Those funny fundamentalists......

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by ajbera
Because a minority of people in this country are not Christian or Jewish, they feel that such a monument amounts to coercion, exclusion, or they're afraid that the mere mention of "God" in a non-vague context will rupture the fragile minds of the non-Christian/Jewish populace.

And some Christians don't think that the government, least of all the judiciary, should be in the business of promoting any particular religious ideology.

I'm an agnostic, and I have been an atheist at times. I am a firm believer in science and reason, and believe that faith should always be secondary to facts and logic when establishing opinions and choosing paths. Nevertheless, I find myself disgusted with people who demand that the monument be removed, or "under God" deleted from the Pledge of Allegiance. You don't believe it, don't look at/say it (I didn't say the "under God" part of the pledge when my faith dissipated, but I didn't think the entire pledge was undermined by its presence, and I certainly didn't feel ostracized or anything).

And I'm a Catholic, with a fair recollection of how the merger of secular and ecclesiastical power has been abused against one minority or another through much of history. My faith in God is strong, my faith in mankind is near non-existent.

I have no trouble with nativity displays at Christmas on public property; I think the entire "Pledge of allegiance" and the notion of influencing or coercing rote repetition of some loyalty oath is absurd, but the words "Under God" make it no more nor less so. I have no problems with crosses on public property within reason (not burning, and not everywhere you turn, but memorials such as San Francisco's Mt. Davidson or San Diego's Mt. Soledad are fine. I think people who get bent about the words "In God We Trust" on our money need to get a life, and when I had school prayer even in public school, it was an ok way to kill class time, because no possible homework could come out of it. But I think this monument needs to go someplace else. It's a beautiful piece of craftwork, and should go someplace where it will be maintained and given the public access and reverence such a piece deserves. A prominent spot in a public park across from the State Judicial Building would be fine. Not in the building, though.

Religion plays much too important a part in peoples lives - every aspect of their lives - for it to be dismissed or swept under the carpet (in this case, relegated to a storage room). But, we have a contingent of whiners to appease, so I say we establish models of the laws of each and every religion, from 7th Day Adventist to Zoroastrianists, and have them installed in every courthouse, school, etc.

Why "whiners?" let's just make 'em wear an identifying patch, like the Taleban were going to do? If they're Godless athiests or Mohammedans, or those Anti-Christ cult brainwashed Catholics, they're all going to hellfire anyway, so who cares.

And ol' Judge Moore made very clear that only Christian monuments would be allowed, because "it's the law" and those other (false) religions "aren't the law."

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Someone should found a religion called 'Linconism' proclaiming Lincon as the saviour. Then we could all complain that the $ bills are promoting religion.

The Anti-Christ. You devil-worshiper, you.

[Japher]

Rogan Josh: Don't give the ACLU any bright ideas!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by ajbera
Addendum:

My consternation at the whole affair stems from the fact that a minority of people demand that God not be anywhere except places of worship, no place public. I think that's rather silly, even if I completely disagree with the particular message espoused by a religion.

However, the law (misguided as it may be) is the law, and must be obeyed. Thus, it was absolutely correct to have Judge Moore removed from duty, even if he felt he was doing the absolute correct thing by fighting to keep the monument. He had a duty to uphold the law, regardless of his personal feelings about it. He didn't, and now he's outta there, and rightly so.

For the record, many conservatives (like Pat Robertson) also think that the monument's presence did not violate the Constitution, but that Judge Moore was definitely wrong in continuing his fight as he did, and that it was proper and correct to remove him from duty.

Read the ten commandments, and you'll see the problem. It specifically states that one MUST worship the judeo-christian god.

[ajbera]

MtG, my tirade was against those (and there were many among my friends) who simply opposed the monument on the grounds that it was of the 10 Commandments. Thus, they opposed it simply because it was Jewish/Christian, not because Moore used it as an official endorsement; the simple existence of the monument compared to Moore's intent in having it installed.

I disagree with the former - it's perfectly fine (IMO) to put up a religious monument in a courthouse, especially since a) the majority of US citizens are adherents of those particular religions, and b) our nation's secular laws are derived from those religious laws.

I agree with the fact that Moore was wrong to use the monument as a way of promoting his narrow view, and agree with his penalty. But, I say again, I can only assume from the posters of this thread that they would have had absolutely no problem whatsoever with the mounument had Moore kept silent.

I think the monument is fine, as more than just a piece of art. Religion is a huge part of where we came from, and informs the actions, behaviors and outlooks of a vast majority of US citizenry, and a majority of that majority is Christian or Jewish. I don't believe the monument in and of itself is a promotion of Christianity above all others, it's Moore's desire and intent that makes it so. So, I say leave the monument, but boot Moore.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by ajbera
MtG, my tirade was against those (and there were many among my friends) who simply opposed the monument on the grounds that it was of the 10 Commandments. Thus, they opposed it simply because it was Jewish/Christian, not because Moore used it as an official endorsement; the simple existence of the monument compared to Moore's intent in having it installed.

See my above post.

[ajbera]

Originally posted by skywalker Read the ten commandments, and you'll see the problem. It specifically states that one MUST worship the judeo-christian god.

The first three religion-specific Commandments don't invalidate the remaining seven. Just as I ignored "under God" in the pledge, but not the pledge itself, I would ignore the first three Commandments, but not the entirety of the set as the basis for morality and ethics. Whether you believe in God or not, and whether you believe in the Judeo-Christian God, or not, it's still wrong to steal and kill, adultery tends to be destructive, as does covetousness, etc.

[ajbera]

I tend to think that 99% of what is said in all religious texts has a validity in terms of suggesting what the best course through life is, the best way to avoid destructive temptations, etc. It's just that once 'God' is brought into the picture, many of those who don't believe in that particular God feel it's acceptable to deny the validity of the entire set of guidelines. That's foolish.

One project I would love to do (but probably will never get around to doing so) is detailing the logical reasons for the guidelines established by religions, demonstrating taht those who follow those guidelines are more likely to be successful/heppy, whatever. To demonstrate the wisdom of religion without making one observe the God(s) Him/Her/Itself.

You need not espouse a particlular faith to demonstrate that adultery causes far more problems that it solves. Thus, one can demonstrate the 'logic' of fidelity, without having to give in to a higher power that may or may not exist.

If i ever do this I hope it will show that a) religion need not be a terrible and oppressive thing, and b) even without faith in a higher power, there are some paths and guidelines that are right and should be followed for the best chance of happiness and success. I'd also be very curious to see how this affects the divisions between the faithful and the non-believers, and socio-political factions, like libs versus cons.

Someday...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by ajbera
I disagree with the former - it's perfectly fine (IMO) to put up a religious monument in a courthouse, especially since a) the majority of US citizens are adherents of those particular religions,

No, it's not fine. A government courthouse is not the place for a religious display, period. That the majority of U.S. Citizens are Judeo-Christian is precisely the point why such things aren't a good idea. The primary purpose of the First Ammendment was to protect religious minorities.

Putting up religious monuments and then giving preference to the monuments of certain religions is a government endorsement of a particular dogma, no ifs ands or buts about it.

and b) our nation's secular laws are derived from those religious laws.

Prove to me that U.S. laws derive from the Ten Commandments, because history doesn't support this notion. First, not a single one of the Commandments is enshrined in the Constitution (although one could make a stretch to say "Thou Shalt Not Lie" is). In U.S. legal codes, only three are seen-- Not killing, not stealing and not lying (though the last one only applies in very specialized circumstances, i.e. perjury). Furthermore, the bulk of U.S. laws are derived from Anglo-Saxon law, which itself is predominantly based on Roman and other Pagan laws. I suppose then that, by your own standards above, we should only allow a shrine to Jupiter in courthouses.

[ajbera]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Putting up religious monuments and then giving preference to the monuments of certain religions is a government endorsement of a particular dogma, no ifs ands or buts about it.

Giving preference is wrong. Putting a monument up is okay.

How much does it matter where a jurist believes the ultimate authority for a law comes from as long as he exercises the law as written?

Is it wrong to believe that theft is wrong because God says so rather than theft is wrong because men think so, as long as a judge is upholding the law as written?

Does it matter that a judge places the highest authority and source of law as the Judeo-Christian God as long as he/she follows both the letter and the spirit of the written law and applies it evenly and without prejudice towards both those of his own religious cohort and those of other faiths?

Although the issues are intertwined, I consider the monument and Moore's intent for it's usage as separate things. I think it was wrong of Moore to use the monument as explicit espousal of Christianity. I think it was fine for the monument to exist in the courtroom as a historic basis for law, as long as they were also willing to place monuments of other religion's laws in there as well. The Commandments can certainly be viewed from a historical perspective (as can the Bible) even if you have no belief whatsoeever in God.