The 10 Commandments and Alabama
 

Im glad its moved. Everyone else weigh in, below is the link to the article in the post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Aug27.html

I think it should have never been there. I'm glad to see it go.

Very mixed feelings -

On the one hand, I totally believe in religious diversity and freedom, and that one religion (and it symols, beliefs, god/gods/goddesses, etc.) should not be forced on anyone. Having a monument of that kind in a public area that has and should have no particular religious affiliations whatsoever could make people very uncomfortable, and is not the point of a court. A court is there to uphold the laws that stand for all people in that state and country.

However, on a side note that may not have anything to do with this case in particular, but....

I do feel mainstream Christians have been the object of prejudice, because they have in the past been the predominant religion, and unfortunatly with their history, forced it upon others. In Canada and the States, we have freedom of religion, which includes any and all religions. It's wonderful that we have such diversity, and I by no means believe Christianity in any form is the "only" or "right" religion, but people are still allowed to practice it individually and with like-minded people. Same for all religions.

Anyway, sorry, that's off the subject, because I think I do agree it should be moved, because a law court, again, should have no religius ties. Obviously, this is a subject I feel strongly about, and would love to hear others opinions on. But please let's be mature and respectful about this.

End rant :D

Glad it's gone. Absolutely do not support anything like this.

I mean, what if a Muslim judge had displayed a Koran monument? Or a Jewish judge a Torah monument?? Or a Buddhist judge a sutra? Knowing the protests that would inevitably result from these actions I think it's easy to figure out why we shouldn't have our courts appear to promote any particular religion.

I was watching this off and on this morning. I think this was a sad, sad day...

Yes, I can see both sides.

Freedom of speech has been bandied about quite a bit. Well, why is it always so restrictive when it's about conservative ideas or Christian beliefs yet people will fight for funding art, THAT IS VIEWED IN PUBLIC PLACES, that depicts sacrilege,
pornography, disrespect of the flag...just a few examples.

I really feel there is a strong movement to make our country
secular and destroy the moral fiber of our youth. I also believe that as one person interviewed said-"They are trying to rewrite history." We WERE founded on Religious beliefs-Christian for that matter. I wonder what they would do had they been the ORIGINAL 10 Commandments. Wouldn't they be stuck in the Smithsonian or perhaps the Vatican would keep them safe from those who are trying to destroy them. Thank God they can't destroy an idea or faith!

I'm wearing fire retardent.

edited-Can someone pull up an article from a paper with a more conservative perspective?

Related question
 

So who will be the first to file suit against the Supreme Court for having bas relief images of Moses, Mohammed and Confucius in their building?

Also, you could sue the Supreme Court for beginning their proceedings with "God Save the United States and this honorable court."

How far does your moral outrage extend? Anyone on GC willing to put their money where their mouth is?

One more--where is the line between freedom of speech and "separation of church and state" for congress members, the president etc? Do they give up their right to freedom of speech/expression/religion when they take office?

Discuss.......

Church separate from state. I like the monument, but it should be somewhere else.

JAM, I think the difference here is that the examples you give probably involve private citizens, while this case involves the government. I have no problem with a person displaying "pornography," "disrespect of the flag" or Christian symbols in her home, or in a museum, or anywhere else that is not owned by the government. However, when someone in the government displays something religious, I think that is a problem.

Yes, our country has a strong Christian tradition, but the government is for EVERYBODY, not just Christians, and the principle of separation of church and state is designed to prevent government from imposing religion on our citizens.

Adduncan, I'd be happy to put my money where my mouth is if I had any. I am bothered by references like "In God We Trust" on money, but like with everything we have to choose our battles in life. I can't fight everything, although I do find that to be an important issue. I don't personally care if the President is a Christian, but I don't think it's appropriate for him to discuss it in his role as President. Of course you give up a certain amount of freedom to say what you want when in government -- I highly doubt that you would be very pleased if an elected official decided to stomp on a flag in public or discuss the virtues of molesting children, for example.

How about if the museum or the "display" is funded by tax money. Is it still acceptable?

(What I'm leading up to is.....the museum displays that JAM described were in fact often funded by the NEA and the museums are supported by local tax dollars.)

Both of these are irrelevant. No one pursuing public office is going to inflame the senses of the people they claim to represent, because they won't get the votes they need. And since child molestation is a crime, this is a one-way ticket out of office too. So whether or not I would be "pleased" about these things isn't even an issue.

I really do see your point Valkyrie, but in many instances, they are using public funds. You see the rub?

One last point and then I'll bow out-
Every County has established their judicial system on their views of right and wrong. Granted, some systems have gone haywire. Sometimes I think ours is going haywire too.
Our system stemmed from Christian beliefs. That's why even though reworded and somewhat watered down, from a historical perspective, I think the 10 commandments represent our roots and should be allowed to be displayed.

edited-Can't spell!!!:o

Yes, child molestation is a crime, but last I checked, talking about it isn't. I don't think it is irrelevant -- I'm saying that public officials KNOW that they really don't have the "freedom" to talk about anything because certain things may be inflammatory. You asked, "Do they give up their right to freedom of speech/expression/religion when they take office?" and I'm saying that yes, to an extent, they do for that very reason. You can find my examples irrelevant if you like, but I think that they show that yes, there are certain things public officials just can't discuss.

I too am experiencing dissonance on this issue - on one hand I see the reasoning behind the decision to remove it viz. the separation of church and state; on the other hand the wish of the judge to keep it within the courthouse.

Are we to enforce the suppression of visible displays of beliefs to the extent of crucifixes around the necks of those in public office?
Or, if one has an iconic artefact or small religious picture in their chambers, should that be allowed? For, if the argument that it is inappropriate to display it is based on the fact it implies a religious bias in decisions, then surely other small examples would do the same thing?
For any religious bias to be present it is perhaps irrelevant that a large monument is displayed or not; if bias was there (in that courthouse or others) [and for the sake of discussion it should not be] then it might have been just as present in the 'men' passing judgment over their peers who had not placed any monuments in their courthouses.
It's somewhat like a notion the best person to teach religious studies is an agnostic. Is the best person to sit in a courthouse one who is devoid of religous beliefs? Granted he is there to make decision based on fact/democratically made laws, not preconcieved religious beliefs, but if he has beliefs they shall be inherent in him regardless of what monuments happen to be in the foyer. Doubtless people have said the fact there was such a visible monument placed is clear evidence Moore has problems setting aside his religious beliefs to make fair decisions. That is questionable, whether there is a monument present or not one can still have certain views - simply less visibly expressed ones.
Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. Did such a monument really prevent that?

From article: Moore, who maintains that the Ten Commandments have a place in public buildings because they are the "moral foundation" of American law, has vowed to fight for his job and has enlisted former Supreme Court justice Terry Butts to defend him during the judicial inquiry.
This is a jurist argument, jurism being the study of law (not the statutes which make it up but the motives behind the system - moralistic, religious etc). Arguably Judeo-Christian beliefs do have a bearing on the laws which make up the United States and Commonwealth countries, and beyond. Take "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thy shalt not steal" etc. The academic question is whether there is a historic common similarity between present law and religion or whether it goes beyond that to the point where justices are enforcing not just the laws of men but the laws of (less accountable!) deities handing down edicts to their prophets.

I'm reminded of the sweet film, "A Miracle on 34th Street". Attention in it was drawn to the dollar bills which carry upon them the statement "In God We Trust". If we are to take that point, then there were 'mini-monuments' contained in the pockets of so many people in so many courtrooms, across Alabama and beyond. And a clear statement on the acceptability of separation of Church v. State on every note.

The root of the furore seems to be not whether a monument was displayed or not - that is just a factor. The outrage is over the notion he (Moore) or others who would do this CANNOT make rational decisions based on what their job allows but only on those+religious teachings. This surely is an insult to their intelligence. We cannot vet everyone for public office to ensure they have no religious beliefs - "just in case".

From article: For others, including Justice Douglas Johnstone, leader of the courthouse movement to overrule Moore, it signified a stand against the threat of America becoming "a theocracy."
From dictionary.com definition of 'theocracy': 1) Government of a state by the immediate direction or administration of God; hence, the exercise of political authority by priests as representing the Deity. 2) Government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
It is a highly tenuous stretch to compare Moore with a figure (priest) who posits to be a direct representative of God (and His word). It is a similar 'stretch' to suggest this issue suggests a Government ruled by or not independent of religious authority. The current President of the United States George Walker Bush and MANY before him have had religious beliefs and no hesistance to be seen in public praying/at a service, or fear of backlash for doing so.

Interesting debate, with many sides. Thanks for bringing it up.

N.B Masculine pronoun is used above for brevity and ease of reading only, I am aware there are many great women in the judiciary and public office at every level.

:( I was typing this for a while/doing other things. In doing so, others posted messages in the meantime that already stated any points I made. Oh well.

I understand the whole idea of "seperation of church and state", but it just seems like to me that really means "seperation of Christianity and state".

Why? Because many federal buildings have public statues/art/plaques that feature Greek/Roman gods and goddesses. Why aren't these pagan symbols removed as well?
And as someone mentioned earlier, what about "In God we trust?" on currency? Or after Sept. 11th, the many posters that hung in federal buildings/offices with a picture of the flag with the words "God Bless America"? Why was there no outcry to remove those signs then?

My whole point is that the seperation of church and state argument should apply to all religious symbols on all federal gov't - related items or buildings.

I agree with you...all, not just some.

There is already enough politics in politics. Religion (church) just adds more politics to it. Thats a lot of politics.

WOW WOW WOW! GOOD thoughts here! I really hate to see this topic die. I thought we were going to have a RUMBLE...a polite rumble BUT A RUMBLE ALL THE SAME!

decadence-excellent, excellent post!

SigmaChiGuy-There is already enough politics in politics. Religion (church) just adds more politics to it. Thats a lot of politics.
Simply stated, but so true.

How ironic...
 

I dunno how I feel regarding what is happining in Alabama. I can see both sides of the equation...

But if one were to look into the archeological and the biblical history of the actual 10 Commandments given down by God to Moses (the 2nd ones), The Commandments were to be place in the "ark of the covenant" surrounded by several shrouds, called the "holy of the holies". Only the "pure in heart" are allowed to go to were the ark is...

Only one group of people claim to contain the "ark of the covenant" and the guardsmen do not allow anyone to enter into the temple where the "ark" lies... That group is the Ethiopians...

Well, for those in Alabama paying hommage to seeing The 10 Commandments to stay, how many of them really would be capable to entering the "holy of holies" and actually gazing upon the "ark of the covenant"?

I dunno, I found irony in that... Maybe its just my twisted sense of Spirituality... You know sometime God has a sense of humor...

Besides, Christians are told to believe in only ONE commandment given to them by Jesus Christ after the Ressurection... That is Love God with all your heart and love one another as I have loved you, so you must love one another... That point to me is that the commandments are supposed to be written on you heart (Isaiah and Jeramiah say that)... That is the final covenant between God and man that was made in the OT... The NT adds to that covenant thru the Ressurection...

Is there any temple that can truly pay hommage to God on Earth that He created?

everyone has made good remarks on this......i, like so many others, see both sides. my thing is this: if someone wants to have the 10 commandments up, fine. if someone wants to put up chinese proverbs or anything else that basically advises ppl how to live moral lives, fine. ppl always gotta take Christianity so harshly....can't ya just look at something and think, "yeah, that seems fair" and not "whoa, that came from the Bible, so therefore that's a bunch of bull so get it outta my face".....it's not like Alabama had a big ol' picture of the KKK creed up there or something. the 10 commandments are just a set of basic principles to try and live by that just so happened to be set forth by God and all that. they are nothing bad.....just something out of the Bible.....and i honest to goodness think that's the only reason why ppl have an issue with it. b/c as mentioned b/4, if any other religion's set of "rules" or whatnot was placed up there, it wouldn't be this big of a deal.

thank you and carry on. :)

I do not agree w/ it being displayed. Sure I'll agree to the statement that our country was founded on the principles of the Judeo-Christian tradition. It's a fact. Some of the Founding Fathers were Deists, but the point is is that they believed in "God". Now...they were smart guys. They designated that there be a separation of church (religion) and state to avoid the same hassles that the English Puritans had. The state can neither condemn nor condemn the individual practice of religion. That's well established and has been upheld in many cases. But when an elected official decides to thrust his own religious convictions upon the masses, that's when this clause of "separation of church and state" comes into effect. A colleague of mine said today, not realizing that she was dissing me, stated, "Well this country was founded on the Bible and if someone doesn't like that then they don't have to move here." :eek: As she left I said under my breath "Gee, too bad some of us were BORN here." :rolleyes: I think it should be removed to an area such as a church or other religiously oriented location. Of course I believe in the 10 Commandments, but I do not feel as if they should be displayed in a tax-payer funded building. I think once he tried to say that displaying the Commandments made people "act right" or something to that effect. The original recipients of the Commandments (read your Bible!) made a golden cow for crying out loud! His arguments are weak and uncorroborated. He's yet another Alabamian making me feel shame for the location of my birth. :(

I think it's very sad that it was removed.

Wow, as stated, great points! It's wonderful to see this discussed so intelligently, passionately, and respectfully.

I thought I'd just throw this in, more about freedom of speech, but also action and association, maybe not as higher thought as some other posts, but here we go:

I am, as many of us are, associated with an organization, whether local, national, or international. These organizations put some guidlines/rules/restrictions on us as members and therefore representatives. Drinking in our letters, insulting other members and groups, illegal activity, yelling our cheers in a quiet restaurant as a group: These activities are frowned upon, and perhaps punishable, because they reflect poorly on our sorority/fraternity. While I have the freedom to say whatever I want, and in my own home do (almost) whatever I want, I still have a responsibility to my sorority to uphold their values and standards, which I agreed upon when pledged and initiated, and everytime I wear my letters and pay dues.

Public officials, judges, the president all hold such positions as well. They have taken on an office to serve their country, and represent us, all of us. What they do or think as a person is their business (to, obviously, a certain extent - illegal activity is not an issue here for me, as monuments and religious artifacts are not illegal), but when they begin to associate it with their position of authority/organization/business/county/state in such a direct way, that takes on new meaning. If a judge sentenced someone for getting a divorce, just because his religion says it's wrong, and there is no government law to uphold this, then it is wrong.

Government sponsored art exhibits, etc. are different than those pieces placed in a court of law, plus the exhibits funded are most often (or should be) in places where you must chose to see them, and are not forced to as in a public space. As well, there are a variety of them, all representing and depicting different views, not one particular one.

The fact is, that monument represented something highly and commonly connected with a religion. They may be, when interpreted, standard moral codes, but they are still religious. Just because "The Last Supper" could be seen as just a bunch of hairy guys eating dinner doesn't mean it's not religious in its connections and meaning.

Plus, Christianity is not the only religion with these ideas, so why have it be the only one represented.

Unfortunately, yes, Chrstians get the blunt end of things. I totally agree, if it was a Aboriginal, Chinese or Japanese religious sculture or hanging, it wouldn't have raised such a fuss. But, the the history of Christianity makes it payable to this, the domination and suppression of other religions in the past means we have to be more sensitive to it now. And principally, no matter the religion, the issue should still have the same meaning and controversy.

Has to rewritting our history, we're not removing every trace of Christianity, just keeping it where it belongs, in churches, art, writing, museums, not government buildings.

K, this is such a hard topic to write a post that clearly portrays my opinions, so hopefully you got the gist of what I meant. Maybe swissmiss04 elaborated on some of my points better :D Sorry it's so long!

Question:

I've noted on this thread and others that some will justify or excuse censorship of Christians and Christianity by saying, "Oh, well, they suppressed others, so it isn't so bad."

Here's a brain teaser and slight hijak: was it the big bad Christianity actually oppressing people? Or was it the big bad rulers of the day using Christianity as a tool to further their own agendas?

As someone who has been studying this for a lot of years, I can assure you the answer is not as easy or as obvious as you might think.

Cont'd discuss.

Adrienne

Great point adduncan! But it doesn't change the facts for me - that it happened. But, very thought provoking - bravo, bravo

Federal Judge Dismisses Suit by Monument Supporters
Wednesday August 27, 2003 1:26pm

___ ABC 33/40 Interact ___

Mobile (AP) - A federal judge in Mobile has dismissed a lawsuit filed by supporters of the Ten Commandments monument in Montgomery. The suit sought to keep the Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of the state Judicial Building, despite a federal court order to move it.

U-S District Judge William Steele dismissed the suit shortly after the monument was moved this morning. Steele says the law does not allow the monument's supporters to pursue an appeal in his court after another federal judge has already ordered the monument moved. He also said venue is not proper in the federal court in Mobile because none of the events surrounding the Ten Commandments monument happened in that area.

I just thought that last remark was funny. Here's some more articles:

http://beta.abc3340.com/news/stories/0803/99680.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in529770.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in568707.shtml

It doesn't matter. Those people were faithful and claimed to be furthering their faith, and a lot of them were serioius about it.

There was never a Tibetan Inquisition.

I've read multiple posts about how this country is anti-Christian.

I really *don't* see all the anti-Christianity in this country. After living a significant amount of time with those of Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist faith, I've come to the opinion that Christianity has got it pretty easy out here. Nobody beats you to death because you're a Christian. [Please don't bring up past grievances as a counter, that's not what I'm referring to, and I think the Jews still have ya beat!!] You aren't detained as a suspected terrorist because you're a Christian.

What I do see is Christianity very comfortable with being the defacto standard, and not enjoying it when the standard is changing. Accept it or not, Christianity is still the defined norm in this country. Christmas is a federal holiday -- in most of this country you're assumed to be Christian unless you state otherwise. But this country is made up of more than one religion, and as the minority religions grow larger, more situations like this will occur.

Thus, people in this country are not bound to Christian ideals, as it was founded on the freedom to worship. Having the 10 commandments displayed in a courthouse gives conflicting signals -- what is the society trying to uphold? The secular law or the Christian ideal?

Personally, I'm glad they're out of there. I don't want to walk into a courtroom knowing that some judge believes that I should be upheld to Christian ideals -- I want to walk into a courtroom believing that I will be judged on the American laws. Freedom of religion means I should not have to hold myself to another religion's standards, and I feel that displaying the commandments in a place of judgment counters that notion.

For what it's worth, I don't think God should be on the cash, but it's not nearly as conflicting as the courtroom setting. There is no notion of loyalty, judgment or ideals associated with dropping a $5 for a beer. And while we're at it, I'd take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance -- it wasn't in the original pledge to begin with. I find that to be as problematic as the courtroom.

Question for those that support the removal of the 10 commandments:

Would you feel the same if this building WAS NOT a courthouse, but some other type of state or federal building (I dunno, let's say the DMV :D or Arlington National cemetary)?

And going forward, how do we reconcile this and where do you draw the line? If I am not comfortable going to a courthouse where the greek god of knowledge is displayed shouldn't that be removed as well? After all isn't that a violation of church (pagan religion) and state?

Just asking some questions............

Sometimes a picture says a thousand words:




http://www.abmc.gov/so5.jpg

Yes.

JAM wrote: "Our system stemmed from Christian beliefs."

While I agree that the "founders" of our country had Christian beliefs, I think that those beliefs are the reason that they were so careful about the separation of Church and State.

The reason that the Pilgrims left England was to escape religious persecution -- in other words, to be allowed to practice whatever religion they wanted, however they wanted.

Thus, the reason that the decendents of these fair minded people chose to separate religion and government was so that neither they, nor anyone else, would have to worry about the government interceding or interfering in the freedom to practice (or not practice for that matter) any religion.

In other words, The Constitution is not meant to penalize Christianity, but to allow for equality under the law between Christians and practioners of other religions. To ensure the fairness that was not practiced in England. To "Do unto others...etc."

I believe that the Alabama Chief Justice had the monument placed in the courthouse out of strong and commendable Christian beliefs. In doing so, however, consciously or unconsciously, he was attempting to force his personal religious beliefs on anyone who came in contact with the court.

To me, that is a clear violation of the intent of our American forefathers when the framed the Constitution.

Which is a very long way of saying that I believe it is right that the monument was moved. It should never have been put there in the first place.

Thomas Jefferson cut the bible to shreds.

I think this deserves repeating, and perhaps some discussion. :)

We're coming out of an age where all Americans were either Protestant, Catholic, or MAYBE Jewish, and if you practiced anything else you sort of shoved it under the rug and didn't mention it. These days people are exploring more belief systems, and it's much more socially acceptable to be Muslim, Wiccan, Buddhist, Unitarian, agnostic, atheist, whatever than it has been in recent years. As other religions gain in popularity, it's only natural that Christianity with decrease somewhat and lose some of the prominence that it used to be guaranteed.



I agree with DeltAlum. While the founders of our country were mostly Christians (with a handful of Deists and agnostics thrown in), there was a specific reason why they, in spite of their religious beliefs, decided to mandate a separation of church and state in this country.

New day, allowing myself to post!
 

:D Good point!

Seperation of church and state-
Seperation not obliteration.

Delt Alum, I see your point, but I think many have taken a singular statment and turned it into a mantra.

AKA-MONET Besides, Christians are told to believe in only ONE commandment given to them by Jesus Christ after the Ressurection... That is Love God with all your heart and love one another as I have loved you, so you must love one another... That point to me is that the commandments are supposed to be written on you heart (Isaiah and Jeramiah say that)... That is the final covenant between God and man that was made in the OT... The NT adds to that covenant thru the Ressurection...

Is there any temple that can truly pay hommage to God on Earth that He created?
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could appear before a judge with these beliefs, to love one another as I have loved you?

Well, there is a bright spot. THEY ARE STILL THERE...just less visible. So MAYBE we can see this as a win-win situation.
I guess they can stick a fountain with Pan spitting water out of his mouth, flute or some other body part.;)

...kind of off topic, but the thought just hit me.

I've never been to a public funded/state run hospital. Do they have chapels?

I know all the ones I've visited have a non denominational atmosphere, but never noticed if they were inclusive, in their decor, of non Christians.

Maybe it wouldn't matter because people freely choose to go and pray or meditate. Just wondering.

I'd like to start with the second question first, and I'd like to start with the pagan/greek god thing. I'd first like to dispel the notion that all pagan worship greek gods, because that's simply not true. There is a branch (Hellenismo) which does in fact use the greek gods as it's basis, but it's rather different than the ancient greek religion.

However, I'd like to point out how our culture views greek gods -- how many of you had to read Edith Hamilton's Mythology in high school? Our culture looks upon ancient greek religion as a cultural fairy tale. We look to it for stories of wisdom, love, secrecy. Lets face it, our GLOs have basis in the mythos. We don't view it as a current religion, we view it as an ancient culture from which ours grew. Very different -- depictions of greek gods are not to say "We worship greek gods" but to say "look back to this past culture". I find it impossible to believe that the 10 commandments are doing the same.

On to other government buildings. No, religion does not belong in the DMV [unless you're watching a 16 year old boy get his license...then y'all better be prayin' he doesn't hit ya!] Off hand, there are only two places I can think of where I believe it should be welcome in government buildings: museums and cemeteries.

I think the reasoning is rather obvious. In neither case is the government presenting a religion, instead it is allowing the culture of the society to permeate into the building. Museums are like archives of our culture. Religion is part of our culture -- to remove it from a museum is to ignore the culture. Displaying a piece of work in a museum is *significantly* different from displaying a piece of work in a courtroom or DMV.

In the same vein, a cemetery that doesn't allow people to properly grieve is rather useless as a cemetery. I think it should be duly noted that at the time of construction, Christian beliefs were assumed [note honeychile's picture] -- which isn't a problem until you're a Jewish soldier being buried under a cross that means nothing. But going in and ripping out all religion defeats the purpose of the cemetery. I just think that we need to be able to account for different faiths -- it really shouldn't have to be all crosses in a row -- it should reflect what the person and their family need to mourn.

Where is this cemetery?

The one I work at does.
The chapels and meditation rooms are scattered throughout the public areas (with a main one associated w/ the Chaplaincy / Pastoral care office). Some are generic, some are very religion-specific (ie, Muslim prayer rooms). There is also a section that promotes other faith-based activities like Tibeten Meditation and Reiki.

I dont' know if MDACC is the best general example tho: it is a *huge* world-renowned institution that deals with a wide variety of people from different backgrounds in some very complex and critical medical care. They've had to learn to strike a balance between being patient with people of other faiths, and yet providing for that aspect of care.

Interestingly, while the staff has to allow for (almost) any expression of faith, if a staff member--even accidentally--expresses their *own* faith in a manner that rubs anyone even slightly the wrong way, they end up in front of a disciplinary committee before the end of the day.

It's a tough balance.

Adrienne

See, this is the kind of point my question was addressing.

How do you know they were "faithful"? People can call themselves Christians but don't live up to those ideals. (There are plenty of threads in GC that shred people for that failure.)

While we're at that one: is it OK to judge an entire religious body based on the (mis) deeds a few? (I can dig up the thread about how I was mistreated by a Jewish community when I was a child if you really want to get into this.)

But since Optimist Prime is alluding to the Spanish Inquisition, I'll ask it again: are you sure they were acting on behalf of the Chruch w/ the Pope's approval? Or were they using the Church as a tool to further their secular agenda of staying in power and keeping their lead over the Moors?

I dont' think your flippant 3-sentence answer is going to solve that one, big guy. ;)

But the fact remains that these are figures (greek gods/goddesses) are in fact worshiped by a group of people who deem it as their religion. Again, if we are using the seperation of church and state argument, then it needs to apply to all - and not just whomever is the largest denomination.

Thus the second point about how our culture views greek mythology. If I decide to worship money, do we have to remove it from the government? What if I choose to worship the American flag? Does it go too? The president? [If that's the case, can we all start worshipping corrupt politicians?] We all have the right to worship whatever we want - it makes your description of separation impossible to implement.

I'm reiterating myself, but the point is that money, flags, greek gods -- all of these things have primarily <i>secular</i> meanings within our culture -- religious meanings are secondary, and are to a select group. It has nothing to do with a majority/minority, and everything to do with how our culture developed. The 10 commandments do not share that same meaning -- they have no secular purpose; the sole purpose is the religious meaning.

The separation between church and state does not mean "take anything out that could be construed as religious to any human being" -- it is, by design, meant to allow people to feel free to worship whomever or whatever they want, and to prevent religion from directly influencing how the people are governed. In my eyes, that means that anything with a primarily religious purpose is not appropriate.

Personally, I dont see what everyone is so angry about why the 10 amendments. Its not like the judge was saying, you have to believe in Jesus or in God. Most of the 10 commandments can be found in our laws. Legally, with the precedent set by the 1962 decision to take prayer out of school with by saying that it falls under separation of church and state, the state had the legal right to remove the statue.

(puts on flame-retardant gear)

I think alot of people have a problem with this statue because unlike most religions, Christianity is offending because the central teaching is that Jesus is the only way to the God. That offends because in most religions there are multiple ways to the Lord but there is only one way with Jesus. People like to forget it and get rid of all reminders of it. So I'm not surprised by the state of Alabama moving the statue and I expect to see more lawsuits and decisions with the intent to move any and all references to Christianity.

(/takes off flame-retardant gear)