[Will Rogers Canny Analogy mode = ON]The Constititution is NOT a “big gun”, it’s more like a blanket. It’s not something you USE against varmints, it’s something the critters’ll gnaw to pieces if you don’t protect it from 'em.[WRCA mode = OFF]
Now the ACLU; they might be considered a “big gun” in this case… (But do we really want another round of phallic jokes?)
DavidB:
You said:
Then isn’t that what you should be arguing? I mean, do you make it a habit to argue against your own positions?"
Actually, that’s sometimes a pretty good way to figure out if they have any merit.
But, no I wasn’t.
I sense a condescending attitude in the first few posts of this thread, that is at odds with the idealistic nature of the discussion, and also the way the ACLU has advanced their cause.
At the very least, the Phallic statue shows an extreme lack of tact. At the worst, it’s a deliberate provocation.
The attitude of “How dare these bastards defend themselves, they know they are wrong,” is also unworthy.
So I jumped in, knowing I’d get my ass kicked to see if there were any chinks.
The interesting points on both sides seem to be:
-The phallic statue
-Only Private money will be used in the defense
-The call to peaceful resolution through the courts
-That this is not just a stupid school board, and some little old ladies, but a fairly organized and well funded group.
-The question of cultural context allowing this to slide through
-The U.S. House endorsement
-The continuing “official” use of religious iconography in Government.
On the other side:
-The blatant transparency of the whole thing.
-The Fact that a Minister is speaking for the school board
-The direct unconstitutionality of the display, and its intent.
My perspective still maintains that the whole issue is pretty trivial in and of itself. It may be significant in terms of the precedent it sets by becoming an “issue,” but the bottom line is that culture creates conveniance and caters to majority beliefs. One with legitimate dissenting beleifs is going to find that society doesn’t cater to him with the same zeal, not out of contempt or oppression, but out of ignorance. I personally would rather see the ACLU tackling some tougher issues, like the inequities in the quality of public school education.
The intent behind the display is good and constructive, if misguided and it needs to be treated as such, rather than laughed at and derided for its “oppresive” nature.
I have several friends whose religion includes phallis worship (I am NOT kidding). The person I am thinking of in particular does not have children yet, but I would imagine that when he does, he would support a large phallis outside their school if the 10 Commandments were there.
Last summer we asked them to come over for a BBQ, and they couldn’t, they were busy building a large paper mache penis for church.
Hijack
Scylla wrote:
Well then I have good news tonight. Currently the ACLU is pressing just such a case in California, against the State itself, and several of the local school boards. My city (Okalnd, CA) happens to be one of those. In our particular case it’s so blantantly obvious they got there own mention.
Let me know if you’d like a cite, my own kids also go to school in the district, but the better half.
byjack
See I can’t even spell 
that should have read Oakland, CA
“The blatant transparency of the whole thing.” Whats wrong with not trying to be deceptive?
-“The Fact that a Minister is speaking for the school board.”
if the minister is speaking and wasent voted in that would be wrong, however denying him his position because hes a minister is unconstutional, not the other way around.
-The direct unconstitutionality of the display, and its intent
There is no unconstitutionality unless you consider all historical religious statues unconstutional. The donating party has nothing to do with what they donate.
Asmodean said:
Whooosh! <— That was the sound of the point going completely over your head.
They are trying to be deceptive. They just aren’t doing a very good job of it. Hence, it’s transparent.
The 10 Commandments is not just a “historical religious statue.” It’s, well, the 10 Commandments! Similarly, a big honkin’ statue of Jesus would be unConstitutional (or Mohammed, or Moses, for that matter).
It’s good to know I’m not the only one.
The only what?
Getting an old fashioned ass-whoopin’.
Hey, there’s plenty to go around! 
The October 2000 issue of Church and State, published by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, brings us the story of one school board that was actually intelligent!
The Shelby County School Board, one of Tennessee’s largest school districts (which includes Memphis) decided against displaying the 10 Commandments in their schools.
A board member had brought up the idea a few months ago, claiming it would “solve a lot of problems” (yeah, right pal – dream on). The Board’s attorney told them it would be unConstitutional and they would lose a drawn-out legal battle. The board member wanted a 2nd opinion, so the chairman, who had supported the idea, did some additional legal research and agreed with the attorney. So the board dropped it rather than waste their education money on fighting against the Constitution.
The lone Board member who opposed it from the outset is quoted as saying it was “legal insanity.” Also: “There are 20 pages in my Yellow Pages of churches. There are over 2,000 places you can worship. I just don’t think we ought to get into this.”
I am a Christian, but I feel that last thing I think our faith needs is a government trying to force our beliefs upon people who do not wish to be forced (as opposed to convinced or persuaded) into a belief system. Don’t forget that governments are primarily tools of force.
Libertarians (of whom I agree with on many issues, including this one) argue that the $50k would be better spend improving the schools, etc.
Christians should, instead of pushing this issue should instead try to convince the church group that their $50k would be better spent doing such things as setting up private, church-sponsored religious education, community activities such as helping homeless shelters and outreach programs, helping those who life has given lemons make lemonade, in short, use that money to a good purpose, spreading Christ’s love for all, especially the disadvantaged. I think that Christians would be surprised at how much more effective this tactic would be in converting others, much more effective than trying to don the iron-clad fist of government, which only will generate, at best, hypocritical faith spawned by fear of secular authority, and, at worst, bitterness at the faith, and argument (as this thread can attest 
). To avoid a lengthy diatribe, here’s my expanded thoughts on the issue, from another thread:
Establishment Clause.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=41673
–M