Secular Elation

You also claim that you value the freedom, not the content.

So you think posting any religious document on government offices is acceptable?

Even if this was viable, there's a big problem: majority vs. minority. The Ten Commandments is something that most of the population accepts, so it would no doubt be approved to be posted on a place such as City Hall.

However, if someone proposed a humanist manifesto plaque, it would be smaked down swiftly. The same for the five pillars of Islam (or whatever it is).

simian

Why are the 10 Commandments monuments any different? (granted, this court case is slightly different from that, in that it is part of another display, but most of the 10 Cs are granite monuments)

Please note: I am not saying the 10 Commandments can never be displayed, I am saying it is not legal for the government to display the 10 Commandments as an endorsement of religion. I would also stand against the government displaying endorsements of atheism. The government is prohibited from endorsing religious beliefs, and with good reason.

When it comes to an individual's display of the 10 Commandments, I will fully defend it. When it comes to a church's right to display the 10 Commandments, I will fully defend it. When it comes to my right to point out what a load of bunk the bible is, I expect others to fully defend my right to express my viewpoint. If I every try to get the government to push the viewpoint that Christianity is complete and utter bunk, I expect others to oppose that move. If the government were to begin expressing the concept that atheism is the only acceptable viewpoint, I would expect people to work to reverse the situation, not say "oh well, it is already implemented, I better not interfere, for now it is somebody's free speech."

Simian

ManM

Secular Elation,
Correct. However, a judge who placed the ten commandments in his courtroom has not passed a law or used legislation. It is in fact you who wish to pass a law and use legislation for censorship.

Yes.

No, an Islamic judge should be able to place the five pillars of Islam in his courtroom if he so desires. An atheist judge should be able to place a big "God is dead" poster in his courtroom. Freedom of speech should protect everyone.

simian,
They are not different. I would oppose the government mandating that the ten commandments be posted. I do oppose the government mandating that the ten commandments can not be posted. My entire point is that the government has no business mandating anything of this nature.

nogods4me

sorry ManM it is not the Judge's courtroom, it belongs to the state, and actually to the people. He is acting in the name of the state and not his own, and thus is bound by the same rules that bind the state. If he wishes to put a 10 commandments bumper sticker on his car more power to him, but not in a public courtroom.

Secular Elation

Correct. However, a judge who placed the ten commandments in his courtroom has not passed a law or used legislation. It is in fact you who wish to pass a law and use legislation for censorship.

This judge needs consent from the local government, correct? If it is a measure voted on (as it has been in most cases), then he has used the local government in able to post the Ten Commandments.

Second, I am not wanting to pass any law. I am wanting to uphold the law that all ready exists - the First Amendment. It is not a matter of censorship. It is a matter of having government play it's proper role. It's a matter of neurtalizing the government, not censoring it.

No, an Islamic judge should be able to place the five pillars of Islam in his courtroom if he so desires. An atheist judge should be able to place a big "God is dead" poster in his courtroom. Freedom of speech should protect everyone.

There's a major problem here. What if there is no Islamic judge? What if there is no atheist judge? If this is the case, how are the Muslim and atheist citizens going to get whatever plaque they want in the courtroom?

My point is not so much if a judge wants to post the Ten Commandments. My point is, what if the people want it there? So the people propose it, and it gets approved.

But what about Buddhist, atheist, Mulism, or whatever citizens who want to have their plaques or what not posted? What if such proposals are frowned upon by the likes of city counilmen and judges and are not allowed to be posted? This is precisely a majority vs. minority problem.

And this is why no religious document should be posted in such places. The governing buildings must be steadfast in neutrality.

Secular Elation

Also, as nogods4me indicated, the courtroom does not belong the the judge, but the state. Therefore the judge isn't endorsing the Ten Commandments proposal, but the state would in effect be doing so. The states are bound to the constitution, and thus doing this would be in blatant violation of the Establishment Clause.

lpetrich

I wonder what the 10C groupies would say if someone requested the posting on public buildings of

There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet

Or if some politician sacrificed a hundred oxen to Zeus on the occasion of some triumph. With himself and his underlings getting to eat the meat, as Zeus had agreed as part of a deal with Prometheus.

Or if someone quoted what Jesus Christ had said about two of the 10C's -- the one on adultery and the one on the Sabbath. Or even that bit about loving one's enemies.

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Secular Elation

Moderators, I think this belongs in C/S separtion.

Wizardry

Good call.