Quoting cnoocy (mostly because I like to have the material I'm referring to right in front of me):
It's not that the 10 commandments are being presented as a piece of the history of law, it's that they are being used to represent the idea that God, specifically the one who dictated the commandments to Moses, is "the very source of our rights and liberties and the very source of our law" ...
I would say that this was underreported where I am in Canada, but in all honsety, I might have been underattentive due to my impending relocation two provinces away.
... which is certainly a valid opinion for an individual to hold, but a disastrous one for the state as an entity to hold, in that it implies that those who do not share faith in that source of rights and liberties may not be entitled to them.
I concede the point on a matter of practice rather than theory. I think you would find that Baha'i practiced as prescribed would not have this problem (but Baha'i is not at isue here); I think you would also find that Christianity practiced as prescribed would for the most part be likewise, but many, many people practice Christianity nominally or selectively. Unless my understanding of American history is incomplete or erroneous, there was a significant amount of Christian influence in how the constitution and bill of rights were framed, including not only the clause about freedom of religion (and IIRC, also the clause about freedom of association, which is pivotal to true democracy), but also the clause about separation of church and state.
Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not suggesting a thearchy of any sort for any western nation; I'm not sure it is even appropriate for modern-day Israel (which isn't one) or modern-day muslim nations (which tend to lean in that direction). I believe that one of the Gospels mentions rendering to God what is God's and rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's, does it not?
At any rate, if Christianity was being practiced as prescribed in this instance, I don't see the justice in question relying on the defence he is relying on. (Or to beat around the bush a little less, I think he is out to breakfast, lunch, and dinner in this instance.) The "Christian" thing to do here would have been to arrange for the monument to be moved elsewhere, and it would probably be most appropriate to do it at personal expense.
I'm not sure yet whether I believe this particular justice is being wignorant or "incompetent" here however. Your Alabaman friends may not be comfortable with this (heck, I don't think *I* am), but I'm starting to wonder whether this isn't all a ploy to gain grassroots support for a run for governor.
Re: A contrarian opinion (part 1, 'cuz I'm over the length limit again.)
I would say that this was underreported where I am in Canada, but in all honsety, I might have been underattentive due to my impending relocation two provinces away.
I concede the point on a matter of practice rather than theory. I think you would find that Baha'i practiced as prescribed would not have this problem (but Baha'i is not at isue here); I think you would also find that Christianity practiced as prescribed would for the most part be likewise, but many, many people practice Christianity nominally or selectively. Unless my understanding of American history is incomplete or erroneous, there was a significant amount of Christian influence in how the constitution and bill of rights were framed, including not only the clause about freedom of religion (and IIRC, also the clause about freedom of association, which is pivotal to true democracy), but also the clause about separation of church and state.
Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not suggesting a thearchy of any sort for any western nation; I'm not sure it is even appropriate for modern-day Israel (which isn't one) or modern-day muslim nations (which tend to lean in that direction). I believe that one of the Gospels mentions rendering to God what is God's and rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's, does it not?
At any rate, if Christianity was being practiced as prescribed in this instance, I don't see the justice in question relying on the defence he is relying on. (Or to beat around the bush a little less, I think he is out to breakfast, lunch, and dinner in this instance.) The "Christian" thing to do here would have been to arrange for the monument to be moved elsewhere, and it would probably be most appropriate to do it at personal expense.
I'm not sure yet whether I believe this particular justice is being wignorant or "incompetent" here however. Your Alabaman friends may not be comfortable with this (heck, I don't think *I* am), but I'm starting to wonder whether this isn't all a ploy to gain grassroots support for a run for governor.