Is George Bush a fundamentalist christian?

The gay community likely weren't that displeased as nowhere in the Commandments is there anything about same sex. Not even "do not covet thy male neighbor's husband."

Oh, and thanks McGentrix -- the Absolut Pepper Bloody Mary tastes great!

See, I do have a problem with that as religion and law should never be intertwined. I meant to say courthouse, but you get my meaning as to the nature of religious monuments in the court house. What would happen in Alabama if another high ranking judge were to place a statue commemorating the Koran in the lobby of his court house? Or the Dharma?

They'd be lucky if they weren't lynched...

As far as equal rights, it would actually mean that there should be monuments to other religious icons (sic) strewed around the courthouse.

I'm going for a short holiday trip tomorrow: agree with McG here and got defended by him (thanks, McG!) on another thread :wink:

Lightwizard objects to Foxfyre's designation of the Ten Commandments sculpture as a work of art.

Perhaps!!

But, I have found that the left has no trouble designating insulting and demeaning pieces of filth like, in the words of the left wing Atheists, the subime expression of Serrano's "Piss Christ".

The left is entitled, of course, to savage religious symbols and personages in a manner which would cause them to be beheaded if they were to take the same stance against Mohammed in Saudi-Arabia, but a creche at Christmas, is somehow intolerable.

McGentrix is, of course, correct. Judges must not allow their private feelings or religious backgrounds to influence their decisions or to cause them to perform official acts which may be inimical to the rule of law, which all judges are bound to obey( unless they are creative enough to come up with vaporous rationalizations as they did when utilizing the questionable social science found in the Brown(1954) Decision or in the newly minted constitutional right to privacy found in Roe vs. Wade.)

Judges are sometimes very creative.

I'll admit I'm not certain about this, but I don't believe the judge put the statue there. I believe it was a donation from some group to the city. It had been there a very long time by the time somebody objected to it.

It isn't that much different from a small Christian cross that used to be in the lower left hand corner of the county seal. It was not an advertisement for Christianity but commemorated the Spanish priests who founded the first churches, schools, hospitals etc. in the territory. It hurt nobody and had been there since 1912 (when New Mexico became a state) until a few years ago when some athiest activists demanded that it be removed.

It was removed just to remove it as an issue and shut up the very small but very loud group who demanded that.

In my opinion, it is not standing up to that kind of intolerance and stupidity that creates the extreme polarizations that makes everybody more paranoid and improperly activist than they should be.

And LW I agree. The state probably should not spend state money to purchase a piece of art reflecting Christian symbolism nor should it spend state money to purchase art that offends the morals or values of the larger majority of the population. Donated art is somewhat different, however, and should be evaluated and accepted or rejected by a qualified panel to decide things like that.

Architecture is art so I'm not arguing the semantics of the word "art." Foxfyre did not say "fine art." I said commercial art which is what it is. If anyone thinks it's original art of the calibre that should be in a museum, which I doubt, that would have some bearing on whether it should stay based on that significance. Maybe Thomas Kinkaid can exploit it for all eternity (sic) by making the lettering transparant with a lightbulb inside.

Well, a non-permanent exhibition in a federal, state or community gallery which can be construed as under goverment auspices is different than a permanent installation in a setting of a civil building. That's a grey area that has to be decided by politicians, unfortunately. The USSC may or may not step in on these dissagreements (they seldom do) but I don't buy the comparison.

But using your reasoning LW, art, music, literature, etc. that has any references to any religion could not appear in public owned buildings, be performed in public parks, be placed in public libraries, etc.

Is there no room here for any kind of compromise to reflect a part of Americana that is forever imbedded in our history and culture?

Christians (I don't mean anyone specific, just in general) often come off from subjects as this as somehow being persecuted by the anti-religious, atheistic zealots who want them to stop their worshipping.

I don't see that as being the case, as no one is telling them to stop going to church, or to stop worshipping or anything. What it is, IMO, is that people who are NOT Christian see no reason to have Christianity shoved in their faces daily. Especially in the court rooms. Christmas is bad enough, although it has become so secular as to not really be about Christianity any more.

I don't think anyone is stupid or intolerant to expect or government to be free from religion of ANY sort. Just as our laws should not be influenced by religion. Religion and government do not mix. The Taliban would be an extreme example of what happens when they do...

Athiesm and government doesn't mix either. Just look at the legacy of those governments that have tried it.

I agree, Atheism has no place in government either. I think Frank would have had something to say about this...

sheesh...I go away for a while and someone leaves the door unlocked and people like joe and lw and kicky sneak in and suddenly there's booze flowing and sex ed going on and everything...you'd think this was the sixties.

fox

septembri's arguments here are foolish, and his 'esteemed' sources are part of his problem, but only part. There is no necessary connection between faith and moral codes. All human groups develop codes of conduct and notions of sacred/profane, even the Hell's Angels. The moral codes of Christianity and Judaism rest upon moral codes which developed even earlier, in precisely the same manner as we see in 'christian' holidays the echoes of earlier 'pagan' celebrations. This is part of who we are as social creatures. The "Boy Who Cried Wolf" is a typical example of prudent moral pedagogy with no sign of a faith element anywhere within that tale. septembri's claim is commonly made (no god=no morality) but very little thought at all shows it to be false.

joe and McG are arguing, I think, that religion must remain outside of the schools (or other government enterprises) because of the danger we talked about before...that a locally favored religion will dominate and thus be in violation of the 'congress shall make...' principle. From a judicial/constitutional viewpoint, that is precisely the problem. To deny its presence in schools (or courthouses) is NOT to deny its presence in the community. Religious expression elsewhere is not constitutionally problematic, and such protected liberty exists for those of faith.

You skip too lightly over the 'dominance' issue. As the Pat Robertson quote I noted earlier demonstrates, there are strong exclusionary currents in American evangelical christianity that wishes to place that singular faith in positions of pre-emminence. Franklin Grapham is another such. John Aschroft's Assemblies of God community is even more extreme 16 Fundamental Truths of the Assembly of God

Not what I was getting at at all. We're talking monuments here -- you're trying to qualify that this monument should have stayed put as an important work of art. That's not reasonable.

Hey, I was the one who started this thread! You should be thanking me. Especially for the booze and sex. :wink:

And I say it is not reasonable to think it is not a work of art, even fine art, because it has the Ten Commandments engraved on it.

Lightwiard- You are very bright( fitting for a light wizard). You did not stoop to defending the indefensible--the creation of the pervert(Serrano) called "Piss Christ". However, you may not be aware that Serrano's desecration was in a building which recevied PART of its funding from the State.

I am sure that you agree that people who thought that Serrano's sacreligious piece of offal who were aware that their TAX FUNDS were used in part to pay for the venue in which the above work was displayed, do indeed have the right to complain.

However, as I am sure you may be aware, Mayor Giuliani was excoriated by large numbers of the Artistic community in New York, who rushed to defend their fellow artist, the fey Mr. Serrano from those vicious attacks.

When people attack Judge Moore, it is a defense of the Constitution which separates Church and State.

When people attack Andres' Serrano, it is a homophobic attack on a great artist who is being pilloried by the forces of reaction who can never understand great art.

Let's quickly look at this 'atheism' argument too.

As I noted earlier, faith elements play no part in our lives when we go to the gas station or when we buy a new sofa and when we turn on the TV. The absence of faith elements doesn't mean that the gas station is run by atheists or that Sears is promoting an atheistic agenda when they don't have a cross up on the wall behind the new refrigerators.

If you wish to make a renovation on your home, and you bring your architectural plans to the licencing office, the ten commandments won't be any part of that experience.

So what is different about schools or courthouses? Why does the charge of 'forwarding atheism' arise in these two areas particularly in American discourse?

I think the answer is pretty apparent. Both those institutions must be engaged for the forwarding of faith in the community. Schools because they are responsible for knowledge and investigation of claims, and courts as the bastion against the favoring of a singular faith. Considered in this light, it seems predictable that the conflict would wage in both most acutely.