Ros writes
Quote:I understand your point Fox, but I disagree. Just because the establishment is not flagrant, does not change it's nature.
For example, *if* your argument above were correct, then money and government buildings and schools could be riddled with references to religion, like ten commandment statues in courts, crosses on schools, Menorah's on Interstate signs, and Buddah's in libraries. None of those things require you to say it, believe it, or do anything as a result of it being there. And what if the "majority" didn't like the buddah, and preferred more crosses, what then? Should all the religious icons displayed by government institutions reflect the majority opinion?
Actually there are Bible verses inscribed inside the Supreme Court building in Washington and religious references inscribed on other federal buildings, all at the previous decision of others, and harming nobody in the least. Would those have been put there in today's climate? Probably not? Probably only a handful of Americans would now see that as appropriate to do that.
As far as religious art, statues, symbols or whatever in public buildings, I have absolutely no problem with any of them no matter what religion they represent so long as no ONE religion is consistently featured and others excluded. Is a copy of Leonardo da Vinci's "The Last Supper" hanging in a federally funded museum a religious painting? Or is it just a beautiful work of art? Do those who visit the Sistine Chapel to view Michelangelo's work do so as a religious exercise? Or to see something historic, cultural, beautiful? A religious person might appreciate it one way. An athiest who is a connoisseur of fine art might appreciate it much differently.
It really doesn't matter the rationale behind a slogan on a coin at the time it was first inscribed or why a phrase was inserted into a pledge more than 50 years ago. That was then. This is now. How it affects my rights now is all that matters, and I have no right to dictate to others what their personal preferences must be or how they must view a work of art or what they must believe.
It is all a matter of degree and common sense. If the government should suddenly start plastering everything with Jewish or Christian or Buddhist or Islamic art, statuary, slogans or whatever, I am reasonably certain a huge majority of Americans, including most members of those representing the 'featured' faith, would see that as inappropriate and object mightily. And the majority would no doubt prevail to stop that practice.
If I was a fundamentalist Christian, I might object to a splendid statue of a Roman god that is featured prominently in our local municipal airport. Should I, because I was offended by it, have the right to demand that the statue be removed when the vast majority of people here appreciate it for the beautiful art it is? It does represent a religion.
So the bottom line is, if something does not directly affect me, my constitutionally protected rights, my property, my livelihood, my liberty, my pursuit of happiness, or anybody elses, then who am I to say that something should not exist or not be allowed?
And I say this with the firm conviction that in most things, our right to have personal preferences is constitutionally protected, but not our right to impose them others. So in the public sector, the only way to decide differences in preferences is to agree to majority rule.
). 
I thought I was reading an invitation at first ....
