I find the whole debate in Alabama a bit... outside my culture as well as my country. But since A.L. has raised the issue here, it's worth pointing out that Rev. Donald Sensing does a very fine job with it.
"Thought Experiments About the Ten Commandments" has a set of tough questions for Justice Moore and the Alabama legislature. He follows that up, however, with a challenging example in "State Sponsored Paganism." Sensing asks why that isn't prohibited too, before closing with 3 good questions for readers.
I owe Donald a response on these...they were thoughtful and on-point.
A.L.
Whose Ten Commandments shall we publish?
An interesting take on the subject.
The whole Athena thing is a red herring. The greek gods are now more like totems, like wizdom in this case. Unless of course someone could find a group, or even one person, that still worships Athena as a diety.
Lurker:
Considering all the Pagan Revivalism there is among scattered subgroups, I'm sure if we looked hard enough we could find some people who claimed to worship Athena. It would probably be a modern pseudo-spirituality cult with strong feminist overtones, having little to do with how Athena was revered in Classical Greece, but I'm sure if we looked we could find some.
That would, of course, be beside the point.
In any case, if we can have statues representing the god that failed in public places without the Collapse of the Republic, I'm sure we can put up with a few that embody the God that Lives.
But one question for Christians making a fetish (heh) out of these things (and I'm a Christian myself) - when does it begin to cross a line into "idolatry"? Worrying too much about a block of granite may distract from rather than serve what is substantive and important in Faith.
Anyhow, in some ways this is our uniquely American version of the "Iconoclast vs. Iconodule" controversy that wracked Orthodoxy in the 8th and 9th centuries. The ultimate compromise ending? Well, what Armed Liberal proposes looks a bit like a uniquely American analogy/version. {*_+}
My personal beliefs are more aligned with Zen Buddhism, that is to say, I would like to see statues of nothing placed in every courthouse in the land.
Yeah. I can support statues of nothing in every courthouse... Let's get the National Endowment for the Arts to write up an RFQ right now! (I just about feel out of me seat when I read that one! Good job, nobody!)
Porphy, (why do I have to think of 'porky' to spell that right?),
It seems the rules can be pretty simple...
1. If you work for the gov't, especially in a position of some authority or influence... Don't bring your religous icons to work for public display.
2. If you get paid by the gov't... don't use government money or property to display your favorite religous icon. Fungibility implies that this holds if your group even recieves gov't money or the use of gov't property. I deliberately left individuals out of this one, since I reckon someone on Social Security can display a Cross if they what. I'm still thinking about those rugged, individual western ranchers though...
Any more?
Lurker So. I suppose if I wore a Crucifix on my bare chest and I worked for HUD, that would be 'over the top'? How about a plastic halo? Some Victoria's Secret wings? Give me a break with this Nothing monument. The Judge made a mistake. He took it over the top. BUT. There were no riots, no one chained themselves to the Tree so to speak, and no one threw blood on it to protest its removal. I wonder if Justice Ginsberg were to wear her Feminist nametag, would that put you off? Curious and getting a might irritated.
Guys, I proposed some alternatives in the post just above...
A.L.
Cap'n, Are you government property? Now if you gave everyone you met on gov't business a Crucifix or a bible, or a copy of the ten commandments?
What is irritating you?
Sorry A.L.,
Your ideas in this post are to reasonable to argue about.
Hmm.. Crucifix, Victoria's Secrets... Didn't Madonna wear that at the MTV Awards?
It depends, Cap'n, on what your bare chest looks like and whether or not the Crucifix clashes with your wings and halo. Fashion faux pas is much more serious a sin than political mistakes. And by the way, why would anyone want to work at HUD? If you're really going over the top, that getup would be perfect for the FBI. Oh, wait.. J. Edgar prefered slinky red dresses and feather boas.
Lurker wrote:
"Cap'n, Are you government property?"
This does raise a serious point, actually, because there are people who are "government property". They're called soldiers (or sailors, or marines, or airmen). So how would this apply to them?
Is far as I know, GI's aren't required to renounce their religous beliefs. I suspect officiers may be required to be more circumspect given their authority.
Sikhs in the U.S. military are allowed to wear their turbans and are exempted from shaving and hair cut regulations.
Lurker - On most of your comments, I have no problem with your PsOV, or your arguments. In this case, I stated that the judge was over the top. I will point out he did NOT use gov'mnt money, he paid for this piece of 'sculpture', and then proceeded to go into stealth mode to get it where it was. If the man wanted to hang a nicely framed calligraphic copy of the Big Ten (commandments) behind his bench, he has a right to do that. MY POV on this guy? This granite just became a millstone. He was ordered (legally) to do something, and he refused. 'Nough said.
Cap'n,
Actually the whole courthouse is government property. And when Judge Moore is acting in his official capacity, his oath commits him to uphold the US and, assumably, the Alabama constitutions.
If he finds that he can't compartmentalize his personal believes sufficiently to honor his oath, then perhaps he should step done and work as a private citizen to get these constitutions amended to his satisfaction. No one forced him to take this office, or to make that oath. Jesus did fine work to change the system from the outside, why can't he.
You are right that it became a millstone, but it is one that he gladly held on to. We haven't seen the last of Judge Moore, and I suspect that he has his own non-pious reasons to do what he has done.
Lurker - I agree! An agenda.