Protecting the public from thought-provoking art

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by mckerney
Only evidence I really have to offer is the fact that when I was a sophomore part of our world history was learning the pillars of Islam, though other than what I just typed I have nothing for you to read.

Yeah, and I remember studying Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and so on in World History courses too. Religion is relevant to the study of World History. If your teacher did not cover Christianity in that course, you had a poor instructor. I hardly see how that demonstrates a conspiracy against the Christian religion like you think it does.

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by cuervo72
So religious imagery stands up and aggressively "confronts" people? And merely seeing it causes these people anguish? Please.

Does it have to cause anguish to be wrong? Is anything ok as long as no one is suffering from the results?

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by clintl
Nobody is using the painting to endorse or win converts to that ancient Egyptian religion, and you're smart enough to understand that distinction, Cam. The crusade to put the 10 Commandments in as many government buildings as possible is clearly intended to endorse Christianity over all religions. The intent is what matters.

You know, Clintl, I would argue otherwise. I actually believe that the painter of this work would LOVE to bring people to her neo-pagan worldview. I think the intent is there. Her quote in the story even talks about the religious symbolism that made it necessary for her to show exposed breasts.

And intent is not what matters. Check out the case in Houston where the ACLU is suing the county because of a display that featured a bible. The display is to honor a philanthropist who was seldom seen without his bible. The display is recessed in a pedestal so that you actually have to look down inside to see the bible. Doesn't matter to the ACLU. It's not intent, it's the very presence of a religious symbol.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Tekneek
Does it have to cause anguish to be wrong? Is anything ok as long as no one is suffering from the results?

Hmm..is this "forcing" of religion wrong as well? Is this a "clear violation of church and state"?

http://www.marylandatheists.com/act_...dereligion.htm

Roadside Religion

The crosses on the Maryland highways are increasing. There are 2 crosses on the shoulder of I-97 North just north of MD. Rt #100, 2 crosses on Rt. #10 North 9 (south of 695 beltway), 1 cross on the median of I-97 (north of the MD #648 interchange), and 1 cross on Rt. #2 (Ritchie Hwy) just south of Georgia Avenue. Does anybody know of any other religious memorials??

These crosses have been up for a long time. NO type of religious memorial should be allowed on the Maryland highways. Despite what are probably sincere and good intentions, it is a very clear violation of church and state. Keep the memorials to private property or places designated as such. We sympathize with grieving families for their loss, but the rest of us should NOT have to drive down the road and be bombarded with their religious symbols.

Initial investigation into this issue revealed that state authorities used to go out and remove the crosses and treat them as any other litter and prohibited items on the highway. However, a few politicians made calls, and now departments are instructed to do NOTHING, just ignore them.

It appears that the State Highway Administration's position is as follows: no law specifically prohibits memorial sites on the side of the highways. Also, they claim that a memorial doesn't necessary promote religion. Section 21-111 of the Transportation Article prohibits a person from dropping, throwing, or placing on a highway any "glass, nails, tacks, cans, or any other substance likely to injure any person, animal, or vehicle". It further states that "if" a roadside memorial is considered likely to cause injury, then by law a citation can be given to the violator, and the memorial then has to be removed.

Other states are facing similar dilemmas. There has been national debate on this issue, and church-state separation has been losing out to the political-friendly option of siding with the grieving families. We must speak out if we want to keep our highways secular.

Contact Maryland Secretary of Transportation Robert Flanagan at the info below. Also, contact YOUR Maryland legislative representatives, which you can find at http://mdelect.net/ . If a lot of people voice their concerns to Mr. Flanagan so early in his appointment, the response may be very positive, especially if he realizes that we will not let this issue go away. A good argument can be made that memorials fall under the law for removal because such a distraction can cause injury to highway users. Regardless, while we are sensitive to people's grief, there are plenty of places to deal a life lost, and state highways paid for by our taxes should not be one of them. As in so many other areas, religion should NOT be given special treatment.

[cuervo72]

Here's another nice one from the Maryland Atheists' message board:

a church invading my neighborhood

A few weeks back I e-mailed David. I found him when I was doing web searches for info on Atheist organizations. I e-mailed him because a church was doing it's vacation bible school in the park owned by my home owner's association and paid for by ME as well as the other residents here. I felt it was an inappropriate use of our park. Some others agreed with me but one person on the board decided it was okay and they were at the park for a week for about 2 hours/day. Anyway, they're having a carnival on the grounds of a local private school. Obviously, if the school wants to allow them the use of that space I have no problem with it. I'm considering GOING to the carnival and putting in my 2 cents. "Oh, what a lovely fairy tale, wasn't it Alex?" LOL. If anyone else thinks this might be a good thing to do and would want to go with me, let me know.

It seems to me that a lot of people opposed to the display of the Commandments are opposed to ANY display of religion whatsoever.

[clintl]

I don't read what she said that way, Cam. I don't see anything in her comments that indicates she actually believes this goddess is real, and there's definitely nothing there that suggests she is trying to win converts or impose the value system of this ancient religion on the public.

I would agree with you about the philanthropist, though - I don't see anything wrong with it, since it is intended to honor the philanthropist and not promote his religion. But it appears from what you have written that it has not yet been decided. So, in the end, the ruling may support my position.

[Tekneek]

If private individuals are placing crosses alongside the road, it is most likely littering. I understand they put it there because somebody probably got killed in some sort of vehicular accident, but aren't there already places for those sorts of memorials? If there is no ordinance or law about placing items along the roadways, then it is entirely fine. If someone can place a cross, and I can put down a sign about my yard sale, then all is well.

I am not sure what point you intend to prove by choosing selections from a messageboard. Is this supposed to prove that the Ten Commandments should be in all government structures or not?

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by clintl
I would agree with you about the philanthropist, though - I don't see anything wrong with it, since it is intended to honor the philanthropist and not promote his religion. But it appears from what you have written that it has not yet been decided. So, in the end, the ruling may support my position.

I agree as well, and if they did make the decision to include the Bible in that display for the reasons given then they should win. If there was any undercurrent to it, such as "These people need to be reminded of God", then they should lose.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Tekneek
If private individuals are placing crosses alongside the road, it is most likely littering. I understand they put it there because somebody probably got killed in some sort of vehicular accident, but aren't there already places for those sorts of memorials? If there is no ordinance or law about placing items along the roadways, then it is entirely fine. If someone can place a cross, and I can put down a sign about my yard sale, then all is well.

I am not sure what point you intend to prove by choosing selections from a messageboard. Is this supposed to prove that the Ten Commandments should be in all government structures or not?

No...my point is that some (and maybe a lot) of those that protest against the Commandments are offended by ANY religious symbols, or at least they proclaim they are.

We sympathize with grieving families for their loss, but the rest of us should NOT have to drive down the road and be bombarded with their religious symbols.

I mean, riding past a few crosses is being bombarded? Why exactly are these symbols offensive, anyway? Because they go against the atheist belief? Do you think they protest against other signs that are posted on roads, such as the yard sale example? i highly doubt it.

It's my contention that many are not protesting in the name of "freedom", but because they have something against Christianity and/or religion in general.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by clintl
I don't read what she said that way, Cam. I don't see anything in her comments that indicates she actually believes this goddess is real, and there's definitely nothing there that suggests she is trying to win converts or impose the value system of this ancient religion on the public.

I would agree with you about the philanthropist, though - I don't see anything wrong with it, since it is intended to honor the philanthropist and not promote his religion. But it appears from what you have written that it has not yet been decided. So, in the end, the ruling may support my position.

Well, since you don't see it my way, and I'm the one who's offended because I see intent, we have to cater to my needs and my desire not to be offended. I'm also probably in the minority on this, and we certainly can't have the tyranny of the majority when it comes to religion, so really... the painting should come down.

Sorry, it's just silly to me that you're apparently able to appoint yourself moral arbiter of all things religious, and we should therefore conform to your rules. You rule something is not intended to be a religious statement, so it's okay. But when you decide something is intended as a religious statement, it should go (despite what others think).

This is what happens when you try and offend no one. At some point you come to a line that even you aren't willing to cross.

Edit: As to the ruling in Houston... it ultimately doesn't matter what the ruling is. You talked about intent, and my point is the people that are fighting to get any mention of Christianity (and that's what it is.. you yourself have no problem with a member of the neo-pagan pantheon of gods on display) don't care about intent. They care about removing all traces of religion from public places.

[CamEdwards]

dola:

I'm tired and going to bed, so I'll finish with this thought. The way the system is set up now, it's not up to the person who's not offended to judge intent. It's up to the person who is offended. And you can't pick and choose what minority has to live with being offended by a religious display. It's all or nothing. If a minority of atheists can remove a Judeo/Christian display because they're offended, a minority of Christians has to be able to remove a neo-pagan display because they're offended as well.

[sabotai]

Crosses on the sides of roads? I say keep 'em. Not because of some emotional connection someone might have had with someone who died, but because maybe if enough people see them, they'll stop driving like assholes!! "See, you die when you drive like an ass! Knock it off!"

"Because they go against the atheist belief?"

Exactly what beleif is that?

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
So in that case the painting of the Egyptian goddess should be removed.

Give me a break. The ancient Egyptian pantheon hasn't been a practiced religion for several hundreds of years (outside of maybe a handful of cultists) and has long since passed into history as an interesting mythology. To try and claim that as a religious artifact is a dubious stretch.

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Now, as to your first point... since I don't recall the constitution mentioning "separation of church and state", I'm not sure how your argument about "separation of nudity and state" applies. Are you arguing this is a 1st amendment issue?

Yes:

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If Congress can make no law establishing a religion for the country, then the country must remain neutral with respect to religious faith - there can be no national religion. When public spaces of governmental properties are adorned with the images and artifacts of a particular religion, that implies an endorsement.

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by cuervo72
It's my contention that many are not protesting in the name of "freedom", but because they have something against Christianity and/or religion in general.

Ok. You may be right. I don't understand why you are making this point or how it justifies having the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse, but you must consider it an important point to make for some other reason. I don't care what their motivation is for their opinions. They obviously have some fundamental axe to grind, just like the Chrstians who think they are supposed to evangelize to everyone.

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
But when you decide something is intended as a religious statement, it should go (despite what others think).

Let's take the Ten Commandments for instance. There is no way this can be considered anything other than religious. Read the Ten Commandments for yourself. At best 2 or 3 really have any morals to teach you. The rest are about conformity to religious dogma.

[oykib]

Originally posted by Tekneek
Let's take the Ten Commandments for instance. There is no way this can be considered anything other than religious. Read the Ten Commandments for yourself. At best 2 or 3 really have any morals to teach you. The rest are about conformity to religious dogma.

I think you've got it backward. Two or three have to do with religious dogma. Most of the laws in our country can either be traced to or parallel one or more of the other seven or eight commandments.

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by oykib
I think you've got it backward. Two or three have to do with religious dogma. Most of the laws in our country can either be traced to or parallel one or more of the other seven or eight commandments.

"One or more" is rather weak for something that should be on display in a courthouse, isn't it? I say only two really play out as being worthwhile. I would not have a problem if just those two were put on display.

Ok, let's give it a shot :

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me

(What morals are we teaching here?)

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

(What morals are we teaching here?)

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.

(What morals are we teaching here?)

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

(What morals are we teaching here?)

5. Honour thy father and thy mother.

(This one has been interpreted in ways that provide some real guidance, but also in ways that do not. Half a point on this one, although it has absolutely nothing to do with the law).

6. Thou shalt not kill.

(Clearly this one is a good one, but not even most Christians agree with this one and many people have been put to death in the name of Christianity through the years. Aside from this, killing is considered acceptable if the Government is ordering the killing, or it is in self-defense. If there are exceptions we allow ourselves then this one is throw out).

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

(There is moral guidance in this one, for sure. However, there are no laws against adultery so this one has had ZERO impact on the laws of this nation).

8. Thou shalt not steal.

(This one is the best yet. How did we get to 8 before we really hit one that resounds well both in society and the law books if the Ten Commandments are such a good foundation?)

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness.

(Another good one. So far I have found two that really bear out well in society AND in the law).

10. Thou shalt not covet.

(What moral guidance is there here? Aside from that, who does not violate this? Virtually everyone in the world violates this one and probably does it everyday. Therefore it is not a foundation that our society is built upon).

So, please refute this.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by dawgfan
Give me a break. The ancient Egyptian pantheon hasn't been a practiced religion for several hundreds of years (outside of maybe a handful of cultists) and has long since passed into history as an interesting mythology. To try and claim that as a religious artifact is a dubious stretch.

Your wrong. There are people in this country that still worships the ancient Egyptian gods, as well as the ancient Greek, the Star Wars "force," and just about anything you can imagine. Those following the Pagan faiths love to keep "alternative" religons in front of people, and it would be no shock to me if this woman is one of them.

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by GrantDawg
Your wrong. There are people in this country that still worships the ancient Egyptian gods, as well as the ancient Greek, the Star Wars "force," and just about anything you can imagine. Those following the Pagan faiths love to keep "alternative" religons in front of people, and it would be no shock to me if this woman is one of them.

No doubt there is probably a double standard, much like there is with racist stuff. Anyone felt to be in the minority seems to be given more rope than those perceived to be in the majority. Black/African American people are allowed to run off outrageous racist spew that a White/Caucasion person would be rendered unemployable over. So, religious minorities have been allowed the same disregard. However, intent *does* have a lot to do with it.

"From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty — a patriotic oath and a public prayer." - Dwight Eisenhower

There's little doubt about his intent.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Tekneek
No doubt there is probably a double standard, much like there is with racist stuff. Anyone felt to be in the minority seems to be given more rope than those perceived to be in the majority. Black/African American people are allowed to run off outrageous racist spew that a White/Caucasion person would be rendered unemployable over. So, religious minorities have been allowed the same disregard. However, intent *does* have a lot to do with it.

"From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty — a patriotic oath and a public prayer." - Dwight Eisenhower

There's little doubt about his intent.

But in one case (racist spew) you're talking about the court of public opinion. In another you're talking about the eyes of the law, and the law should NOT have two standards for different classes of people.

Separate but equal, anyone?

[clintl]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Well, since you don't see it my way, and I'm the one who's offended because I see intent, we have to cater to my needs and my desire not to be offended. I'm also probably in the minority on this, and we certainly can't have the tyranny of the majority when it comes to religion, so really... the painting should come down.

Sorry, it's just silly to me that you're apparently able to appoint yourself moral arbiter of all things religious, and we should therefore conform to your rules. You rule something is not intended to be a religious statement, so it's okay. But when you decide something is intended as a religious statement, it should go (despite what others think).

This is what happens when you try and offend no one. At some point you come to a line that even you aren't willing to cross.

Edit: As to the ruling in Houston... it ultimately doesn't matter what the ruling is. You talked about intent, and my point is the people that are fighting to get any mention of Christianity (and that's what it is.. you yourself have no problem with a member of the neo-pagan pantheon of gods on display) don't care about intent. They care about removing all traces of religion from public places.

I'm not appointing myself moral arbiter. In 1st Amendment disputes, it's the job of the courts to sort these matters out. Furthermore, whether anyone is offended is not what matters, either. What matters is whether a particular display violates the establishment clause of 1st Amendment.

As part of large display of local art (which may or may not include other religious images - we don't know from the article), it is extremely difficult to make a plausible argument that the exhibit is endorsing one religion over another, even if some individual works have religious images. As long as participation was open to everyone, I don't see a problem.

The problem occurs when, as in the case of Judge Moore, someone creates a display favoring one religion to the exclusion of all others. The 10 Commandments don't mean a thing to anyone who does not believe in Judeo-Christian dogma. If you want an inclusive moral statement, why not the Golden Rule, which is not only morally superior, but universal across all the major religions? You could make display showing all the different religions' versions, and probably could find a quote from an atheist philosopher to add to it. That, I think, would be an acceptable morals-oriented display that doesn't endorse any particular religion.

The problem, of course, is that this doesn't fit with the fundamentalist Christian agenda of turning the United States into a theocratic society.

[clintl]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
But in one case (racist spew) you're talking about the court of public opinion. In another you're talking about the eyes of the law, and the law should NOT have two standards for different classes of people.

Separate but equal, anyone?

There is only one significant group of people in the United States trying to turn the government into an instrument of religious proselytization, and that group is fundamentalist Christians. If they are being treated differently, it's because they are behaving differently. Those of us who have problems with their actions would have the same problems with Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, New Agers, or anyone else trying to create state religion.

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
But in one case (racist spew) you're talking about the court of public opinion. In another you're talking about the eyes of the law, and the law should NOT have two standards for different classes of people.

Separate but equal, anyone?

I agree. If I gave the impression I thought a double standard was ok, please accept my apology. I hate double standards and work hard to try and make sure I never have any of them myself.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Tekneek
Ok. You may be right. I don't understand why you are making this point or how it justifies having the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse, but you must consider it an important point to make for some other reason. I don't care what their motivation is for their opinions. They obviously have some fundamental axe to grind, just like the Chrstians who think they are supposed to evangelize to everyone.

I guess my point is that a number of these protesters use the guise of the First Amendment, when in reality the First Amendment is not their primary concern. It's just a convenient means to an end.

[GrantDawg]

I want to put this in here. Judge Roy Moore is publicity whore. He is doing the Ten Commandment thing not out of some supreme sense of "right" but because he wants to further himself. He parlayed his Ten Commandment plaque into the position as Chief Justice of Alabama (a position he would have never won without it) and he made this monument with his eye on the bigger prize. Most likely, he will be attempting a run for President within the next few years.

So, if motivations matter, then the Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama Supreme court building wasn't put there as a religous symbol, but to feed the political hopes of Roy Moore.

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by GrantDawg
So, if motivations matter, then the Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama Supreme court building wasn't put there as a religous symbol, but to feed the political hopes of Roy Moore.

Merely placing it there was good enough? Sounds more like giving the perception that he answered to those above and beyond everything else was the picture he wanted to paint. That's where it goes wrong.

[oykib]

Originally posted by Tekneek
Ok, let's give it a shot :

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

(What morals are we teaching here?)

5. Honour thy father and thy mother.

(This one has been interpreted in ways that provide some real guidance, but also in ways that do not. Half a point on this one, although it has absolutely nothing to do with the law).

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

(There is moral guidance in this one, for sure. However, there are no laws against adultery so this one has had ZERO impact on the laws of this nation).

10. Thou shalt not covet.

(What moral guidance is there here? Aside from that, who does not violate this? Virtually everyone in the world violates this one and probably does it everyday. Therefore it is not a foundation that our society is built upon).

So, please refute this.

Some of them are not in the criminal code baut are in our civil laws. Most states assign some blame to people who commit adultery during the dissolution of marriage.

As for #10, I believe the Bible is talking about King David level coveting. If a Commander-in-Chief were to pull what he did, I'm sure he'd be impeached.

Honor thy mother and father can easily be seen in our laws that have biological parents almost owning their children. Only recently has custody been granted with any other consideration than who the biological parents are.

Remember the Sabbath day is the one that we have laws that Parallel. Or have you not ever enjoyed the benefits of a holiday? We do codify the fact that people should have days off, rather than allowing the free market to determine it. Why else would the government be involved.

If I really wanted to stretch I could point out that the state is using the graven image business when it precludes the expression of religion in government buildings. You see, to the government, the state is the national religion. We even have religious observances, rites, and prayers based on government ( the pledge of allegiance, holidays - most of whiich commemorate historic state events or personages, house of government worship ).

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by Tekneek
Merely placing it there was good enough? Sounds more like giving the perception that he answered to those above and beyond everything else was the picture he wanted to paint. That's where it goes wrong.

His motivation is still politically based. I'm not saying he is right or that the monument should stay. I'm just pointing out the true motive here.

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by cuervo72
I guess my point is that a number of these protesters use the guise of the First Amendment, when in reality the First Amendment is not their primary concern. It's just a convenient means to an end.

That's fine. Those wanting the Ten Commandments in the Courthouse argue the same way. They say the First Amendment lets them do it, which fits their inner desire to push their religion on everyone else.

I don't want anything endorsing a religion displayed in a Government building. Anything that gives the appearance of an endorsement of a religion (even atheism) is wrong and the government should be stopped. The minority should be protected from this sort of tyranny by the majority. I don't think a reasonable case can be made that the Ten Commandments have any reason to be on display in any Courthouse in this nation. Only two of the ten really comply with current law. If you must, put those two on display but not the entire thing.

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by oykib
Some of them are not in the criminal code baut are in our civil laws. Most states assign some blame to people who commit adultery during the dissolution of marriage.

As for #10, I believe the Bible is talking about King David level coveting. If a Commander-in-Chief were to pull what he did, I'm sure he'd be impeached.

Honor thy mother and father can easily be seen in our laws that have biological parents almost owning their children. Only recently has custody been granted with any other consideration than who the biological parents are.

Remember the Sabbath day is the one that we have laws that Parallel. Or have you not ever enjoyed the benefits of a holiday? We do codify the fact that people should have days off, rather than allowing the free market to determine it. Why else would the government be involved.

If I really wanted to stretch I could point out that the state is using the graven image business when it precludes the expression of religion in government buildings. You see, to the government, the state is the national religion. We even have religious observances, rites, and prayers based on government ( the pledge of allegiance, holidays - most of whiich commemorate historic state events or personages, house of government worship ).

If you commit adultery and your wife does not sue you for divorce, what happens to you?

---

Re #10 :

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

This doesn't sound like it is talking about what you think it does.

---

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Hmmm. Many governments stipulate the 'work week' as well as holidays. You are saying this is entirely due to the Ten Commandments? Even the USSR had holidays, and they were anything but Christians.

You know what. Giving us Saturday off appears to be in direct conflict with the Ten Commandments.

---

12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

This may have some of the worth you state it does, but even you admit it is not absolute as painted in the Commandments.

[oykib]

The work week and holidays equate to zero sum. One that is not part of one group is part of another.

If you read them exactly, most of the things in the Bible don't make sense in modern society. It's the underlying principle that we still follow. For example, we don't still stone aldulterers. But most of the time we take it into account when we redistribute property after a divorce.

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by oykib
If you read them exactly, most of the things in the Bible don't make sense in modern society. It's the underlying principle that we still follow. For example, we don't still stone aldulterers. But most of the time we take it into account when we redistribute property after a divorce.

But if the wife does not divorce, nothing is done. This demonstrates how little impact that Commandment has in society and the law.