Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

And your intitial reading would be wrong.

Foxyfire

First of all sorry for intruding in this debate, since I am not american.
I see you are a sincere religious person. I am a sincere non religious person.
I don't see anything wrong in the fact that public places have monuments related to christian beliefs, like the 10 commandments. But let me ask this: would you accept near to that monument a statue of Nietzsche or de Sade, with the inscription "Christ was a charlatan"?
If you don't accept it, then you philosophy of "live and let live" is a lie.
And don't say that that inscription would be offensive to christians, because the 10 commandments are offensive to me, as moral rule.

The example you cite Val would be legal as a work of art. This country has had displayed much more offensive insults to Christianity on public grounds funded by public monies. But your example is also an intentional, targeted insult to a group of people. For that reason I would object to it representing my community and I think most people would. The 10 Commandments monument is symbolic of the 'giving of the law', portrays an ancient (many thousand years old) understanding of that and, in that sense, is quite innocuous and non offensive to any particular group. It is no different than an artisitic rendtion of an ancient Greek or Roman God or mythical characters.

I think the same Jews and Christians who still embrace the 10 Commandments as representative of their particular God's law would never agree to a monument denigrating Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism or athiesm. You won't find people in a community supporting a monument saying "athiests will go to hell" even though a few believe and even teach that.

You see I think the people of a free society, given the opportunity to direct their own affairs, will almost always collectively choose to do the right thing, the appropriate thing. I think when people are afforded tolerance, the people will have a sense of propriety about inclusiveness and tolerance in all matters that require nothing of us other than our non interference. And I think most communities will opt to be inclusive rather than exclusive in most matters and will not wish to intentionally offend whole groups of people. Even if their motives are less than altruistic, they would not want to offend whole groups of people for economic reasons if nothing else.

If the Ten Commandments offend you, then you would not need to read them. But they do not personally target you or your belief or your non belief for criticism and they require nothing from you other than your noninterference. They do not single you out for criticism or scorn. So I would hope you would see them as a work of art and as nothing more.

I would hope a monument to Karl Marx with an inscription that "Religion is the opiate of the people" would be received with the same degree of tolerance if a majority of the people thought it appropriate for their community.

And I do hope that anyone, who creates such a mo´nument with an inscription uses the correct quotation as written by Karl Marx: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." (in "A Criticism of the Hegelian Philosophy of Law", 1844)

Well Walter, in fairness, if an abbreviation of the 10 commandments is appropriate for convenience, then the better known sentiment of Karl Marx should be acceptable as well. Every letter carved into that marble slab costs money you know.

You know, I was just thinking about something I read awhile back--I wish I could remember where but I can't. Anyhow, there are a few fundamentalist literalists who take the commandment to 'make no graven images' very much to heart and consider a statue of anything or anybody to be immoral. Thus, these people find even the Statue of Liberty to be immoral. I wonder how many wanting the Ten Commandments removed because they are 'offensive to non believers' would agree that the Statue of Liberty be removed because it is offensive to a small group of Bible literalists?

I just think the live and let live philosophy is the very best way to go in most things.

val:-

Swinburne said that one day a statue of de Sade would be erected in every city of the civilised world.(Or somesuch).So your suggestion is not that crazy.

And the idea that Jesus was a bit of a cad is very well known and can be derived from the Gospels by those with sensitive irony detection kits.

My problem is obviously that I can't imagine the Ten Commandment to be presented somewhere, because I never saw it.

Most certainly, you would have had the same problem with crosses here, in courtrooms, town halls, classes etc, as it was traditionally quite common until some years ago. (1973, case 1 BvR 308/69 - Federal Constitutional Court)

It's always really ironic to note that some resent people of faith who argue the benefits of their faith and/or who suggest those who lack faith lack something very important. These same people seem to have no problem, however, with putting down people of faith, accusing them of superstitious nonsense, or whatever.

The key to getting along is for the people of faith to leave the athiests and anti-religious (I do not see these as necessarily synonymous terms) in peace with their secular symbols, and for the athiests and anti-religious to leave the people of faith in peace with their relgiious symbols. If we could just get to that point, there would be no more of these ridiculous lawsuits against religious symbols and corresponding defensive overreaction by the religious. We would just live and let live. I can't see why that isn't obvious to everybody.

I really would agree, Foxfyre. But here, I think, we aren't talking about some private rooms but public buildings, respresenting "the power".

Since about 800, crosses have been in courtrooms in Germany. A quite old tradition.

But unconstitutional in Germany, as noted correctly by the (Jewish) libellant in the above quoted case.

I would guess though Walter that if a majority of the people wanted religious symbols back in public places, Germany would also be having this debate. It is reported that most of the churches of Europe are empty and that religion is not obviously important to Europeans. (If that is not true, I will accept correction on that point.)

Nevertheless, 90% or more of Americans do believe in some sort of God. Not all of these attend church or synagogue or whatever, but many do. Americans churches are not empty though most of the mainline denominations have been declining in membership and attendance over the last several decades.

It may be that the United States will become more like Europe respective to religious practices and importance. But until then, I still say live and let live.

Foxy:-

"No more ridiculous lawsuits". !!!???

Goodness me.What will the legal system do for a living without them?

I humbly suggest you read my post to Letty on the Shakespearish thread which cyracuz started.

And have you still not read my "deep fat fryer" post.

A cross in a courtroom might be stretching it even to somebody like me, however, as the Cross is a symbol of a specific religion. The Ten Commandments monument is symbolic of 'the law' even though it has religious origins, but it does not promote or advocate a particular faith and in fact is rooted in three major world religions. So I do see a difference there. I think a cross on the courthouse lawn would not be appropriate; however a temporary creche or minorrah or both at Christmastime would not be a problem.

Nor did you respond to my post to you about whatever your other post said Spendius.

I guess, about 80 - 90% here believe in some sort of God as well.

But that definately wasn't the question here, as I understood it. (Some Christians would like crosses back in court rooms, but the majority is quite content with the situation since some decades now.)

Well I don't think it wise or even legal for any one religion to be favored over another. So in that sense, I do agree with separation of Church and state. My only quarrel is with the notion that the First Amendment requires religion to be totally eliminated from the public sector.

No-one would have got here the idea (besides she/he studied [US-]history and or law) that the Ten Commandments are a symbol of our present law.

We've got "Justicia" on the (older) buildings.

A cross is considered here as a symbol of Christianity, correct.

It always surprises me that so many people consider the Ten Commandments to be Christian doctrine when these were widely known many hundreds of years before the birth of Christ and before the Jews returned from exile to Jerusalem. I would guess many modern Jews consider them more as ancient history than as mandates for modern society.

Seems to be a question of education.

However, that is no reason to present these nomadic laws in/at a court house - a world museum of law history, that would be the right place :wink:

Foxy:-

You must have applied one of Lola's techniques.

I'm lost.But-
The first one was post No 1194891 of Sat Feb 26 at 4.11 am on page 5 of The Troube With Labels thread on the Politics forum.

The other is today.Post No 1202718 at 5.19 am on page 6 of the Shakespeareish thread on Philosophy and Debate.