Court Orders Removal of Monument to Ten Commandments
By ADAM LIPTAK

A federal appeals court ordered the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court yesterday to remove a monument engraved with the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of his courthouse.

The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, concluded that the monument violates the First Amendment's prohibition on government establishment of religion.

The court was also unusually blunt in responding to the assertion by Chief Justice Roy S. Moore in court papers in the case that he does not recognize the authority of the federal court in this matter.

The appeals court compared Chief Justice Moore to "those Southern governors who attempted to defy federal court orders during an earlier era," likening him to such state's rights proponents of segregation as Govs. George C. Wallace of Alabama and Ross Barnett of Mississippi.

In the 1950's and 1960's, federal courts ordered them and other Southern officials not to interfere with school desegregation and protest marches.

"Any notion of high government officials being above the law did not save those governors from having to obey federal court orders," Judge Ed Carnes wrote for the appeals court, "and it will not save this chief justice from having to comply with the court order in this case."

The appeals court did not set a timetable for the removal of the monument. Chief Justice Moore's lawyer, Herbert W. Titus, said the case was not over.

"We're not giving up," Mr. Titus said. "We are going to file a petition for review in the United States Supreme Court."

Mr. Titus declined to say whether Chief Justice Moore would comply with the order to remove the monument if the Supreme Court declines to hear the case or affirms the order.

"We're not making predictions or forecasts," Mr. Titus said, adding that the chief justice "believes that what he is doing is not only constitutional but required by his oath of office."

The appeals court's decision was unanimous, but Chief Judge J. L. Edmondson concurred only in the result, not the decision's reasoning. He did not explain why. Richard W. Story, a visiting district court judge from Atlanta, was the third member of the panel.

The 5,280-pound granite monument setting out the Ten Commandments was erected in August 2001 as the centerpiece of the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building, which houses several state courts, the state's law library and the court system's administrative office.

Three lawyers who found the monument offensive sued to have it removed. In November, Judge Myron H. Thompson of Federal District Court in Montgomery ruled in their favor.

One of the plaintiffs, Stephen R. Glassroth, a criminal defense lawyer in Montgomery, called yesterday's decision a vindication.

Chief Justice Moore has been closely associated with the Ten Commandments through his career on the Alabama bench. He hung a hand-carved plaque depicting the commandments in his courtroom when he was a circuit court judge in Gadsden, generating controversy and lawsuits. In 2000, he successfully campaigned for chief justice as the "Ten Commandments judge."

The appeals court noted that the excerpts from Exodus chiseled into the tablets are a Protestant version of the commandments.

"Jewish, Catholic, Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox faiths use different parts of their holy texts as the authoritative Ten Commandments," the court said. "The point is that choosing which version of the Ten Commandments to display can have religious endorsement implications."

The appeals court made clear that it will not brook disobedience from Chief Justice Moore if its order is upheld. "We do expect that if he is unable to have the district court's order overturned through the usual appellate processes," Judge Carnes wrote, "when the time comes Chief Justice Moore will obey that order. If necessary, the court order will be enforced. The rule of law will prevail."

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Interesting that it was lawyers that found the commandments "offensive". Guess it was because their profession requires them to break so many of them on a regular basis. Some times TL, I just cannot stand those in your chosen field of expertise. *sigh* Exactly how is having a list of the 10 commandments on display equated to the government "Mandating a State Sponsored Religion"?

Ammendment the first!: CONGRESS shall make no laws respecting an establishedment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing in there about displaying the commandments...no Gongressional involveent, no laws made....just a simple display.
</font>

[ 07-02-2003, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Another question....just where does the constitution gaurentee you freedom from being offended?
</font>

I disagree with these lawyers. The Ten Commandments has more significance than religious, it also has historic, and a legal significance of being the first written law of the land in which all laws of today are based. Maybe they are offended by history so therefore we should rewrite it. Other than that our current law is ours to change the ten commandments has nothing to do with the current law of the land. Why are they so offended? I find myself agreeing with Magik that it must be that they feel guilty everytime they look at it.

[ 07-02-2003, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

I have this great political cartoon where the bailiff is telling the 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit (which decided "one nation under God" was offensive in the pledge): "Your payroll arrived today Your Honors, but don't you worry -- I saw that the money had "In God We Trust" printed on it and sent it right back. :D :D

Bible philosophy is like any philosophy. Why you can post Thomas Jefferson quotes and Plato quotes but not Jesus quotes sometimes befuddles me.

Nowhere. But, the freedom from a governmental establishment of religion (1st Amendment) requires you look to see if people can be "offended" as part of your factual inquiry as to wherether an act is really "establishing" religion or "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

To be sure, if this were private property it would be a non-issue.

But, if government buildings can have greek gods decorating them, or quotes by other thinkers adorning them, why not the Bible? Just so long as it isn't elevated above the others. Couldn't you put up a plaque quoting Ghandi??

Actaully the Ten Comandments are not the first written laws. The first laws were laid down in Mesopotamia.

A question to the Christians out there. How comfortable would you feel walking into a court room where the judge had a copy of the Koran displayed and a large plaque with Islamic quotes? Or Pagan/Wicca symbols on display?

I think that says it nicely.

Actaully the Ten Comandments are not the first written laws. The first laws were laid down in Mesopotamia.

A question to the Christians out there. How comfortable would you feel walking into a court room where the judge had a copy of the Koran displayed and a large plaque with Islamic quotes? Or Pagan/Wicca symbols on display? </font>[/QUOTE]While there were likely other written laws before the ten commandments these laws are not ones have not had the influence on our laws today that the ten commandments have. Sorry for being a little unclear. Lets just say that the ten commandments are unique and have withstood the test of time.

While it is not the oldest legal tradition (Hammurabi having that title), I would say the Torah has certainly withstood the test of time better and longer than any other legal tradition. And, it is quite fundamental to the legal tradition of the Judeo-Christian world of course.

I'd be fine with Wiccan quotes or Pagan quotes. Technically, Ghandi was a heathen, and I think a marble-ized Ghandi quote would be acceptable in a USA courtroom.

This would not be such a problem if the culture didn't elevate the Bible quotes. If they were seen in public display (not in homes -- religion can rule there of course) to be presented equivalently to other quotes coming from the great cannon of man's great thoughts, they would not be religiously offensive, would they?

Hear, Hear! This does say it all.

I'm a Pagan from Alabama originally and know just how radical and intolerant the religious right can get down there. They would probably spit brimstone and ash and all the Lord's wrath if the Koran and a Witch's book of shadows were on display at the public courthouse. Leave religion at home or at church or on the bumper of your car, not on or in goverment buildings.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Dude, you totally lost me. I posted the exact words of the first ammendment it doesnt say anything about taking into consideration wether some crackpot is going to be offended. Establishing A religion has nothing to do with offending...it is an action all unto itself. Someone being offended by a person, place or thing is not "establishing" anything...except perhaps said persons ignorance or said persons cranial penile content.
</font>

I think that says it nicely. </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
If you ask me that very question my very truthful answer is "I could give a sh*t" All Im interested when Im in a court is wether I get a fair hearing and that my case gets done in a timely manner. I don't give a flying fluff about the decorations....seriously.
</font>

yup...guess it's time for a group of us to go file suit against all the federal or state government buildings with 'art' in the form of any pantheon's deities or mythological creatures that might offend us because it's forcing someone's religion down our throats.... I mean if we have to SEE something religious we might be forced to go and become one of their flock, right? Good freakin Grief!
Reminds me of a local city library that was forced to take down it's Christmas tree and minorah because the wiccans and atheists filed suit against the library. Of course it was ok to keep up the posters about Mulsim traditions (Ramadan etc)and Kwanza decorations..... [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] go figure....

Btw, pritchke, very nice post, I agree with you!

[ 07-02-2003, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Dude, you totally lost me. I posted the exact words of the first ammendment it doesnt say anything about taking into consideration wether some crackpot is going to be offended. Establishing A religion has nothing to do with offending...it is an action all unto itself. Someone being offended by a person, place or thing is not "establishing" anything...except perhaps said persons ignorance or said persons cranial penile content.
</font> </font>[/QUOTE]My point is that offending someone is *evidence.* If you post a Jesus quote on a public building among other philophical quotes, and no one is offended, there is less likelihood that the act is one of establishing a religion. I just don't see how you'd measure the "establishment" of religion without looking to people's reactions. Building marble statutes of Greek Gods all over the country could very well be argued to be an establishment of religion. But, it's been done and no one cries out that our government is trying to endorse Greek Mythology as a national religion -- largely because no one is offended and we all realize the government is using the "art" and "philosophy" of Greek Mythology, without endorsing polytheism.

People and their quotes are engraved on marble buildings everywhere. But, if you were to nit-pick, you'd find that most thinkers had a religious stance, and that the stance came through in their writing. Aristotle's Ethics can't be discussed without getting into his view of heaven. But, posting an Aristotle quote isn't seen as establishing a religion.

Why, then, can't religious figures, art, and ideas from the Christian religion be displayed without it being an "establishment." Is it simply because there are a lot of Christians in the nation?

edit:
I second Cloudy's post. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Actually, had that case followed Supreme Court law, it would have held that Christian Christmas displays are okay so long as they are not alone. In other words, if you want to display the Nativity, you need to put Santa and Rudolph or some Kwanzaa icons in the scene as well. Apparently, the SUpreme Court thinks christian icons are okay so long as they are diluted.

I guess I'm saying had the city had appealed in the case you mention, Cloudy, I think the offended heathens would have lost.

[ 07-02-2003, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Actually, TL, I think it's because Christians are the 'whipping post' of the moment.
I've seen where it's ok to teach kids about Islam, budhism, wicca or paganism or any number of 'diversity' courses in schools now, but if you MENTION Christianity (even historically),in many places you end up with parents screaming about religion in government..I don't begin to pretend to understand it, myself.

I'd have to guess it's a trend- things go in cycles most of the time.
In the meantime...stop trying to make me into a follower of Greek religions...I saw that statue on the green.... [img]graemlins/whipitgood.gif[/img]

[ 07-02-2003, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
TL to "Establish" a religion, you build a church and tell people that they have to go to this and only this church. Putting up statues is NOT establishing anything...it is either Landscaping or decorating and does not cvome anywhere near establishing an official religion. PLUS you avoided the whole "CONGRESS" issue. It was NOT Congress that put up this particular piece of granite.
</font>

MagiK, the "congress shall make no law" part gets hooked in through two steps. (1)SPENDING -- it was a governmental appropriation that bought the thing, and is therefore a legislative act. (2) 14th Amendment -- makes it clear that any constitutional limit applicable to the federal government will also apply to State governments.

I think the law is clear that, via statues, policies, and other sorts of ways to innundate folks, the government could "establish" religion or "limit the free exercise thereof" without going so far as to found and build a Church of America.

Spare me the tales of persecuted Christians, they are the dominant religious group in the US. They Christian right is constantly trying to push it's moral views on the rest of us via any means available from high pressure lobbying to running stealth canidates for local school boards. They are the ones who are constantly pushing for the teaching of creationism in public schools. For the outlawing of a woman's right to choose. Fighting tooth and nail against any kind of legal rights for same-sex couples.

In current society it is almost a requirement that you state your belief in God to be elected to any office.

<FONT COLOR=ORANGE>I don't buy that. If it were so, then all you mentioned would come to pass in this country, now wouldn't it. You make it sound like ALL christians want to throw everyone else to the lions. Not True my friend. Most Christians are quite tolerate people. </font>

Maybe it's time for the majority in this country to take it back. Many people out here in the real world, as opposed to easily offended academics, are tired of having their beliefs trampled by social engeneers who want to remake this nation into something more closely resembling one of the socialist European states.

I agree that if you are not Christian, your chances of getting elected to public office (above the local level) in this country are between slim and none.

Thank the Founders they had the forsight to keep this from happening.
The only way this would happen would be through an coup, you would not be advocating the overthrow of our constitutional government now would you?

[ 07-02-2003, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]

Thank the Founders they had the forsight to keep this from happening.
The only way this would happen would be through an coup, you would not be advocating the overthrow of our constitutional government now would you? </font>[/QUOTE]No. I have pointed out before that we are to some degree socialist. In a "capitalist" society, private enterprise owns everything. In communism, the government owns everything. Socialism is very truly the vast sliding scale in between the two, of varying degrees of how much the government owns property and substitutes social services and government monopolies for those that would otherwise be provided by private enterprise.

Considering our government collects on average 50% of all of our dollars (between state, fed, and local) and spends them for us and Norway's government collects about 60-70% of their citizens currency (Euro?) to spend, is there really a vast difference allowing us to label one as "Capitalist" and the other as "Socialist?" [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] You may be offended by the idea or the word "socialism," but do not let that blind you to the reality that the USA is quite socialistic.

For me that says it all. If you consider a saying wise put it in marble and hang it on your wall. I don't care who said what as long as it's clever (I'm rather machiavellistic that way). I got Bible quotes, Talmud quotes, Veda quotes, Gandhi quotes, ML King quotes, Clausewitz quotes, Cicero quotes, Plato quotes, ... (endless list) present to make clever remarks in any situation and as long as they make sense and are not offensive in an extremely obvious way (telling "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts" to someone from Athens) I use them. Technically the whole world should now hate me or at least be very offended -am I getting that right? - the Moslems for using Bible quotes, the Christians for using Veda quotes, the pacifists for using Clausewitz, the white people for quoting Dr. King, the descendants of Catilina for quoting Cicero and so on...

Point is: "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty smart no matter if you put Old Testimony, Evangelium, Buddha, Gandhi, King, Bertha von Suttner, ... as a source.

Well, I am from the "Great State of Alabama." I don't know if this was mentionned but the statue was paid for with privately donated funds. I agree wholehartedly with TL, if the statue had the "Code of Hammurabi" on it it would be a non-issue.

It will not end here; he is going to appeal to the Supreme Court, I think.

Answer from this Christian: Perfectly comfortable, I am to render unto Cesaer what is Cesear's and until God what is God's.

Hear, Hear! This does say it all.

I'm a Pagan from Alabama originally and know just how radical and intolerant the religious right can get down there. They would probably spit brimstone and ash and all the Lord's wrath if the Koran and a Witch's book of shadows were on display at the public courthouse. Leave religion at home or at church or on the bumper of your car, not on or in goverment buildings. </font>[/QUOTE]Well Chewbacca, I beleive you are letting your own bigotry and predijustice cloud you. I am from and currently live in Alabama, voted for judge Moore,along with the majority of the voting population of Alabama, I am also a Christian, INFACT I would be considered by majority of the world's population to be part of the RELIGIOUS RIGHT, and answered the question the EXACT oposite of the way you put forth in your above statement. I find it interesting that (as of reading down to your reply) only two comments where made about the question of how Christains would feel about the Koran, or any other religious laws posted in a court, AND both replies DID NOT wait until a Christian to answered before they passed judgment.

Why not have the 10 comandments in court? Could it be because that would be considered imposing Judge Moore's views on others? If that is so then NOT having the 10 comandments in the court would be IMPOSING somebody else's views on the majority of the voting population of the state of Alabama who voted for Judge Moore knowing full well he was going to put the 10 comandments up. But I guess it is ok to IMPOSE some views, but not other views, HMMMMMMM?
What about imposing one's sense morality in the law? Well guess what ALL laws are imposing somebody's sense of morality. That is what laws are!!! DICTATING Right and wrong, same with morality right and wrong.

The US Supreme Court opens with a prayer, Both houses of Congress open with prayers, and the Supreme Court has up held their right to do so.

[ 07-02-2003, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

Spare me the tales of persecuted Christians, they are the dominant religious group in the US. They Christian right is constantly trying to push it's moral views on the rest of us via any means available from high pressure lobbying to running stealth canidates for local school boards. They are the ones who are constantly pushing for the teaching of creationism in public schools. For the outlawing of a woman's right to choose. Fighting tooth and nail against any kind of legal rights for same-sex couples.

In current society it is almost a requirement that you state your belief in God to be elected to any office. </font>[/QUOTE]And spare me the tales of the persecuted NON Christains, who have forced their views on people, from teaching of evolution, and other religeons in the puplic schools to the onesided view of it's a female's body but the male which HAS TO CONTRIBUTE 1/2 of the genes has no say in the matter, But he sure as "Hale" IS HOT can be forced to pay for the child even if he doesn't want it. And females wonder why males aren't wanting to commit to a serious realtionship.

As for getting elected because somebody professes belief in God, big WOOOPTY DOO! That's life in a Constituional Representative Rebulic. Instead of spending time piss'n moun'n, why don't non beleivers go out and impress upon their fellow non beleivers the importance of voting in a Constituional Represenative Republic?

[ 07-02-2003, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

Hear, Hear! This does say it all.

I'm a Pagan from Alabama originally and know just how radical and intolerant the religious right can get down there. They would probably spit brimstone and ash and all the Lord's wrath if the Koran and a Witch's book of shadows were on display at the public courthouse. Leave religion at home or at church or on the bumper of your car, not on or in goverment buildings. </font>[/QUOTE]Well Chewbacca, I beleive you are letting your own bigotry and predijustice cloud you. I am from and currently live in Alabama, voted for judge Moore,along with the majority of the voting population of Alabama, I am also a Christian, INFACT I would be considered by majority of the world's population to be part of the RELIGIOUS RIGHT, and answered the question the EXACT oposite of the way you put forth in your above statement. I find it interesting that (as of reading down to your reply) only two comments where made about the question of how Christains would feel about the Koran, or any other religious laws posted in a court, AND both replies DID NOT wait until a Christian to answered before they passed judgment.

Why not have the 10 comandments in court? Could it be because that would be considered imposing Judge Moore's views on others? If that is so then NOT having the 10 comandments in the court would be IMPOSING somebody else's views on the majority of the voting population of the state of Alabama who voted for Judge Moore knowing full well he was going to put the 10 comandments up. But I guess it is ok to IMPOSE some views, but not other views, HMMMMMMM?
What about imposing one's sense morality in the law? Well guess what ALL laws are imposing somebody's sense of morality. That is what laws are!!! DICTATING Right and wrong, same with morality right and wrong.

The US Supreme Court opens with a prayer, Both houses of Congress open with prayers, and the Supreme Court has up held their right to do so. </font>[/QUOTE]Mr. Harris I spent quite a few years on the recieving end of alot of bigotry and intolerance from southern christians in Montgomery Alabama, so I am qualified to know how some of them will react. Never call me a bigot again. Name calling isnt allowed on this forum and calling some one a bigot is serious in my book.

[ 07-03-2003, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

<font color=orange>But Chewie, that's exactly how your first statement came off sounding like. Rokenn's too for that matter. </font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
I think the ammendment is quite clear as written and litterally interpreted. I think it is modern day lawyers that have perverted the interpretation. (well lawyers and liberal judges.)

A statue or monument does not constitue establishing a religon. Any argument to the contrary is merely an opposite opinion [img]smile.gif[/img] Albeit one accepted by trial lawyers and left wingers.
</font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Chewie, I understand the word bigot is a bad word in our language, but it is also true that every single one of us is guilty of biggotry in one sense or
another. Pointing out one persons apparent bias is not necessarily the same as saying you are biggoted about all things. I wouldn't get too upset at the word in the way it was used. Just an opinion.
</font>

Actaully the Ten Comandments are not the first written laws. The first laws were laid down in Mesopotamia.

A question to the Christians out there. How comfortable would you feel walking into a court room where the judge had a copy of the Koran displayed and a large plaque with Islamic quotes? Or Pagan/Wicca symbols on display? </font>[/QUOTE]As John D has already said- We are expected to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. Abide by the law of the land you reside in. If it's legal to put up those things, why should it bother me? As long as I'm not forced to 'worship' those symbols or take on other beliefs, I have no issue with one being there. Nobody is telling me that I must suddenly convert if I see them, are they? ;)

If the Judge ignored US or state law in favor of some religious beliefs that were contrary to the law, I'd complain (that handy little 'seperation of church and state' thing works in this instance) but if he's following the law and doing his job, he can put lace doilies and pictures of a chicken in overalls on his desk or wall for all I care.

A question for you, Rokenn: Who or what caused you to have such virulent dislike of all Christians. It seems to me that you (and Chewbacca, as well as others) have this stereotype of a Christian that says if someone calls themselves Christian they are automatically to be reviled as ultra right wing purveyors of hate and all things nasty. Stereotypes are rarely the whole story and in this case not even the largest part of it, just the most vocal. I'm truly curious as I fail to see how I or any of the true Christians on this board have caused you injury or taken away your civil liberties or forced you to convert in any way.

Chewbacca, I'm sorry that you have indured intolerance, I have also indured intolerance. I did not call you a name, I called into question your actions, words and held them up for examination, as you have mine, both of our actions I beleive are within the rules of the forum. I've PM'ed you to explain in further detail.

<FONT COLOR=ORANGE>I don't buy that. If it were so, then all you mentioned would come to pass in this country, now wouldn't it. You make it sound like ALL christians want to throw everyone else to the lions. Not True my friend. Most Christians are quite tolerate people. </font> </font>[/QUOTE]Thing is, many people seem to have bought into the idea that ONE segment of a group (the more vocal and far right one in this case) must be representative of ALL the members of the the group. In this case it's so far off base it isn't funny, but then the 'moderate' and more reasonable Christians among us don't go around thumping people with Bibles or shooting doctors and burning crosses, now do we? [img]smile.gif[/img] So what's seen in the news is sensational, radical and over the top bunch like the Bakers, Falwells and Jones' of the world who CLAIM to be Christian, but in my book are far and away less so than anyone I know in my church or community.

TL, [img]smile.gif[/img]
If the statue was purchased with federal funds, then it's possible it might offend someone who felt it was too religious or not on par with their own religion (although, frankly, most of the 10 commandments are actually part of our law- murder, adultery, theft...all are in there). I think it's one hell of a stretch, though, to assume that's creating a state religion unless it were rampant...that is if every public building started sporting the same religiously oriented statue or painting etc....still, if the state doesn't tell you it's mandatory to worship said art or the idea depicted in it, then it's pushing it IMO to assume that it sets up a state religion.

You know the ancient Greeks worshipped the notion of a 'perfect body'....does that mean that all the 'art' statues in federally funded museums are in violation of the laws protecting minorities like the disabled? How far do we go...I know we've been exaggerating here, but I seriously wonder, how far do we let it go?

A friend mentioned a news item a few weeks ago. A woman who taught in a private school was told she had to remove her cross necklace because it offended non-Christian students in the school. She was let go when she refused to compromise her beliefs, which she had in NO way imposed on anyone in the school and hadn't even discussed with students. So this woman is not allowed to practice her own beliefs or show any indication she has them? She won that case in court, btw. Wish I remembered what state it was in! If she wore a stonehenge pin or a Mayan symbol, I highly doubt anyone would have accused her of forcing druidism or human sacrifice on the students. Again, it just seems to me that it's because she's Christian and it's trendy to dislike them.

No doubt, as Rokenn noted, they are a large section of the population and that may have something to do with it. Some non-Christians may have had dealings with fringe groups or those in the far ends of the spectrum, they may have reason to dislike THAT section of the Christian population and just carry the stereotype forward. I'm not a sociologist, but that's my best guess.

[ 07-03-2003, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
The long and short of it is that right now, in the USA. It is perfectly acceptable to insult, defame, deride, and in any other way attack Christians...while any hint of negativity toward any other group in this country will result in Hate crimes charges being leveled.

Because Christianity is supposedly the Majority and not a minority, we are not afforded the same protections as theother groups. Not fair. </font>

I think we agree, and perhaps I didn't make that clear. And, I think this reasoning applies to Christian art and icons as well. I was merely pointing out that if you're going to ban the Christian art and iconography, you are prejudicing Christianity vis-a-vis other religions. I think a statue of David is just as fine a public decoration as one of Circe or Hercules. I think a quote from Leviticus has every much as value on a public building as one from Aristotle.

Y'know when I'm an older muppet, I think I'll spend my time taking on cases like this for free -- litigating world change and all that. Most of you know I'm an avowed atheist. Nevertheless, it was wrong this woman had her free exercise of religion prohibited. It is exactly the same as asking a Hindu teacher not to put a red dot on her forehead (I don't know the correct term for this -- so forgive the blunt phraseology) or a Muslim teacher to remove her veil, either one based on how these things "offend" some good down-home Christian students. The only reason the courts aren't all up-in-arms over this one is that, as Cloudy says, it's quite fashionable to hate Christians these days. I'm glad she won her case -- it was the right result.

[ 07-03-2003, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Would you mind pointing out exactly how my statements were bigoted? I merely pointed out some of the Christain Right's political agenda.

I have nothing against Christains in general, I have many Christain friends. If you read what I wrote I was specificly referring to the Christain Right (which is the most organized and vocal portion of the Christain community), and merely pointed out some of their political agenda I disagree with. I would have the same problem with any religious faction trying to foist its views onto me via the Government. For all I care people can worship the tree stumb in their backyard, or the spot of mustard on their wall as long as they are not trying to use my tax dollars to do it. If you want your kids to learn creationism instead of science then send em to a private school, with your own money. If you try and use my tax dollars to subsidize the teaching of religion I will fight that tooth and nail. I hope I have made my feelings clear on this [img]smile.gif[/img]