THe crux of the debate is: if a public place can erect monuments of the Ten Commandments, which has historical significance, can it turn around and reject a monument that, however detestable, also expresses a religious viewpoint from the very same document that also has historical significance? How can we decide on issues like this what to allow and what to deny? I certainly don’t want to see Phelps’ monument on public property, but if we are to allow religious quotes and direct inferences from those quotes (as faulty as we might think they are), is the idea that some find them objectionable a fair criteria, given that plenty of people find the TC display objectionable too?
I agree. The particular problem I have with the Ten Commandment being displayed by the government is Commandment Numero Uno. Why is it so hard to see that this one, in particular, causes lots of people consternation?
The problem is, as the article states, the courts are schizoid about this whole seperation thing (a creche is a secular symbol :rolleyes: ), and as long as they are, you’re going to get bullshit like this cropping up. In God we Trust…One Nation Under God…Prayer in Congress…Prayer in the Supreme Court… Get rid of it all, or you’re going to have whackos like this 'til kingdom come (or, if you prefer, out the ying yang). You can’t have it both ways.
I think Phelphs should be allowed to erect his monument. The uglier the better.
We need stuff like that to remind people people that:[ul]
[li]bad stuff happens when church and state start to blur even a little bit[/li][li]the “Homosexual Agenda” of exists for a damned good reason.[/li][/ul]
I think the argument has more holes in it than my spaghetti colander.
The ten commandments is (or is not) appropriate as a public monument because the sentiments expressed therein are (or are not) resonant for people, an assessment that should pay no attention one way or the other to religious claims for them as Special Text. Possibly it could be found that in a heavily religious society it is too difficult to make that assessment without it being tainted by the religious claims, but insofar as it can be deemed appropriate for the ten commandments to be there, it is by definition appropriate for them to be there in spite of, not because of, their enshrinement within Judaism and Christianity.
The sentiments expressed by Fred Phelps are hopefully not resonant to any community containing people sufficiently literate to read the words on it. The fact that they are also (by one possible interpretation) based on some chunks of Special Text embraced by a religion is and legally has to be completely irrelevant.