Foxfyre wrote:As far as I am concerned s/he is. In such matters that violate absolutely nobody's unalienable, Constitutional, or other legal rights, democracy should kick in and the majority should decide what art work, music, symbols, mottos, slogans, etc. will be included in or on properties they collecively own and finance. If the majority want no religious reference, fine but they should not be allowed to promote atheism either. If the majority wants religious references, then fine but they should be of a historical and cultural nature and should exclude nobody who wants to be included, including the atheists.
This smugness relies upon an unspoken but implicit assumption that the majority are going to come down on the side of christianity--and should fool no one who is literate to at least a fourth grade level. It ignores that the constitution is careful to protect people from minoritarian and majoritarian tyrrany, and displays no conception of either of those ideas. It also ignores that as one layer of religious and historically-phony crap is laid upon another, the range of those approving will inevitably narrow, until the majority of those viewing such nonsense are offending by some aspect of it. The attempt to impose the "ten commandments" on the state of Alabama by a rogue member of its supreme court ignored that there are several versions of those commandments, and that the display would inevitably offend even conservative Protestants who did not happen to subscribe to the particular sectarian version displayed.
This is precisely why there is a no establishment clause, because it will always eventually lead to minoritarian tyrrany. It is not just naive, it is stupid to assume that there is any version of christianity which is "pan-christian" in its appeal. And of course, there is a great range of citizens who are not christian and who are going to justifably resent an attempt to sneak christianity into a governmental display based on a disingenuous appeal to a false historicity.
