You do realize that you’re a member of the same species that destroyed the World Trade Center, don’t you?
Oh wait, isn’t this the reckless exaggerator thread? Whoops, sorry.
Certainly it can. Rereading the article in question shows that the woman was petitioning the county commissioners to remove the statue. This is the normal political process. The situation in Alabama could have been handled in a similar way.
I don’t regard this as a reasonable interpretation.
I stated above that differences noted between the two were entirely subjective, a point you hardly disprove by this assertion. My view is that removal of the Ten Commandments was an equally idiotic agenda, motivated by the same emotions.
So the reason the Ten Commandments are coming down has to do solely with the motives of the person putting them up? Apparantly so, since other cases have found that when the Ten Commandments are presented in government buildings in a historical context (say, displayed along with the Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta) they are permitted.
When are they historical, and when are they religious? When is it reasonable to oppose them, and when is it unreasonable? As unreasonable, say, as removing a panther statue?
I believe that we were headed toward rule by those most offended and pissed off, since they were the ones most likely to file expensive lawsuits. I fear this because the level of anger in the country will go way up, and the quality of civic discourse way down.
Had Moore said something to this effect: “I placed the Ten Commandments in my courthouse because it is one of the first and finest examples of a code of law in the world”, He would have had MUCH more wiggle room.
Instead, he said something to this effect: “I put the Ten Commandments in the courthouse so that people will not forget GOD, it’s about the almighty…”
Had he had some tact about it and not planned to use this as a stepping stone later on as a Much-maligned Martyre Christian[sup]TM[/sup], it might still be there today. In fact, I would have supported the Ten Commandments in the courthouse had he gone about it that way. Instead, I consider his position religious sanctioning. And since he’s a state employee I consider it state-sanctioned support of a religion/religious belief.
Sam
Moore was asked to remove it and refused. He is responsible for what happens in the courthouse. The normal process was followed. You’re also ignoring the very fundamental idea of separation of powers. You want people to have to stop if “the normal political process” doesn’t work, but that’s not the way this country works. Some things violate the Constitution and no matter how many legislators or voters want it, it is unconstitutional. You can’t simply throw that out because you think people are complaining too much.
I’d be interested in hearing your interpretation.
So, in absence of objective criteria, the constitution can not be enforced? What is an objective criteria for judgment. Of course, we both know there is no objective criteria.
If you disagree with certain rulings, feel free to critique them. But you simply want to say that in the absence of an objective definition of laws regarding establishment of religion the courts should not involve themselves with issues of constitutional interpretation. That’s not a solution.
It is impossible, and I believe not desirable, to remove all vestiges of religion from society. Those that tend towards an establishment of religion violate the Constitution. Those that don’t are not violations. Is it an easy decision? No. But it has to be made.
What you are doing is ignoring any evidence of the difference in the quality of the complaint. Opposition to the Ten Commandments was based on the fact that the government official who put it there openly proclaimed it to be a monument to glorify God. Ms. Castillo bitched because she wanted to make a point and hope somebody bought it. Apparently some people have.