and I want a giant bronze spliff erected

in honor of Rastafari

[slackmaster]

99. That would be very cool!

I'm all for it.

[Liberal Veteran]

11. And I want to be able to sacrifice small animals and burnt offerings....

To this statue:

[wtmusic]

2. Easy-separation of church and state

The days are numbered for the statue in Austin as well. Why shouldn't advancements of religion be banned? Is the state qualified to be educating us about our afterlife?

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. No

But it is qualified to teach us about history -- and the commandments are part of that. Would you ban teaching about them as well?

[Tyler Durden]

5. In schools, YES.

No offense to anyone's religion, but if you look at it pragmatically, "God" handing down the "10 Commandments" personally to Moses, has exactly the same validity as an ancient Greek claiming Pallas Athena was born from the forehead of Zeus.

We are dealing with RELIGIOUS TRADITION, NOT HISTORY. It can be part of the Western "Ethos," but it cannot be revered as revealed FACT in publicly supported institutions, unless you want the "GITAS," the Talmud, Sharia and countless others treated exactly the same way.

There's no wiggle room here.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. The commandments

Had an impact on history including American history. You can no more cut them out of history than you can the Catholic Church.

[K-W]

13. As has been stated before

most of the rules on the ten commandments predated the ten commandments, meaning they really had little influence on anything. They basically just said "Worship me and follow standard civil codes!!!"

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. As has been stated here before

The rules in the 10 Commandments gained widespread recognition in THAT form in western civilization. As such, they along with America's other historical realities, are significant.

[K-W]

22. Recognition?

Movie stars have wide spread recognition in our society, should we put statues of them in courts and public buildings?

They are a religions icon, their historical influence is as a religions Icon. As a code they had little historical significance other than that they were the law for a small tribe and then became a part of chrisianity which spread massively around the world. Im not sure there is any place other than a museum where such a thing would belong.

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. A couple points

First off, if a public figure has a major impact on society, then yes, put a statue up. Like Arthur Ashe in Richmond.

As for the rest, like it or not, America was founded as a western nation, with western culture. Part of the history of that culture is also the history of Christianity and the commandments are a major factor in that.

[K-W]

34. Do you have any idea how

many things were part of the history of the western culture. You could come up with an infinate number of people, stories, objects, symbols etc that were part of western culture. The reason that this one little piece of culture is above the others is soley its religious significance. That is why it is not appropriate in most public areas. It is first and foremost a religious symbol, and only secondarily a historical culture piece.

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. No one does

All civilization is a collection of a mighty HUGE chunk of facts. However, the commandments were the written law foundation for the Judeo-Christian heritage which grew into the Catholic Church -- the most dominant religious institution in western culture.

[Liberal Veteran]

46. Our system of government and law drew more heavily from Ancient Greece

Than ancient Jewish philosophy in the formation of our society.

Why are you putting the 10C before the pantheon of Mt. Olympus?

On edit: I said Mr. Olympus instead of Mt. (not that I would object to a finely sculpted statue of a hot a guy).

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. Olympus

Well, perhaps because Mount Olympus didn't run or influence things in Europe for much of the last 2,000 years.

[K-W]

59. I believe the Roman Empire

may have had some small influence on europe for at least a little bit of time, and they were for the most part not christian but closer to greece religiously.

[Muddleoftheroad]

61. I agree

And we give Roman history full credit. Why not Christian history?

[K-W]

65. What on earth are you talking about

Christian is not a nation, btw. It was the religion of nations. So first off comparing it to roman history is definately off base.

Christianity was the religion of certain parts of the world in history, and those times and parts are fully appreciated as part of history.

The point I was making was that the ten commandments have about as much significance historically as some small part of greeks religious culture. Both were simply religions in a society, that influenced another religion that through the course of history got spread across most of europe.

The commandments are not very historicially significant, certainly not enough to warrent prominant display anywhere but in a museum. The ONLY reason anyone would pick them out of the myriad of other historical items of similar siginficance is religion. Thus they are predominately a religious symbol and have no place in most public areas.

[Muddleoftheroad]

141. Of course it isn't a nation

But movements, religions, groups and associations all impact society just like nations. Would you delete the Civil Rights movement as well?

Christianity was more than just "the religion of certain parts of the world in history," it was the religion of those parts that colonized and westernized America and founded the United States.

[K-W]

48. Erm

The ten commandments were not the root of Judeo-Christian thought.

YOu act as if the ten commandments created man or something. They weren't the foundation for the Judeo Christian Heritage. They were code of moral laws used by a tribe that produced christianity, which then became one of the top religions in the world. The commandments were not the foundation of anything. They were just part of a religion that existed in our history. They hold no other significance.

[Liberal Veteran]

38. But western civilization also had it's roots in ancient Greece....

In fact, one could argue that given that our very form of government was derived from the beliefs of the ancient Greek civilization (our founding father's drew on the history of the Greeks heavily in the foundation of our laws) and since part of that civilization is the worship of the Greek Pantheon, wouldn't a statue of the Gods of Mount Olympus be a more appropriate testament to the historical significance of our law than the 10 commandments?

[K-W]

43. Looking at history,

Ancient greek thought is the foundation for most of our society. The periods in western history where the church dominated were called the Dark Ages for a reason. When they ended thye rediscovered classical texts and worked from there.

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. Greece

If you look around at public buildings and such, I think we acknowledge that pretty well aleady, don't you?

[Liberal Veteran]

49. Nope. I don't. I think we need statues of the Olympian Gods....

So there can be no doubt that we are paying homage to the very foundation of the society that our society was based upon. Athenian style columns just don't cut it.

On edit: Claiming that some architectural columns is enough of an homage to the society that our country was founded upon would be like claiming that empty stone tablets would be enough of an homage to the 10c.

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. Take up a collection

For a statue of Zeus. I'm in.

[zoidberg]

51. That doesn't matter

Greek and Roman art are found in public places throughout our country, and no reasonable person objects to it. So the appropriateness of a statue does not matter. If a state wants to recognize our Grecian heritage :) - without establishing a pagan state - then they have the right to do say. If a state wants to recognize our Judeo-Christian heritage - without establishing a Christian state - then they have the right to do so.

[K-W]

55. No one would object

to art done in christian nations. Which would be the proper parrallel to classical art.

One could argue that because the religion is dead, ancient greek gods do not violate the separation of church and state and cant be compared to christian symbols anyway.

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. Dead?

I doubt it, mostly dead perhaps. I bet there are people who worship Zeus.

[K-W]

67. I think any neo-pagen movement

could be considered significantly divergent from and not rooted in the greek religion. They aren't hold overs who got the greek religion from thier parents. That religion did die. Someone who reads about it now and decides to worship zeus isnt really in the same religion.

[Muddleoftheroad]

142. According to?

If I read about a religion and adhere to its beliefs, I'm not a follower?

[K-W]

197. Well we are getting into the definition of religion.

Which is a bit tricky. But I think its pretty reasonable to say the greek faith (does it have a name?) is a religion of antiquity.

[Liberal Veteran]

73. Duality of purpose.....

A Greek column may pay homage to ancient Greeks, but no one can argue that a Greek Column is a religious symbol.

Here's a compromise. How about we just make some tentlike architectural details to pay homage to the civilization of the nomadic Jews from which Christianity derived instead of a specific religious symbol?

[zoidberg]

82. Not just a column

The Goddess of Liberty atop the Capitol Dome could be considered a religious symbol, but no reasonable person would call it an establishment of religion.

[K-W]

89. Because it isn't

it is a symbol for no religion that exists in america.

[Tyler Durden]

20. So did the Mormons.

So where's the statue of the Angel Moroni in public buildings?

The 10 Commandments were not, and are not LAWS. They are scriptural injunctions, and more than half of them are not remotely supported in criminal or legal jurisprudence.

Sorry. There are lots of nice myths, but unless you treat Moses and the C's as MYTH, then they have no place in public education or edifice.

[zoidberg]

24. That might be the case, but does that make it Unconstitutional?

The first amendment forbids the establishment of any religion by Congress (extended to the states by the 14th). Judge Moore tried to establish a religion by his actions. Therefore the statue was unconstitutional. But it is a stretch to say that all displays of the ten commandments are establishing religion. The case I linked to cited a Richmond County, Georgia seal with the ten commandments depicted. The courts ruled that the seal did not violate the Constitution because there was a secular purpose to it (letting illiterate Georgians know that the seal represented a law enforcement agency.)

[sangh0]

42. You obviously already know the answer

The SCOTUS decisions on this matter, as a set of general rules, is pretty clear - Religious displays by the govt are prohibited, while religious documents, symbols, etc are allowed as part of a non-religious (ex. a historical display, a scientific display, etc) display.

The only thing that has been left unspecified is which displays are religious and which are non-religious, which makes sense because each display must be judged, in a court of law, by the facts and circumstances surrounding the display. IOW, it is not possible to come up with some scientific set of rules that accurately determines whether or not a particular display is religious or not. Each display must be evaluated on it's own merits, or lack thereof.

This being the case, I don't see any purpose being served by trying, through discussion, to determine which imaginary displays are religious, and which are non-religious, besides the purpose of sowing dissension on an issue that is known to be contentious on DU.

[zoidberg]

53. But there are plenty of religion displays

The Congress has a paid chaplain that opens the session with a prayer (as did the Congress that passed the Bill of Rights). The courts have allowed this.

[sangh0]

64. Ahh, the non-responsive response

In my previous post, I pointed out that you already know that the answer to your question is that religious documents CAN be displayed by public institutions so long as it's part of a non-religious display.

Instead of explaining why you would ask a question you already know the answer to, you try to distract from that with a non-sequitor by pointing out that there are some religious displays in public institutions, which does nothing to answer the question "Why ask a question you already know the answer to?"

"But there are plenty of religion displays"

Yes, and there are plenty of murders.

[zoidberg]

70. So what if I have an opinion

I stated in my original post that I didn't think the statue in Austin violates the first amendment. As to why I would post a question I already know the answer to: then why the hell would anybody post anything on the general discussion board. If we can only post honest questions and not try to start a discussion, it would be a pretty crappy board.

[sangh0]

76. Another question you know the answer to, and non-responsive response

Regardless of what your opinion, you know that

1) it's the SCOTUS decision that counts.

2) SCOTUS has decided the question you ask in the threads subject line

So why ask the question, if you already know the answer?

As to why I would post a question I already know the answer to: then why the hell would anybody post anything on the general discussion board.

Ahh, the non-responsive response! Even better, you try to make it appear that you're answering the question, when what you are really doing is asking another question, and a pretty stupid question at that.

The question you ask is why the hell would anybody post anything on the general discussion board?

Gee, maybe to share some info? Maybe to ask a question that you don't already know the answer to?

So again, please try to respond to the question with an ANSWER, and please don't pretend that asking a question is the appropriate way to answer a question:

Why ask a question you already know the answer to?

If we can only post honest questions

So you want to post dishonest questions? I'm not surprised.

and not try to start a discussion, it would be a pretty crappy board.

If you wanted to "start a discussion" why not post what you already know, instead of pretending that you don't know already the answer?

[zoidberg]

84. What is you purpose?

Of course it's the SCOTUS decision that counts. But I know several people that don't agree 100% with what the SCOTUS decides. Using your argument, it's the Congress that decides our laws, so it would be pointless to debate whether we should have the Patriot Act or not. As for my term 'honest questions', I was thinking along the lines of asking questions of verifiable fact, not of opinion. I guess I should have originally asked, "In your opinion, does any display of the Ten Commandments violate the Constitution." Would that have made you happy?

[sangh0]

93. More evasiveness

Instead of non-responding to questions with more questions, why don't you just simply explain why you concealed the fact that you are already familiar with the decisions, (dis)agree with it, and your reasons for holding your opinion?

Even if you HAD asked "In your opinion, does any display of the Ten Commandments violate the Constitution?" why wouldn't you post your knowledge and YOUR opinion? If you want an honest discussion, why not post your honest opinion?

Why do you continue to conceal your position?

[zoidberg]

98. How did I conceal my opinion?!

From my original post: I know there is a statue of the Ten Commandments on the Capitol Lawn in Austin, but I believe it was put there by a private organization and it is one of many objects representing our heritage. So I don't that the statue there establishes religion

Other then not being able write worth a damn, how did I conceal my position? What point are you trying to make with this wasteful exchange?

[sangh0]

102. You already know the answer to the question you asked

and you continue to admit it, or explain why you did not post info on the SCOTUS rulings.

[zoidberg]

175. So bloody what?

My question was a question of opinion. "SHOULD all displays of the Ten Commandments be ruled unconstitutional?" I gave my opinion and asked for the opinions of the posters of this board. I can't know an answer when I asked for people's opinions. What is your problem with that?!

[Liberal Veteran]

23. That would be if it weren't for the fact that we know the real reason...

...why people want to stick these monuments to Judeo-Christian ethics everywhere.

People like Moore and others have no secular interest in supporting the display of these monuments as historical examples. The entire purpose in this is nothing more than to make a statement that leads to the notion that we are Christian nation.

To argue otherwise is ignore the reality of the motivation of the vast majority of supporters of such displays.

[Walt Starr]

57. See, the Bible can be taught in public school

In literature courses as mythology right alongside The Iliad.

Most fundies have a problem with that, though.

[Brian Sweat]

8. Absolutely.

[Bandit]

21. Well let's fly a confederate flag in every courthouse.

It is about history, right. Get a grip. You don't shove something as contoversial as religion down a taxpayers throat just because you think it is history. Hell the Lord of the Rings is as much history as the Bible and a better story to boot.

[zoidberg]

25. And the confederate flag would not be Unconstitutional

Foolish and offensive, yes. But hardly unconstitutional.

[Bandit]

31. You may be incorrect

I seem to recall it being a crime to fly the flag of a defeated enemy of the US. Especially one with such a traitorous history.

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. If so

Then you need to lock up several million people including a lot of people who have rooted for various sports teams.

[zoidberg]

37. I saw a British Flag flying the other day

Perhaps I should have notified the police.

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. It is flown

In various places. I don't like it, but it isn't unconstitutional.

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. It depends on the context

If they have a histroical rather than religious meaning, then the case can be made.

For instance, the House Chamber in the U. S. Capitol has relief sculptures of various lawgivers throughout history. People like Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and even Hammurabi. Also included are Pope Innocent III and Moses.

http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Virtual_Tours/Artifacts/moses.php

[Tyler Durden]

10. Unfortunately, INVALID.

Unless you want to teach that GOD ALMIGHTY came down from Heaven and PERSONALLY gave the tablets of the 10 Commandments to Moses, then Moses is technically invalid.

Otherwise, you endorse what to the majority of people on earth (who are Budhist and Hindu) is a lovely little MYTH.

[Liberal Veteran]

9. Why don't people just say what they really mean?

In the United States, most people who say they support the display of religious symbolism on public property or invocation before public event are actually saying they don't mind because they know by default that it's going to be one that represents their religious beliefs. The same people would be aghast if we had to put a statue of goat headed satan in the rotunda or performed a naked invocation to the goddess before starting a public event. What most supporters really mean is they secretly want to break down the the wall of separation between church and state and recognize their particular faith in the public sector, but you know damn well they aren't willing to share the spotlight with less common religions in America.

[K-W]

15. There is overall a

"whats the real harm" attitude on this issue that is extremely pervasive. Its around in alot of other issues today. People simply dont understand the history and significance of constitutional protections. I think the worst is the people who say "well, they are only going to use them on terrorists, so why do you care" on the issue of the patriot act and taking away rights.

I hope it doesnt take another totalitarian government to remind America that our rights are important.

[Paschall]

179. Value slippage

The same phenomenon allows a lot of people to excuse the US's violation of international law in the invasion of Iraq: Saddam is "gone" and that is a good thing.

Principles and ideals seem to mean much less today than "interest" (as in America's interest). As much as the GOP slams liberals, the "permissive Sixties" and the so-called "if it feels good ethic," they are the masters and mistresses of self-indulgence. Their pleasures: satisfying their greed and amassing power.

[mumon]

14. Well, I think the case is pretty cut and dried...

Is there a primary secular purpose?




Believe it or not (hey it seems everybody on the right is scamming each other) the Rutherford Institute (yes, the one that was so anti-Clinton), has a pretty good analysis of why Alabama was so totally Charley Fox-trotted:

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/legal_features.asp?article_id=63


in subsequent decisions the Supreme Court has clarified that undeniably religious items may be displayed by the government if they are placed in a context which emphasizes their secular historical or other value rather than as a purely religious symbol. For instance, a crèche or menorah may be displayed with other secular symbols, such as Christmas trees or presents. Hence, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the same Circuit Court that held that Moore’s Ten Commandments monument violated the Establishment Clause, has held that the Establishment Clause is not violated by a display of the Ten Commandments with other secular historical documents. See, Harvey v. Cobb County, 15 F.3d 1097 (11th Cir. 1994).

The Chief Justice would have been on much stronger legal footing had he chosen to place a copy of other historical documents that undergird our legal system, such as the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence alongside the Ten Commandments monument.

Now I personally think that the last part here might be a little beyond the pale in many concrete cases: it is not unreasonable for folks to try to put a token show of secular documents (like Roy's "In God we trust?" words on his rock) to try to get around this. Similarly, Behind the Green Door featured jugglers and clowns for no explicable reason as the camera panned over to Marylin Chambers and otherwise naked men with masks on, giving the film "redeeming social value" as "art."



If Rutherford knew this, then Moore did, which is why I think Roy Moore and D. James Kennedy were willing partners in an elaborate scam to fleece their flocks.

[sujan]

16. HELL YES

[JI7]

18. historical or private i guess

of course private places should be allowed to display as they wish. but in public places it should only be allowed for historical purposes, such as in museums.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Public places

Isn't a courthouse a public place?

[Tyler Durden]

26. OK then, you must accept this:

Assume I am a deeply religious Hindu.

I see the 10 Commandments in your courthouse. Being a reasonable fellow with a ton of spare cash, I say, well, My religious belief has some excellent tennants that would go well beside this monument, so I fund a 2 ton block engraved with some of the more pithy sayings of Lord KRSNA toward public behavior an ethical belief.

Can I put it in the courthouse next to your 10 c's, and if not, why not?

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. History

As a major part of American history, what impact did "Lord KRSNA" have?

[K-W]

36. Are only white people American now?

I believe there are a good number of Americans who hindu traditions have had a large effect on.

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Hindu traditions

Did not shape our government. Nice try. Next?

[K-W]

50. History

This little section of this thread is about history, not influence on governement. Try to stay on topic.

[Muddleoftheroad]

56. I am on topic

Historical impact on the U.S. The Hindu culture has not had much such impact.

[K-W]

62. If you define US

by christian people only, you are correct. You seem to be missing the point that there are alot of people in the US, citizens of the US for whom the ten commandments have absolutely no historical value at all, and hindu scriptures have a huge historical value. There are others too. They are just as American as christians.

To be blunt, the point is that we dont have a national religion. Christianity is not the end all of our culture. And just because white people came from europe does not mean that we should be putting statues up based on things that happened in the history of Europe.

[Muddleoftheroad]

143. No, I define it by the founding principles

And founding citizens.

[K-W]

198. Yikes

your avatar is rather earie next to your post. America is defined only by wealthy white western european protestants from the 1700's?

[Muddleoftheroad]

206. No

But those principles make up our history -- mine and yours. That means everyone, not just those you describe. We have a shared history, but it IS a Western history.

[noiretextatique]

135. what about native american spiritual beliefs and symbols?

or yoruba spiritual beliefs and symbols? did the belief systems of indians and african "shape our government?" or are you referring solely to the religions of the europeans?

[zoidberg]

180. I don't think so

Some native America beliefs probably shaped our government. I'm not aware of any African beliefs. It doesn't matter though. If a community wants to celebrate African culture and heritage with a statue in a public place, then more power to them. If the people of California want to put a giant statue of Quetzalcoatl in front of their Supreme Court, then they should be able to do so.

[noiretextatique]

209. african religions were banned

by the enslavers. i imagine the same thing happened with indian beliefs. read the book "things fall apart"...a good depiction of the connection between christianity (as it was used to usurp traditional religions and culture) and colonialism/slavery/imperialism, etc. one of the reasons i could never be a christian.

[Tyler Durden]

45. To continue my analogy...

...Then as a New US Citizen (remembering that NOBODY here is a REAL native; even the "Native Americans" came across the Ice Age Land Bridge from Siberia), Why are my ethical beliefs less than YOURS? Mine are about 1000 years older than yours, and if that ain't history, what is?

As to "American History," show me the army that marched with the Arc of the Covenant at its fore. NOBODY said, "Let's go kill those Godless Brits (1776 and 1812), or those Godless Reb's (1861)."

The "historic" argument bases the country in the "Judeo-Christian Tradition," instead of the Democratic Tradition of let's say, Athens.

Sorry Dude. I think Jefferson would side with ME, and I consider that pretty good company.

[JI7]

63. good point

.

[K-W]

27. Indeed

the fact is that citizens dont have a right to decorate public spaces. We cant all just run to a park with our favorite statues and put them in.

Public places should be administered by the government, and in cases of private donations of art or of anything, it should be something that is either accepted or rejected by government who must follow the constitution.

[ima_sinnic]

109. a courthouse is a public place where absolute impartiality must prevail

it's not an art museum OR a church.

[ComerPerro]

29. No. Certainly not

I consider displays of the Ten Commandments to be artistic, if done properly.
Hell, I even would have considered that statue in Alabama as a work of art.

But, when you start trying to put it prominently in a courthouse, that is where I draw the line.

My biggest issue with Moore in this case is the fact that he has shown contempt for the rule of law. If he was a private citizen, that would be one thing. But he is not only a judge, but a chief justice. The fact that he does not respect rulings that, as he sees it, undermine his religion really bothers me.
What assurance does anyone who's case he is hearing have that he will not use the Bible, and not the Constitution, do rule their case?

[zoidberg]

40. You are correct

The worst part of the case is that he thought the ruling of the federal courts did not apply to him. When he was put up the statue, he was acting as the administrator of the grounds (his job under the law) and not as Chief Justice. If the Alabama Court had ruled to allow the Commandments to stay, only the Supreme Court could have overruled it. But that was not the case here.

[Blue_Chill]

72. Exactly

well said.

[Paschall]

183. Yes

We've been distracted by 2.5 tons of granite. It's Moore that should have been removed manu militari from the courthouse.

[kentuck]

35. In fact, we ahould encourage all private business owners to put them....

in their store windows. That is private property. They can request that every American put the Ten Commandments in their windows if they wish. Just keep them out of public places. Is that too much to ask??

[ComerPerro]

41. If you are being serious

Then I agree. If a business wants to do this, that is fine.

[kentuck]

68. I think it is a good argument against these folks that claim we are....

somehow restricting their "religious" freedom. I think we should maybe make a public statement to the effect. That if they wish to put up the Ten Commandments in their private businesses or in the windows of their homes, then we would encourage them to do so. I have no problem with that. But that doesn't seem to be enough? They want to put them in "public" buildings...which are there for all our citizens, for all religions, and paid for by tax dollars of all citizens - not just the religious right...

[K-W]

71. It is incredible how quickly

they turn to acting as if they are being persecuted. They try to put thier religion in a public spot, and when we try to fight that we are persecuting thier religion. Its so rediculous it hurts.

[ComerPerro]

95. No shit

Also, they are pissed because some of them got arrested.

Thats what happens.
That's why they call it "civil disobedience".

[slackmaster]

58. Take "In God we trust" off of our currency first

I don't understand why people get so bent out of shape over public displays of religious symbols. I'm a third generation atheist and frankly it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Can't we concern ourselves with something more important?

:shrug:

[Liberal Veteran]

66. Is called the line in the sand....

It may not bother you. It doesn't bother me all that much, but you have to draw the line somewhere. In a society where church and state are supposed to be separate in the eyes of the law, the one place in the country that should be free of religious symbolism is the public courthouse which is in effect the incarnation of our legal system.

[slackmaster]

75. My line in the sand is the tax-exempt status of churches

They are corporations and should have to pay the same taxes as any other business, and get tax breaks for charitable work just like any other business.

[Muddleoftheroad]

146. Of course

Why attack religios symbols when you can go after the institutions themselves?

[K-W]

69. You of all people should know better

the christianization of our government is not a path we should take even a single small step down. When I see religion combined with government it tells me that I dont belong here. That I am not really an american or not as american as christians. THere is no reason we should take that step.

Edit: And the should take it off the dollar, out of our pledge, and out of everything. Why takes steps backwards when we could take steps forwards.

[slackmaster]

77. I'll start shooting when they make tithing mandatory

Their words mean nothing to me until it starts affecting my personal choices. If they come after my possessions or money or start ramming their faith down the throats of kids in public school then I will become a true radical.

[K-W]

79. The whole point of such rights is to avoid

that day. We fight these small battles now to avoid that big battle later. The day it gets to the point where we have mandatory religion, guess what, its too late to save America.

[Liberal Veteran]

81. You want to wait until it gets to that point?

Or should we just draw the line in the sand right now?

[slackmaster]

85. Right now it's not affecting peoples' behavior IMO

I don't care what anyone says until it starts infringing on other peoples' rights. It's all talk until people are forced to behave in a particular way governed by religion. I'm against forcing kids to say the Pledge of Allegiance (at least the version with "under God"). I'm against using public funds to support religious celebrations. I'm against indoctrinating kids in public school with religion (or politics, or anything else).

[K-W]

87. Having a religious statue in a public place is infringing on my rights

I have the right to not feel like I dont belong in a public place.

[slackmaster]

94. I must respectfully disagree

There is nothing in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, Code of Hamurabi, or any other legal foundation for your right to feel any particular way.

You have the freedom to CHOOSE how you feel. If you choose to be offended by a religious display in public, or artwork that you find offensive for any reason, or things that other people around you say or do, you just have to deal with the consequences of feeling that way.

[K-W]

100. Erm

The establishment clause makes it fairly clear that the state cannot endores a religion. Putting a religious figure in a public place is doing just that. I have every right to not have some religion that is not mine advertised when I am on public propety.

[zoidberg]

103. Do you really?

Where does the Constitution give you that right?

[K-W]

105. I have the right to not have the state push religion on me

Im surprised you missed that one in civics class.

[ima_sinnic]

118. standard freeper argument

it's called "precedent"--it's been the basis of U.S. laws for umpteen years if not specifically and literally spelled out in the Constitution.

[zoidberg]

181. OK, name this particular precedent

Which precedent says that people have a right to be comfortable in public places? Just because we have a very permissive idea of what the Constitution says doesn't mean we can just pull any right out of the air that we wish.

[K-W]

88. 2 things

1. It does infringe on my right to use public property and spaces without being made to feel that I dont belong.

2. If you wait till they start assualting rights, its too late. We simply keep our government totally secular so that everyone can equally practice thier religions. Its such a beautiful arrangement. The fundies arent going to settle for the ten commandments. If we let them have that, the would push for more and more until we were seriously looking at a christian state.

[slackmaster]

97. You have no right to feel any particular way

If society had to tiptoe around everyone's feelings we'd never get anything done.

You have a right to BE safe, not a right to feel safe.

You have a right to not practice any particular religion, not to FEEL like nobody is trying to push their religion on you.

People may do all kinds of things that you don't feel good about. Your feelings do not outweigh their right to say or do things.

[K-W]

104. Excuse me, In america I certainly do have a right

to not have religion forced on me. Good lord, read the constitution.

[slackmaster]

122. That's right, you have a right not to have religion forced on you

Who specifically is forcing it on you?

Other than making you feel left out, which I don't feel matters, what is the state making you DO or SAY or PAY FOR that constitutes imposition of a state religion?

[K-W]

125. Good grief

Why do you hate me?

I wish all of you would tell me why you hate me so much that you want me to be pushed out of society.

[slackmaster]

128. ROTFLMAOKASPMPGFB!!!

I don't hate you, K-W! I just think you don't have a right to feel any particular way, and I feel that your reaction to public displays of religious symbols is disproportionate to the REAL effect they have on your life.

Let's all sing a song:

"Feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings..."

[K-W]

134. I think if you want to make me feel bad

you hate me.

[slackmaster]

147. You're putting words into my mouth AND thoughts into my head

I don't want to make you feel bad, or good, or any particular way.

I think your FEELINGS about anything should not form the basis of public policy, law, or anything else other than how YOU choose to react to them.

[K-W]

151. This is expanding another debate, but

by that logic we could put statues up that said "Black people are stupid" and that wouldnt be descrimination. Becuase its just about feelings.

[slackmaster]

153. You've got it completely bass-ackwards

My point is it's NOT about feelings.

[K-W]

156. Its 2 inches from this post where you last said it.

"I think your FEELINGS about anything should not form the basis of public policy, law, or anything else other than how YOU choose to react to them."

You are arguing that theres nothing wrong with a religious symbol that makes me feel like I dont belong in this country because it is just about my feelings, not about public policy or law.

Thus you must also think that a "Black people are stupid" monument is not a matter of public policy or law, because it would just make black people feel opressed, not actually physicially oppress them.

This is EXACTLY what you are saying.

[slackmaster]

157. No, I'm saying that feelings are not good basis for public policy

Nothing more, nothing less.

Putting up a "Black people are stupid" monument would (or so it could reasonably be argued) cause ACTUAL HARM to black people.

A cross on a mountain or a sculpture of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse in Alabama harms noone.

[K-W]

161. Wait a minute

how would a "black people are stupid" monument cause actual harm to black people... I suppose if it fell on them. Or perhaps if it had some sharp pointy edges.

All it could possibly do is hurt their feelings. Make them feel bad, make them feel oppressed. Where are they being actually hurt?

[slackmaster]

165. Seems pretty obvious to me

A small child might read the words "black people are stupid" and get the idea that black people are stupid. That directly affects how that child will treat black people in the future. That child might some day not hire a black person because of it.

I don't see how reading things like "Thou shalt not kill" or any of the other nine commandments would cause someone to mistreat another person.

[K-W]

174. are you serious?

So the anti black statue wouldnt be about feelings because it could change someones feelings and have them act on it.

Yet the religious symbol is only about feelings.

So now we legislate on remote causality? This is an interesting system of justice you want to implement. Perhaps you should write a book.

meanwhile, in reality, the example holds, in both cases the only actual effect of the statue would be feelings. YOur convoluted attempt to say that one would cause violance is laughable. Especially considering the fact that religion has caused plenty of violence in history.

[slackmaster]

186. You still don't get it

So the anti black statue wouldnt be about feelings because it could change someones feelings and have them act on it.

The anti-black statue would be wrong because it could reasonably be expected to change someone's OVERT BEHAVIOR toward black people.

Because we have freedom OF religion as well as freedom FROM religion, we all have to tolerate expressions of other peoples' faiths or lack thereof. We do not have to tolerate racism.

Do you see any difference between racism and religion?

[K-W]

192. No one

could reasonbly expect a statue saying that black people are stupid to change someones behavior into being violent towards blacks. Your argument would be valid against my example of a hanged black person, thus I changed my example into one the better fit the circumstance.

We do have to tolerate peoples expressions of religion, I am perfectlly fine with that. Any normal citizen can come into the courthouse and say "I think the ten commandments should be the ethical code of america" and then I can say "I think you are wrong" no worries there. But that is not what we are discussing, we are discussing placing permanent statues on public property. I hope you can see the difference. Unless I then have the right to take that statue i guess.

You are wrong on another count. We do have to tolerate racism. Individuals have every right to be racist. Its a terrible thing but they have the freedom to express racism as citizens.

But just like religion, if it is a statue on public land being allowed by the state, it is then the state being racist, which is a horse of a different color, just like the state supporting someones religious views.

[K-W]

126. So a statue of a black man being hung

would be appropriate, just as long as they didnt actually hang any black people?

[slackmaster]

130. Your analogy is way out of line

Maybe if the black man had a smiley face and the crowd was multiracial like the revised flag in that episode of South Park, it would be OK.

EVERYONE: THAT WAS EXTREME SARCASM!!!

[K-W]

136. How was it out of line

you are making the rather odious argument that as long as the state doesnt actually force me to be christian subjecting me to christian symbols and objects is ok. So lets compare it to racism. Your logic would say that its not ok for the government to actually force people of other races to do things it would be ok to but up symbols of racism.

So a sign that says "Black people are stupid" in front of a courthouse would be ok? Because its just hurting thier feelings, it isnt actually forcing them to do anything.

[slackmaster]

139. It was obviously over the top

Equating a depiction of a lynching to a sculpture of two stone tablets with words on them?

Clearly out of line, at least to anyone who doesn't have a hair up their ass about religious symbols.

[K-W]

148. Out of line?

of course it was an exageration, that was the point. It was an example that would clearly show that your logic was wrong. I wasnt comparing the emotion involved, simply your claim that as long as the state isnt physically forcing something it isnt violating someones rights.

Clearly I wasnt comparing the two items for what they represent, stop trying to avoid discussing the issue.

[slackmaster]

154. I'm not avoiding the issue

I think YOU are taking it much too seriously.

Every day I see dozens of things that I COULD take offense at if I so chose. I choose not to let most of them bother me.

[K-W]

164. The day

chatting on a forum is taking something too seriously I'll be very impressed with the world.

If your argument is "yes its wrong, but fighting these small battles isnt worth it in the long run" thats a completely different debate. But you are taking this just as seriously as I am in defending the placement of religious symbols on government property.

[OldSoldier]

160. They're trying now.

It's called "faith-based social services."

What the hell do you think that is? A way to expand access to quality human services? No, it's a way to have every American tithe to the church of John Ashcroft's choice.

There is a private food bank here in town that was receiving federal funding for a while. Then one of the local churches purchased it and redesigned the application. It's gone from two pages to seven and the other five are all hardcore fundamentalist Christian questions. (I used to do the food bank's graphics until the church took it over and told me that my continued service would be contingent on my following of the Lord Jesus Christ. See ya.) The first question on the new form is the standard "if you died tonight, are you absolutely certain that you would go to Heaven" question that fundies love so much. Of course, if you're not certain that you will go to Heaven if you get killed trying to get out of the food bank's parking lot--it's a 35MPH zone people typically drive 55 in--you can check a box and a minister will be sure to get you squared away. Turn to page 7 and you'll find that you don't actually have to be a Christian to receive assistance from them, but someone who's applying for aid at a food bank is in no condition to read all the way to page 7 to find out being a Muslim is okay. (If you were Muslim, you'd go to our mosque's food bank, which is more open to non-Muslims than the Christians' bank is to non-fundamentalists.)

[bread_and_roses]

91. What is more important

than the Bill of Rights and the rule of law?

[slackmaster]

101. Nobody is forcing you to practice any religion

Or donate money towards it.

[K-W]

107. Are you saying that you think

that a state endorsed religion would be constitutional? Just as long as no money or mandatory worship was involved?

[slackmaster]

131. Go back and read what I actually wrote

[K-W]

138. You wrote

that sinec it wasnt taking my money or forcing me to worship it was ok. Right? So you think that the state can endorse a religion just so long as it doesnt use money or force people to worship, right?

This is a pretty simple question. Im trying to get you to clarify your opinion here. Would you think that the president could issue an order saying that america's official religion is christianity, just so long as it didnt involve using tax money or forcing worship?

[slackmaster]

144. You're putting words into my mouth

So you think that the state can endorse a religion just so long as it doesnt use money or force people to worship, right?

Wrong.

[K-W]

149. I didnt put words in your mouth.

I asked you a question, thanks for finally answering it.

So now please explain how you can say this:

"Nobody is forcing you to practice any religion
Or donate money towards it."

but you didnt mean this

"So you think that the state can endorse a religion just so long as it doesnt use money or force people to worship, right?"

Isnt that a pretty fair interpretation of the first thing you said? This is where Im confused, so please clarify your point.

Do you think that it has to involve money or forced behavior or do you not?

[slackmaster]

155. There are religious symbols in public places everywhere

Trying to purge the world of them just so you are not offended would not be a good use of public funds.

[K-W]

168. Agreed

but last time I checked the fact that just because people get away with something illegel in some places doesnt make it right. This is a totally different line of argument though.

I think in this case the location (a high court) and the prominance of the item makes it a case worth fighting. And you know what, if the judge had just followed the law, it wouldnt have cost that much money.

I dont think we should go crazy tearing every cross off a public building in the bible belt, but in a situation where it becomes a legal issue, we should do the right thing.

[bread_and_roses]

92. What is more important

than the Bill of Rights and the rule of law?

[DealsGapRider]

74. I agree that the 10 Commandments have no place in the public square.

It's a clear cut case of favoring one religious tradition over another. And I'd like to see the Religious Right get their undies in a knot over a bunch of Muslims putting up a statue of the Koran in a public building in Detroit.

But like all things, there's a line. I am not sure I agree that you shouldn't be able to have things like Christmas messages in public schools. I read somewhere that in one New England town, the banned poinsettas (I think it was poinsettas) from public buildings during the holidays because the flowers were associated with Christmas. I think that's a bit much.

[K-W]

78. Religion has

had a large cultural significance and there is an extremely dull line between religion and culture. I think in general society is pretty good with that... though Ive lived in NY and CT where there isnt so much fundamentalism. But if we have to downplay some culture in order to protect our freedom. That is a sacrifice we should be willing to make.

[Blue_Chill]

80. A few comments

1- It is not pushing your religion on anyone to include religious art on public property. The constitution made clear a seperation of church and state, not religion and public. There is a big difference.

2- For those of you that want to put sexual statues and scrifice animals that is between you and your community. A community that deems a cross acceptable does not have to allow you to masterbate on a sexual statue. This is an issue that is dealt by on a case by case basis and communities still decide what is acceptable.

3- I doubt the motives of many who argue the seperation. Many of you could care less about the constitution, it's the 'piss off the christians' part that gets you interested. Those of you that I just described are no better then Juddge Moore seeking to attack other groups for kick.

4- Forced secularism is favoritism. You can't deny that atheist would like a society free of religion. Thus scrubbing all public areas of any religion favors them. Unless you can show me that they do NOT support religion free area's then don't tell me secular = fair. In reality secualr favors particular belief that not surprisingly is in large quantity on this board.

[slackmaster]

83. I have to disagree with you on just one issue here

Blue_Chill wrote:

You can't deny that atheist would like a society free of religion.

I'm an athest and I say you are mistaken. I don't want to impose my beliefs on anyone else. I want every individual to be free to choose any religion or no religion, or make up their own religion. Other peoples' religiousity does not concern me unless it interferes with my life.

There's a cross on Mount Soledad in La Jolla, the suburb of San Diego where I grew up and attended school. It's a monument to honor war veterans, erected in the 1920s by the Boy Scouts. I like the cross. It looks cool. It's always been there as long as most people remember. But some atheist asshole who recently moved to the area from New York has sued to have it taken down. The city, recognizing that a large majority of the people do not want it taken down, transferred the property to a private group. Now the scumbag New Yorker is suing over that transaction. I say fuck him. If the cross bothers him that much he could have moved somewhere else.

[Blue_Chill]

121. Well said

I agree with you and I apologize for having generalized.

[K-W]

86. What is your problem, really?

Why cant we just keep a nice seperation. You can put whatever you want in businesses, churches and homes. Why do you feel the need to push so you can put them in other places to. Why wont you just leave me alone.

The seperation of church and state is about "live and let live" I dont push my beliefs in your face, and you dont push yours in mine. I think that works pretty well. Why cant you just live with that?

1. The ten commandments arent really art. No one has issues with christian themed art in appropriate public places. If the ten commandments were part of a larger piece, or something abstract maybe. But a stone rendering of the ten commandments is clearly a religious symbol and not art. YOur use of the word public is a problem. There is no problem with religion in public. You can take your bible anywhere, and in appropriate places you can preach your religion. Decorating a public space with a permanant monument is an issue of state, not of public.

2. The whole point of the freedom of religion is that we dont have majority rule religion. Communities dont choose which religious symbols to put up. That is exactly the reason we have a seperation. So that the one guy in the community who is not christian doesnt have his rights violated. This is not an issue of community consensus.

3. You have made the rather amazing leap into thinking that somehow we are trying to hurt christianity by advocating that it not become a part of government. You have invented wild ideas and suggested that people are somehow trying to persecute christians. This silly paranoia is just that. Christianity is doing just fine. Religion is something to be dealt with in private and in church. There is absolutely no reason it should be in inappropriate public settings, not a reason in the world. And not wanting it there is not an attack on your religion. Its live and let live. I let you do whatever you want, i do wahtever I want. But when we get together to be a nation we leave it at home.

4. Wow, what a bad argument. Secular does equal fair. Our government should be secular, free of any religious content. You are dead wrong that secularism = atheism. If the athiests were putting "God does not exist" statues up, then you would have a point. But they arent and you dont. I wish we could go back to the days where protestants were persecuted for just a little period so we could all see why we have these protections in the first place. It was deeply religions people who founded this country, but they did so because they wanted a place they could practice in peace, without the government getting involved.

Go find an abandoned island somewhere and create a christian nation. Keep our secular nation secular and dont let shortsighted religious arrogance destroy the American Dream.

Edited:structure

[slackmaster]

96. George Washington wasn't art either

The ten commandments arent really art.

But a painting of George Washington, or a sculpture depicting the 10 Commandments, IS art.

[K-W]

106. No it isnt.

If you are going to try to argue that the ten commandments are put up because people find them aesthetically pleasing. I will put you on ignore right now. I mean seriously you cant debate that they are a religious symbol. Your really scraping the bottom of the barrell here.

[Blue_Chill]

108. Then hit that ignore button

because if you are going to try to tell ANYONE what is and isn't art, you are completely insane.

[K-W]

110. lol

so you are arguing that those people in Georgia were all "art afficianados" and that they werent praying, they were having a discussion group on composition for thier art class?

I didnt tell anyone what and what is not art. I pointed out that the people who want to put the ten commandments up want to put them up as religious symbols, not as art. If you have a problem with that, why dont you go talk to them.

[K-W]

112. *Alabama

brain fart

[Blue_Chill]

120. No

But you didn't say that was what you were talking about. You said the 10 could not be art. Stop backpeddling.

[K-W]

123. No I didnt

I said that it wasnt art, and clearly I am discussing the context here. The day an artist comes with his artistic rendering of the ten commandments, he should display it in art gallareys and if he is a great artist it should one day go into an art museum.

Dont put words in my mouth. The people wanting to put the ten commandments up are blatently doing it for religious reasons. I find the fact that you are digging up this art excuse telling.

[Blue_Chill]

152. No one at all is putting words in your mouth

This thread is not about a specific version of the 10.

[K-W]

158. This thread is about the ten commandments being put up in public locations

in the United States of America. The context is very clear. You either have to live in a vaccuum or be feigning niavity to not understand that the debate is about putting a religious symbol up in public places because people want a religious symbol up in a public place. Find me one story or instance of an artist who had trouble getting his artistic rendition of the ten commandments put in an approriate public space for such art and then you can talk about art.

This debate never has been about art. And considering your constant athiest bashing, I dont think it is about art for you either. Youve been fooled into thinking that christianity is being threatned. Wake up, it isnt. So why dont you just practice religion in private, I will not practice religion in private, and we can just leave public spaces as great places for everyone in the country.

[Blue_Chill]

166. No shit

Are you going to tell me that no version of the ten commandments in a public location are art?

Look at the supreme court.

[K-W]

177. No, I'm not going to tell you that

nor did I ever tell you that.

Why do you say "no shit" when youve been arguing for this entire debate that this is about art. Did you just change your mind?

A statue containing many elements, one of which happens to be the ten commandments, where the commandments are appropriately prominant for the piece and are relevent to the composition, and the construction of them was done for reasons of history I have absolutely no problem with.

I have a problem with the ten commandments being placed in public locations in america alone or extremely prominantly and when they are done with the intent of pushing religious doctrine into the sphere of government.

edit-spelling

[Blue_Chill]

194. So then you are saying

nothing with the 10 would be acceptable today, just those that were built back in history.

Also I say "no shit" because you have been arguing about those in Talabama and I havne't.

[K-W]

203. No

I thought I stated my position rather clearly.

It is all about context really. If the ten commandments appear in a statue and thier prominance and context are such that they are not being emphesized or endorsed then it would be art and history and fine with me. If it were a statue celebrating written law throughout history with many examples and they were just one of them, fine. If it were a statu in an art museum depicting moses, fine. I have no problem with these. Absolutely none.

I enjoy alot of religious art. I just spent a day the cloisters in New York City. It is the metropolitan musuem of art's medieval collection. The building is built to look like a monestary using archtecture recovered from real medieval monestaries. All art in that time was religious, and alot of it is beautiful. I have a postcard on my wall of an amazing carved piece depicting the virgin enthroned and judgement day. But I digress.

My issue is with pieces that are displayed in a religious context or where the religious aspect is prominantly displayed so that the message is one of religion and not history, and it is displayed in a place where it, as a piece of art, is conspicuous.

[slackmaster]

124. Go ahead and ignore me

I don't give a hoot what kind of sculpture people in Alabama put up in their courthouse. I don't have a dog in that fight. If it was in California I might care. But actually I find that particular sculpture asthetically pleasing. If they put it in front of the Serra Museum in San Diego it wouldn't bother me a bit.

[K-W]

127. Welcome to America

Here we like to protect everyones rights, not just what bothers us as individuals.

[Blue_Chill]

196. Yeah welcome to a nation in which 'rights'

are taken to mean what they may see during their day. After all we know that nothing is more horrible then having to see something you disagree with.

OH THE HUMANITY!!!!!!

[K-W]

204. In my case its really not too much a matter of my own feelings

I use myself as an example for discussions sake, but I was an alterboy for 10 years, im a confirmed catholic, I can handle religious symbolism. The problem for me is that I know I am a strong minority, and I know that many people in this country think my views are actually evil. I know that people who run this country think I shouldnt be a citizen. This is true of muslims and jews and all other religions, even catholics to an extent. The ten commandments are a reminder that countrary to the constitution that says we have freedom or religion and that governement should be based on the constitution, there are alot of people who feel that non christians are evil or should be converted and these people push for the government to help them. There are politicians and judges who think that thier religious codes and morals supercede the constitution. These things are extremely scary.

The ten commandments are a reminder that for many a christian american is more of an american than a non protestant american. And when the government allows them to sit there as a monument to that fact.

[Liberal Veteran]

205. You are misrepresenting something terribly....

Sight is not at issue.

I completely understand that I have no particular constitutional right to not be exposed to say...a statue of Jesus as I drive by the church that the statue was on. That's church property. They have the right to put it there and it's essentially private property.

Public property, however, is another matter altogether, particularly a courthouse.

You have already admitted in other threads that you don't want to allow monuments that say "God and the Bible is big old fairy tale" or William Pitt's fornicating dieties on the rotunda, so why are so intent that I should have to put up with your expression of religion on in the rotunda?

[Cheswick2.0]

226. Oh my eyes my eyes...............

Cover my eyes, so I won't see
pictures of you that trouble me;
place in my hands the wonderful key
first thing I'll do is run from thee.
Silently now I wait for thee,
ready, to hide, you can't find me.
Cover my eyes, you frightened me, Spirit not mine!

[Cheswick2.0]

225. what is your problem really?

the majority of society is religious and is not going to hide all religion from you fearing to cause offense.

[Liberal Veteran]

90. Answers....

1. You know damn well the purpose of the putting religious art in public places is not for decoration, but as an acknowledgement to God, just like a public prayer is a religious ceremony and not just a nicety.

2. Ah yes, community standards. Another way of saying let the majority rule and we know where that leads.

3. And I would argue that the opposite that you know very well the purpose is to establish a Christianity as a state religion and erode the wall of separation between church and state. I could care less if it pisses off the Christians.

4. Secularism is NOT atheism. The turd in the toilet is secular and has no particular religious significance. Would you argue that by refusing to offer theistic or athiestic properties to the dump I took this morning, I am showing favoritism to secularism. The point is that some things are non-theistic.

[Blue_Chill]

117. response.....

1- What you think I know damn well is your own bias shinging thru. You assume all of us have the same intent. I very much like religious and non reiligious stautes. I like to look at them I think they amazing in how much they represent.

2- You have a propblem with freedom? Because telling community's what they MUST put up is not freedom. We live in a democracy not a scrub everything clean so that no over sensative anti-<insert group> gets offended. The people decide what is and isn't acceptable within the confines of the law.

3- A piece of art in a public park establishes nothing. And I could care less if it pisses you off after that comment. I hope someone puts one up in front of your house so you have to look at it all day long. See where your smacktard comments lead us? Keep your debate on topic or a flame response is what you will get.

4- I'm not arguiong that secularism is atheism, but a atheist society would be secular would it not? It imposes their version on us. The only free way is to allow displays of all sorts. I would love to see them, as long as they aren't the kind spefically designed to offend.

[K-W]

132. Your showing your true colors

2- You really should leave this thread and do some research. You are fundementally misunderstanding the bill of rights. The point of those rights is that they exist regardless of majority. They are there to protect the minority from the majority. It is a founding principle of our country that the majority cannot infringe on certain rights.

3- Why do you keep calling it a piece of art? This is not fox news, you dont need to use propaganda words. the issue here is the ten commandments. Not some random piece of art. But I like the malice, its good to see where you are really coming from.

4- If we displayed all sorts of religious art, you wouldnt be able to get into government buildings without climbing over a giant pile of monuments. Thus, the only feasible way to handle it is to just not put religious objects on public property. Its such a beautiful and simple solution. Everyone gets to worship what he/she wants to. We all live free and together as one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

What is wrong with that? I have yet to hear one explenation of what is wrong with just "worship and let worship"

[Blue_Chill]

137. My true colors? lol that was sad dude SAD! response......

2- You really should leave this thread and do some research. You are fundementally misunderstanding the bill of rights. The point of those rights is that they exist regardless of majority. They are there to protect the minority from the majority. It is a founding principle of our country that the majority cannot infringe on certain rights.

Bill of rights are to protect us from our goverment. It makes it so no matter what the goverment wants they can't take away certain freedoms. They are not their to force people to live the way you want them to live.

You are trying to force your ways on others, I am advocatind diversity.

3- Why do you keep calling it a piece of art? This is not fox news, you dont need to use propaganda words. the issue here is the ten commandments. Not some random piece of art. But I like the malice, its good to see where you are really coming from.

Are you able to think outside the box or does the little mouse in your head not run fast enough to get you there? The 10 commandments are much more then **ONE** monument in Talabama!!!!!! They very well can be art.

BTW as I explained to someone else, you flame me and you get a equal response. Keep this debate civil and watch who you accuse of propaganda.

4- If we displayed all sorts of religious art, you wouldnt be able to get into government buildings without climbing over a giant pile of monuments. Thus, the only feasible way to handle it is to just not put religious objects on public property. Its such a beautiful and simple solution. Everyone gets to worship what he/she wants to. We all live free and together as one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

More in the box thinking. No thought at all to having different religious art scattered all over the country. NO NO NO to you they must all be present in the same room or else one has a unfair advantage over the other in that 12 by 12 area and that is certainly unacceptable.

Forcing people NOT to display anything is not equality. Sorry but you can repeat that until you are blue in the face but it won't work. Anyone who actually has run into a anti-theist knows there is a group this would favor so save it.

[K-W]

145. Why do you insist on lying

No one in this thread or in any thread about the ten commandments on DU has EVER said they think you should live the way they do. This is a complete and utter fabrication by you.

Our governement is the majority. Thats what democracy means. The bill of rights is there to say wait, in these certain areas, even if 99% of the people are behind something, it isnt ok, because these rights cannot be violated by any majority. That is exactly why they exist. The seperation is exactly there so that a majority of people cant vote thier religion into government.

You are not advocating diversity. You are advocating letting the majority put its religious symbols in governmental places. This is not diversity. Diversity is letting everyone practice whatever they want and not forcing your symbols on them. It is letting the governement and public be for everyone not just christians.

You are the only one advocating forcing views on people.

3.

The ten commandments very well could be art. But very clearly in the United States of America, in the year 2003, on the issue of displaying them on governement property they are a religious symbol and not art. Your constantly referring to them as just general art is clearly an attempt to distort the debate.

4. Get a dictionary, look up equality. If no one gets to do it, its equal. It is extremely equal. How can you say that isnt equality? LOL once again you try to argue that secularism = anti-theism(in this case) why dont you read what I write. The only way your argument makes sense is if the "anti-theists" are allowed to put up a statue expounding their beliefs. If they are not, then they have equal ability to christians. Complete secularism of governmental property is complete religious equality.

If you would like to introduce a plan to find symbols of every religion and scatter them equally accross the country so that no religion has more representation, that would be an interesting debate. It has nothing to do with this thread, but it would be an interesting debate.

[Blue_Chill]

163. Don't accuse me of lying and them lie, that makes it too easy

Our governement is the majority. Thats what democracy means. The bill of rights is there to say wait, in these certain areas, even if 99% of the people are behind something, it isnt ok, because these rights cannot be violated by any majority. That is exactly why they exist. The seperation is exactly there so that a majority of people cant vote thier religion into government

Yes and they stop the state from forcing a religion on you. So call me when the national gaurd forces you to go to church and/or other religions become illegal. However to claim that a piece off art in a park has this effect is laughable.

You are not advocating diversity. You are advocating letting the majority put its religious symbols in governmental places. This is not diversity. Diversity is letting everyone practice whatever they want and not forcing your symbols on them. It is letting the governement and public be for everyone not just christians.

The absence of any religion is not diversity. You are advocationg a secular goverment which is in no way mentioned in the constitution. It is a bias interpretation of the seperation of church and state.

You advocate forced public secularism. I advocate let the people decide what art is acceptable and if they feel they are being discriminated against they can take it to court.

You are the only one advocating forcing views on people.

and here is the lie. When have I said I wanted to force you to do anything at all.


The ten commandments very well could be art. But very clearly in the United States of America, in the year 2003, on the issue of displaying them on governement property they are a religious symbol and not art. Your constantly referring to them as just general art is clearly an attempt to distort the debate

Is that why courst have allowed them to stay in other pubic buildings? Stop trying to pretend this issue has been figured out.

4. Get a dictionary, look up equality. If no one gets to do it, its equal. It is extremely equal. How can you say that isnt equality? LOL once again you try to argue that secularism = anti-theism(in this case) why dont you read what I write. The only way your argument makes sense is if the "anti-theists" are allowed to put up a statue expounding their beliefs. If they are not, then they have equal ability to christians. Complete secularism of governmental property is complete religious equality.

Get a dictionary and look up favoritism. If one group (anti-theist's) get there way and no one else does it is favoritism.

Stop pretending that no one actually wants a religion free society.

[K-W]

184. Why dont you just admit you want the US to be based on christianity?

I refer you higher up in the thread where someone else is trying to advance the view that rights are only violated when physical force is involved. Thats a really stupid argument.

Who was talking about a piece of art in the park? Once again you return to your propaganda talk. Suddenly a clearly religious statue of the ten commandments is refferred to as only art. CAn you read what you write with a straight face?

--

Diversity is letting people of all faiths practice freely. You are arguing that we should let the government give popular faiths special treatment and force people of different faiths to just suck it up and deal with it because you are the majority. That is just about the most unamerican stance you can take.

You advocate letting the majority religiously subjegate the minority. You mention art again NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT ART. Stop saying art. Do you have some problem where you cant use other words. This isnt about art, no one has ever been talking about art. You come into these discussions and try and replace the ten commandments with the word art. Its an obvious and petty ploy.

--

You want to force me to have to be exposed to your religious views in governmental places. You are forcing your views on me. If I walk into your church, fine. But when I walk into a public building you have no right to force your views on me.

Now you are lying about me being a liar, how clever of you.

--

This last section of yours is priceless. First off I will repeat the very simple fact that as long as no one, including your imagined anti-theist is getting to put up thier symbols, it is indeed equal.

Lets take this lovely logic of yours and apply it elsewhere. Women advocate for equal wages. "If one group get there way and no one else does it is favoritism." So if women get thier way and get equal wages, you are arguing that the government is favoring women... even though the end result is that everyone is equal?

This is quite a definition of equality you have. So if non religious people advocate a public sphere where no religion or anti-religion gets to place its items, it is actually favoring someone even though the end result is complete equality.

Its an interesting definition, but it isnt really the right one.

btw, a very small number of people want a religion free society. There are no significant groups and for the most part it is not these people who oppose the ten commandments. For instance the ACLU was involved in the alabama case representing Jewish Lawyers who had to walk past a protestent ten commandments to go to work.

You are paranoid and have invented some mythical anti-theist conspiricy to eliminate your religion. Most of the people who are fighting the ten commandments are in fact from non christian religions or are people who think that the bill of rights is something worth defending.

[Blue_Chill]

199. Because that would be a lie

I refer you higher up in the thread where someone else is trying to advance the view that rights are only violated when physical force is involved. Thats a really stupid argument.

No it isn't. Saying that if you see something you disagree with your rights have been violated is stupid.


Who was talking about a piece of art in the park? Once again you return to your propaganda talk. Suddenly a clearly religious statue of the ten commandments is refferred to as only art. CAn you read what you write with a straight face?

that courts are talking about it. Not all seperation issues are about court houses, and the orignal post in this thread did not limit the discussion to court houses.

yes I can read what I write with a straight face, it your moronic posts that make me laugh. You keep losing ground and attempting to turn the entire discussion about Talabama which is only one situation of many.

Diversity is letting people of all faiths practice freely. You are arguing that we should let the government give popular faiths special treatment and force people of different faiths to just suck it up and deal with it because you are the majority. That is just about the most unamerican stance you can take.

You advocate letting the majority religiously subjegate the minority. You mention art again NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT ART. Stop saying art. Do you have some problem where you cant use other words. This isnt about art, no one has ever been talking about art. You come into these discussions and try and replace the ten commandments with the word art. Its an obvious and petty ploy.

1- I have never asked that people not be allowe dto practice their religion freely. Time to prove your bullshit, show me where I said that or apologize.

2- **I** am talking about art and **YOU** are telling me what is and isn't art.

3- This isn't fox news why are you calling me unamerican?

{B]You want to force me to have to be exposed to your religious views in governmental places. You are forcing your views on me. If I walk into your church, fine. But when I walk into a public building you have no right to force your views on me.

Now you are lying about me being a liar, how clever of you.

Force you to be exposed? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol! Seeing something is a violation of your rights, that's rich!

This last section of yours is priceless. First off I will repeat the very simple fact that as long as no one, including your imagined anti-theist is getting to put up thier symbols, it is indeed equal.

Imagined anti-theists? Look smart ass there are many on this board that openly admit that that is exactly what they are. Pay more attention.

Also it is playing favorites, one group gets what they want and all others don't. Get it?

Lets take this lovely logic of yours and apply it elsewhere. Women advocate for equal wages. "If one group get there way and no one else does it is favoritism." So if women get thier way and get equal wages, you are arguing that the government is favoring women... even though the end result is that everyone is equal?

You lose again.

Women - want equal wages to men
Men - have high wages
Companies - want no one to have any wages

Goverment says the only fair way to do it for women and men is giving no one any wages!

That is siding with the companies right? Yup.

[K-W]

212. Please, just read my post without prejudging me for once

-dont change the discussion. Im not saying that everything is a rights violation, but clearly something need not involve physical force to violate rights as you suggested. (btw you put words in my mouth here if you are keeping score)

-Erm, losing ground? I doubt it. As I have already made clear, I dont think all instances of the ten commandments in public places are wrong. I think they are wrong in cases like alabama, where they are clearly a religious monument, not historical or artistic. Thus my use of that example.

-
1. (oo putting words in my mouth again weeee) I never said that you wanted people to not be able to practice religion. I said that you want to force your religion on me by placing it in secular governmental locations. I wont apologize for something I didnt say.

2. Umm, the thing is you are using the word art to oversimplify the issue, as if this was all just about innocent art. That is a petty ploy. As I have stated, I think that religious art is perfectly fine. I have no problem with governmental money supporting the display of religious art in art museums. If we are talking art we agree. I disagree with your use of art as an umbrella term to include monuments that were explicitly crafted and placed to represent religious values.

3. Your statements that municipalities should be able to put up whatever they want runs contrary to the founding principles of this country. The point of rights is that even the majority cant overide them.

-Seeing something is indeed a violation of my rights. If all government buildings were inscribed in large type saying "The God of Abraham is the One True God" you dont think that would be a violation of religious rights? It would in fact just involve seeing something. Governement endorsement of religion really is only about seeing things.

-You are very much exagerating the numbers/influence/evil motives of "anti-theists"

-Ooo, way to take my wage example and twist it. The point is that if a group fights for equality and gets equality, that group isnt being favored. Thus if a group fights for religious equality, and gets it, it isnt being favored.

But thanks for grossly missing the comparison.

[LanternWaste]

140. On the other hand

However, on the flip side there was the fracas a few years back when one of the NYC Art Museums displayed a piece of art designed by an artist from one of the mid-African states which depicted the Virgin Mother. All well and good until it was said (I can't verify any of this as I listened to the story only in passing) that animal feces was used in the making of it.

At that point the Fundamentalist were dead set against the display (paid in part by NY State taxpayers, I believe) and the liberals were dead set for it. Yet absolutely *nothing* had changed except perception.

At one time, it was a work made in honor of the Virgin Mother. A few days later, it was nothing more than a piece of work made to degrade the Christian faith...simple changes in perception seemed to transform it from a work of art to an attack on religion. And to this day, I'd love to see the piece in its original form, regardless of whether one person sees it as nothing more than an intrusion of religion or as an attack on religion because I believe I have the ability to percieve it as I may.

"Why do you keep calling it a piece of art? This is not fox news, you dont need to use propaganda words. the issue here is the virgin mother. Not some random piece of art"

[K-W]

150. Exactly

I supported the display of that art. I do not hate christians. In that case it was an issue of a piece of art being displayed in an art exhibition. It was clearly not a religious symbol promoting a certain religions ideology.

I dont see how this is a flip side. I believe in protecting civil liberties, which includes that artists right to display his art and includes my right to a government free of religious content.

[LanternWaste]

170. I think...

However, if this same piece of art was displayed in a Court Room or a State Capital Building, would you then say it is not appropriate because it then becomes an issue of state/religious seperation? Or would a Christian be able to condemn its placement there because it is an attack on religion?

It really comes down to individual perception in most cases.

Granted, the Alabama(?) Court Buildiung case recently vivisected by the talking heads in the media was about religion because the stated intent for the display was to acknowledge God. But in most cases, we're not so luckly to have lines drawn so clearly by the players.

In most cases, I simply don't think I have the wisdom or the insight into people's hearts and minds to emphatically state without doubt, "This is his intent..." Maybe you do have that insight which allows you to look at a piece of work and say, "This is why he made it and this is what it represents and there is no doubt". I laud you for that. But most cases, I can only rely on my own subjective interpretation and appreciate (or not) the work in that context.

I think there will always be doubts about the intent or purpose of any piece of artwork...do we then say, "No art in any public buildings other than museums that have the possibility of being interpreted in a way that I don't agree with?"

Personally, I believe that's a silly notion. It seems to me that we have pushed the concept of separation of Church and State into separation of Church and Art, separation of Church and History, separation of Church and Culture, etc..

Or, as Kipling may have said if presented with it, "Church is Church and everything else is everything else and ne'er the twain shall meet."

[K-W]

187. Nothing is black and white of course

But its not a matter of individual opinion. Like all of our laws, its a matter of judges looking at the law, looking at the situation, and ... judging it.

If a piece of art containing the commandments was in a court house it would depend on how prominantly they were displayed and in what context. If it was just a bunch of codes from times in history and it was displayed along with the rest, I think we could probably all agree that the context and prominance to not show it to be advocating relgion.

In the case of the ten commandemnts, the line usually isnt very blurry. Look at the alabama case. Pretty clearly that was singling out the commandments, not providing any historical context and accentuating its religious context. Most ten commandment displays are equally blatent.

[LanternWaste]

193. I disagree

I disagree. I think in most cases, the lines are blurry. And we further fog the issues up by emphatically saying that "this is the only way it can validly be perceived."

Yes. I completely agree the recent brouhaha in Alabama was about religion. The players told us this was the intent. We were able to judge their purposes by their very words. I don't think we get this lucky in most cases. I think n most cases, we transfer our own biases to the intent, loading the original purpose with our own baggage.

But since this is merely my opinion and I'll never be running for public office, I doubt anyone's going to lose any sleep over what I've said.

[K-W]

208. I have yet to see a ten commandments case

that wasnt blatently about religion. Where the people who put it up werent explicit that they were doing so because christian morales belong in our government. Thats why I said I think the line here isnt that blurry.

[LanternWaste]

213. This case is not blurry, but most are I think....

In the Alabama case, you are absolutely correct...the case is not blurry at all because we were told by the leading players on both sides that it there to acknowledge God. But if we had not been told that, the best we could do is make assumptions and guesses about it, which is what we are forced to do in most cases like this. Unless the proprietor/judge/civil servant tells us, "I am installing this as a tribute to God" or something along those lines, we cannot read his intent. And then we are forced to rely on our own judgement as to why it placed. And in most cases, that judgement is no more than an opinion colored by our own undeniable biases, whether you argue for it or against it.

As for me, I have yet to see a Ten Commandments case that is *only* about religion, other than this one and that is why I actually followed the progress of it and, in the end, agreeed with the final decision. Yet, too often other agendas, other opinions, other viewpoints and other perspectives tend to get caught up with and involved in the argument. And then the weirdo's start up with, "You are denying me the ability to worship God" which is usually just as foolish as statement as someone saying, "You are forcing me to worship God".

[Blue_Chill]

172. Of coruse you supported it

You are dreaming however if you think I don't know why you like it so much.

[K-W]

188. Are you on medication

I'm beginning to suspect you might have some problem that could be medicated.

I realize its easy to make bad judgements about people based on a forum, but the amazing judgements youve rendered about me and your odd obbsession with an exagerated group amount to a bit of paranoia.

To clear things up for you, I supported the display of art because I believe in the freedom of expression. I am informed enough to know that the piece of art was not, in fact, anti religious. Something you seem to think it was.

[Blue_Chill]

200. lol

Don't get defensive there champ. hehehe

[K-W]

214. Defensive?

Perhaps you should add that under equality to words youn need to look up.

You made a rather humourou assumption that I was some kind of militant religion hater. Youve been going on and on about anti-theists, when in fact its usually other religions that make these cases, and most atheists are not anti-theists anyway. Your paranoia doesnt make me defensive, it makes you paranoid.

[Blue_Chill]

169. I had no problem with that

Still don't. So what's your point?

[Liberal Veteran]

162. You have it backwards....

An atheist society will probably be secular, but it could just as easily have monuments in every rotunda of every courthouse saying "God is a fairytale that and religion is a neurological disorder". You seem to think that everything must be fish or fowl, but some things are minerals and plants.

You would do well to spend more time reading the bible, because even Jesus recognized that there was secular vs. religious in matters of state:

16. And they sent out unto him their disciples, with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

17. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cesar, or not?

18. But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

19. Shew me the tribute-money. And they brought unto him a penny.

20. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21. They say unto him, Cesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render, therefore, unto Cesar the things which are Cesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

[Shanty Oilish]

159. It's a piece of art, not a govt-inflicted religion!

It's not the original 10C, it's just a piece of art in a courtyard. Nobody's being tried or convicted by these "laws," in that court of law. Nobody's being told they are laws that must be obeyed. Nobody's being sentenced to a whipping while chained to them, or community service of washing and polishing them.
It's just art. And suing to have them removed as state-endorsed religion is just intolerance in the name of tolerance.

[K-W]

171. lol

nothing amazes me more than people who argue that this is a piece of art, when the guy who put it there says its a religious symbol. You are arguing out of deep left field.

How is it intolerance exactlly? And if your definition of rights violations were held true, id hate to live in america. You dont have to be chained and whipped to be descriminated against.

[Shanty Oilish]

221. Link?

"...the guy who put it there says its a religious symbol."

I'd like to see that in context.

[Liberal Veteran]

176. Then we just get to vandalize public property on a whim?

Personally, I found the monument to be overdone and hideous and totally lacking in artistic merit, but isn't that really beside the point?

Let me ask you an honest question:

If I installed this statue



in the rotunda of a courthouse in the dead of night, would you fight to keep it there?

[LanternWaste]

190. As For me....

For me, I would neither fight to remove it, or fight to keep it there. I would look at it and appreciate it or not. Just as I did in the recent Alabama fracas.

Am I in the minority because I can look at a piece of stained glass removed from Westchurch Chapel and divest it of religion and percieve it as simply a very pretty and well-crafted piece of art (though we both realize that artistic merit was merely its secondary or even tertiary purpose)?

Undoubtably, this discussion is quite deep. Deeper than the vast majority have the wits to understand (including myself). But one catch-all law preventing religious icons/art from being displayed in houses of law is simply silly, I think.

What happens when a group of people decide to establish a Church of Animism? Do we then look at all works of art in public buildings and remove those which depict animals? As silly as the question may seem, it becomes perfectly valid in that contxt.

Yes, I am a Christian, and have no problems with Christian icons being displayed in public places, but neither do I have problems if

I see Vishnu displayed in a public library as is being done in the local branch of my library. "What's the relevance of this", I ask? "Art display by some of the art students from the High School." was the reply. "Cool", I thought. Looked at it a little more closely and thought it was pretty damn good for a 17 year old and gave no thought of it after that. But I certainly didn't feel that someone was attempting to convert me, despite that Vishnuu is a worshipped diety. If that was my first reaction, I'd say I was pretty narrow-minded.

[Shanty Oilish]

223. Vandalize...?

Could you make that clearer, I have no idea what you mean.

As for the baphomet, if you were duly authorized to install it, and the proper agency had decided to put it there, I'd have no problem with it. I find most public sculpture tasteless and irrelevant. At least in this case I'd know what it IS.

[Cheswick2.0]

224. some very good points Chill

4- Forced secularism is favoritism. You can't deny that atheist would like a society free of religion. Thus scrubbing all public areas of any religion favors them. Unless you can show me that they do NOT support religion free area's then don't tell me secular = fair. In reality secular favors particular belief that not surprisingly is in large quantity on this board.

[LanternWaste]

111. Druids on Hill by DuBuse v. Moses on High by Dubuse

Probably way off base here, but since icons, statues and other forms of classical-style art can and are interpreted by many, many people in many, many different ways, I guess the best idea is to allow the courts to deal with them on an individual and case by case basis.

I think that both art and religion (as seen by human eyes) are so subjective that applying one law to deal with every case would be laughed at by liberals, conservatives, Christians, athiests, Deists, pagans, wiccans, et. al. at one time or another depending on what/who the law was being applied to at a particular time.

I understand that there are people who are going to say, "If it has ANYTHING to do with Christianity, I don't want to see it, hear it or pay for it." On the other hand, there are people who are going to say, "If it has NOTHING to do with Christianity, I don't want to see it, hear it or pay for it."

Personally, if I see the statue, "Druids on Hill", (made by DuBuse in 1972) in a public square, I'd like it to stay because it will invariably be a wonderful piece to see. If I see the statue, "Moses on High" by the same artist (in 1978), I'd still want it to stay, for the exact same reason. They are both beautiful works and I have the ability and the opportunity to interpret either as I will.

[K-W]

115. agreed

its not something that can be defined, its a judgement call. Luckily in the case of the ten commandments, nobody, except some people looking for rationalization, are saying isnt about religion. It is clearly a religious piece, its placement is motivated by religious concerns, and its symbolism is defined by those who wish it put up as religious.

[LanternWaste]

113. Druid on Hill by DuBuse v. Moses on High by DuBuse

Probably way off base here, but since icons, statues and other forms of classical-style art can and are interpreted by many, many people in many, many different ways, I guess the best idea is to allow the courts to deal with them on an individual and case by case basis.

I think that both art and religion (as seen by human eyes) are so subjective that applying one law to deal with every case would be laughed at by liberals, conservatives, Christians, athiests, Deists, pagans, wiccans, et. al. at one time or another depending on what/who the law was being applied to at a particular time.

I understand that there are people who are going to say, "If it has ANYTHING to do with Christianity, I don't want to see it, hear it or pay for it." On the other hand, there are people who are going to say, "If it has NOTHING to do with Christianity, I don't want to see it, hear it or pay for it."

Personally, if I see the statue, "Druids on Hill", (made by DuBuse in 1972) in a public square, I'd like it to stay because it will invariably be a wonderful piece to see. If I see the statue, "Moses on High" by the same artist (in 1978), I'd still want it to stay, for the exact same reason. They are both beautiful works and I have the ability and the opportunity to interpret either as I will.

[LanternWaste]

119. oops

Oops. Didn't mean to post more than once. I received a bizarre error message telling me to post again, but it seems the error message was in error....

[hayu_lol]

129. Since there are roughly 10 different versions...

of the 10 commandments, lets use the original scripted in Hebrew...and NO other version. That is 'history' of a sort...the alternative versions change the perspective.

[LanternWaste]

133. No problem with that...

I'd have no problem with that at all. Nor would I have I problem with a display of Code of Hammurabi(sp?) in the original Sumerian or the Magna Carta in Old English.

However, I wouldn't think that that's the *only* appropriate way to display it any more than I believe the *only* way to validly watch "Das Boot" is in the original German. The sub-titles and translation give me a better understanding of it both in context and in understanding, whether or not I agree with either the message, en-toto of the script-writer or the written dialogue.

I can appreciate a well-made statue of Moses (or, insert any non-Christian religious figure here) as art. I can also appreciate it as History. I may additionally appreciate it as religion. Further, I can appreciate as any combination of the above, not to mention the vast number of contexts it can be seen in that I have failed to mention.

But, and I firmly believe this, that a person who believes the Ten Commandments may *only* be viewed validy from a religious perspective is somewhat narrow in perspective.

[LanternWaste]

114. My lil' ol' opinion

Probably way off base here, but since icons, statues and other forms of classical-style art can and are interpreted by many, many people in many, many different ways, I guess the best idea is to allow the courts to deal with them on an individual and case by case basis.

I think that both art and religion (as seen by human eyes) are so subjective that applying one law to deal with every case would be laughed at by liberals, conservatives, Christians, athiests, Deists, pagans, wiccans, et. al. at one time or another depending on what/who the law was being applied to at a particular time.

I understand that there are people who are going to say, "If it has ANYTHING to do with Christianity, I don't want to see it, hear it or pay for it." On the other hand, there are people who are going to say, "If it has NOTHING to do with Christianity, I don't want to see it, hear it or pay for it."

Personally, if I see the statue, "Druids on Hill", (made by DuBuse in 1972) in a public square, I'd like it to stay because it will invariably be a wonderful piece to see. If I see the statue, "Moses on High" by the same artist (in 1978), I'd still want it to stay, for the exact same reason. They are both beautiful works and I have the ability and the opportunity to interpret either as I will.

[LanternWaste]

116. My lil' ol' opinion

Probably way off base here, but since icons, statues and other forms of classical-style art can and are interpreted by many, many people in many, many different ways, I guess the best idea is to allow the courts to deal with them on an individual and case by case basis.

I think that both art and religion (as seen by human eyes) are so subjective that applying one law to deal with every case would be laughed at by liberals, conservatives, Christians, athiests, Deists, pagans, wiccans, et. al. at one time or another depending on what/who the law was being applied to at a particular time.

I understand that there are people who are going to say, "If it has ANYTHING to do with Christianity, I don't want to see it, hear it or pay for it." On the other hand, there are people who are going to say, "If it has NOTHING to do with Christianity, I don't want to see it, hear it or pay for it."

Personally, if I see the statue, "Druids on Hill", (made by DuBuse in 1972) in a public square, I'd like it to stay because it will invariably be a wonderful piece to see. If I see the statue, "Moses on High" by the same artist (in 1978), I'd still want it to stay, for the exact same reason. They are both beautiful works and I have the ability and the opportunity to interpret either as I will.

[DoNotRefill]

167. This is gonna bite us in the ass.....

I was talking to a friend yesterday about this. This person is generally a Democrat, and is a Universal Unitarian, a pretty non-fundie religion. She's pissed, and sees this whole thing as PC gone to extreme and stupid levels. I'm pro-ACLU (card carrying member), and she asked me "what's next? Are you going to have all crosses removed from goverment property?" I said that sounds good to me, and she WENT OFF on me. Her father was killed in WWII, and is buried in a military cemetary. She seems to think we'll be trying to have his headstone removed next.

This whole issue has the potential to really and truly bite us in the ass...If she was upset by it, I'd imagine that the fundies are literally foaming at the mouth.

[Liberal Veteran]

173. Your friend needs reminding that Moore committed an act of vandalism...

..when he installed a monument in the dead of night like the criminal vandal he is.

Just because some people think that aesthetically the monument was attractive makes it no different than me going to the rotunda in the dead of night and spray painting a pentagram on the floor.

[zoidberg]

185. He did not commit an act of vandalism

As the court decision states (am I the only one who has read it!?) under Alabama law, the Chief Justice is in charge of keeping the grounds of the Court Complex. He could have put up a giant Bear Bryant statue and have been within the state law. So this 'dead of night' argument is bogus.

[Liberal Veteran]

189. Are you trying to argue that person cannot vandalize property they are...

...charged with taking care of?

That's a fairly specious argument. So if this idiot whackjob fundamentalist judge went and busted out every window in the courthouse, it would not be vandalism?

Responsibility for and ownership of property are not the same thing.

[zoidberg]

191. He did not destroy anything

He could put or take down any piece of art he wanted. The property still belongs to the people of the state of Alabama, so he couldn't destroy it. But if wanted to install a giant pentagram, he would be within the law of the state.

[Liberal Veteran]

195. You define vandalism in terms of destruction only?

How..........odd.

Willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property is my definition of vandalism.

[Blue_Chill]

201. Dude it's not vandalism

If I bring a lamp you dont like into your home I didn't vandalise it. You didn't like it and it gets removed. nothin more nothing less.

Just because you hate the guy and the monument doesn't mean you get to redefine words and warp reality.

[Liberal Veteran]

202. Bring a 2.5 ton monument into my living room and leave it there....

...I can assure you I will have you up on vandalism charges faster than you can gobble up your communion wafer in mass.

[zoidberg]

207. You are so wrong on this point

You can bring up whatever charge you want, but that does not mean you will be right. The courthouse belongs to the people of the state. So the judge can not destroy property there. But Alabama law specifically gives the Chief Justice the power to administer the court grounds. Think of it as a teacher in a classroom. She can't break the windows just because it's her classroom. But she can put up whatever she damn well pleases as long as it isn't against a rule or a law. If she wants to put a two ton statue of George Washington in the classroom - and that doens't break any laws - it isn't vandalism. Same with the judge here. He broke a rule by putting in the monument, but he did not commit an act of vandalism.

[Blue_Chill]

210. Can you make a post without a religious jab?

I can assure you I would beat those charges faster then your anti-theist ass can prove yourself to be a bigot.

You like that? Because if you flame I flame.

[Liberal Veteran]

216. Isn't it kind of silly...

To constantly parade your religious beliefs in front of everyone and your conversion to Catholicism and then gripe because someone makes a reference to that fact?

It would be like me getting upset with people for making a reference like "Faster than I would hop into bed with Travis Fimmel" because I make it a point that I am gay.

[Blue_Chill]

217. You would get upset about that

why are you faking that you wouldn't? If I made fun of your sexuality you would freak out and I would be banned.

lol

[Liberal Veteran]

218. Golly....

If making a reference to gobbling up a communion wafer is religious persecution, that's just being thin skinned, in my opinion.

Has something about mass changed since I went to church and they no longer use communion wafers?

[Blue_Chill]

219. It's the source and the tone

stop backpeddling. You can't help yourself.

[Liberal Veteran]

220. I think you are seeing insult where none exists....

But I apologize if you felt like I was persecuting you. It was meant in the nature of in joke, not an insult.

(And yes, it is kind of a half-assed apology, but after being called anti-theistic a half dozen times because I truly believe in a larger degree of separation of church and state than you do, I am not feeling overly generous.)

[LanternWaste]

215. Bear Bryant? Yes!

Maybe I'm off topic here, but I think I would have invested more emotion into the case if it had been a statue of Bear Bryant. That would be cool...lol.

[ComerPerro]

178. The fundies are foaming at the mouth, but not because they are pissed

They are foaming at the mouth because they know that this is their chance to recruit the easily led.
Republicans are really good at lying and exaggerating to play off of the fears of the masses. This is why they use class and race warfare.
They tell you that minorities are going to take you job if you don't act against affirmative action, they tell you that the federal government is going to take your home if you don't support taxcuts that only benifit the rich, and now they are telling people that the ACLU and liberals hate religion.
And it works.

[LanternWaste]

182. I know whatcha mean

I know exactly what you mean. It seems there are a handful of issues that allow no wiggle room, (religion/state, abortion, gun-control) which both sides set up the qualifier, "You're either with us or against us in this debate, there is no in-between."

And in all the instances of this qualifier I've run into, I could only think to myself that neither you nor I nor anyone else in the room has the wisdom or insight to state that. Specific instances invariably turn up in which either of the two sides will say something like, "Well, in that instance it's o-kay, but only in that instance." Denying the possibility that many other instances "like that" could exist is just...well, narrow-mindedness or hubris.

So, I can only say that, for me if I'm face to face with one of these cases, I am forced (by my own ognorance) to look at it on a case by case basis, hoping that I can realize all the merits and arguments....

[GWGETOUTOFGORESHOUSE]

211. no

nt

[Mairead]

222. Banned? 'in public', no. 'on public property', yes

Anyone can put up a creche at Xmas...on their own ground. But they cannot put it up on the town common or the steps of the courthouse.

[Cheswick2.0]

227. Actually they can put it on the town common

it is done all over the country. In most places they try to include appropriate symbols from all religions and secular symbols like Santa or Christmas trees.

[Mairead]

229. Do you mean 'can legally' or 'can usually get away with'?

I agree that they typically get away with it because most people simply don't care enough about it (is that tolerance?)

[camero]

228. I agree

If they are so concerned with a display of the ten commandments, and I am a Christian, then why don't the pastors of every church erect a plaque in front of thier church? It's not like they can't afford it.

Plus it will remind the congregation every week exactly what the rules are as they walk in the door.

A tribute to the Bill of Rights would be much better for a Public Building since our government is based on the Constitution.

[NicRic]

230. Why not take a vote ?

If the comunity in ? ,votes for it well I guess its their tax dollars going to pay for this.My thinking on this maybe misguided ,I just remember when there was a disagreement on anything we would always say lets take a vote ! If there happens to be a small town somewhere and most of the residents are muslem, and they wanted to put a tribute to Ala in the court house entry ,I wonder how many repugs would drive there from miles away to protest. I'll bet alot of them would show up !