10 C suit dismissed: no display does not promote atheism

[arcticpenguin]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/09/04/ten.commandments.ap/index.html

Some wackos filed a lawsuit claiming that not displaying the 10 commandments is a promotion of the non-religion of atheism.

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson said removal of the monument did not unconstitutionally establish a religion of non-theistic beliefs, as the residents claimed.

"The empty space or 'nothingness' in the rotunda of the Judicial Building is neither an endorsement of 'non-theistic belief' nor a sign of disrespect for Christianity or any other religion," Thompson said.

He said the empty space demonstrates government neutrality toward religion.
Duh!

[Upchurch]

Even though I don't agree with them, I have to admire their clever counter-argument tactic. I wonder what they were suggesting be placed in the empty space to show goverment religious neutrality?

A big stone question mark would favor agnostics, I suppose.

How about just a blank stone slab with nothing on it?

[Mr Manifesto]

Wouldn't it promote Nihlism?

[arcticpenguin]

I do not in any way admire them or their twisted logic. I am personally concerned about this sort of tripe because I heard a similar line from my own brother about prayer in schools.

[whitefork]

The story is that when the Roman soldiers entered the holiest of holies in the Temple in Jerusalem, they were astounded to find no image of the Jewish god there.

Others have pointed out the delicious irony of the sins of idolatry and the making of graven images that is at work here.

What part of "no graven images" is so difficult to understand? These people are hopless.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I do not in any way admire them or their twisted logic.I'm just saying that on another topic that wasn't so blately black and white, I might have considered a similar tactic of turning the argument around.

The judge was absolutely correct in throwing the suit out. If it were found to be true, any open space then logically becomes a testament to atheism, which is rediculous.
I am personally concerned about this sort of tripe because I heard a similar line from my own brother about prayer in schools. That argument being that not praying in school is establishment of ...what? Religious atheism?

I agree that its a stupid concept. My concern is not so much that people have those ideas but that others pick it up and adhere to it with out thinking it through for themselves. Anyone who gives it 15 minutes of informed critical thought would dismiss the idea, but I'm afraid many people won't give it 15 seconds.

[arcticpenguin]

Yes, that prohibiting prayer in schools was endorsement of religion. There is a movement afoot to convince people that the USA is a "Christian nation", that the intent of the founding fathers was that it be a Christian nation, that attempts to keep religion out of government are a recent development and persecution of Christians. Apparently there too many people out there without the brainpower wattage to see through this.

I mentioned my brother; he is literate and college-educated. I am very disappointed in him with regards to this topic. We had one rather nasty phone call over a year ago, now when we talk we very gingerly avoid such topics.

[whitefork]

It seems clear that the WMD are hidden in the 10C monument. The coincidences are too blatant to be accidental.

I suggest it be impounded and subjected to some (destructive) analysis just to be sure.

It's obvious that Judge Moore and Saddam Hussein are in collusion on this.

[UnrepentantSinner]

In a 10C thread that Brown started (and has been lost due to my slow home connection - were I at work I could screw off and dig it up) we discussed the "those who not for me are against me" zero-sum mindset that pervades - perversely I might add - so many of those most vocal of Evagelicals.

In their mind, the world is such a motif of battle between Jesus and Satan that they cannot even imagine a position of nutrality.

I'm not the biggest fan in the world of a purely neutral position (though I do take it myself sometimes) but at least I can conceive of the notion. Apparently fundy's cannot.

[KillerBob]

Imagine if they had found for the plaintiff. Every government owned property would have to be a solid block of some substance, with no empty spaces, and only an engraving that states:

"This block in no way endorses any particular religion, nor does it endorse any lack thereof."

[Electric Monk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Even though I don't agree with them, I have to admire their clever counter-argument tactic. I wonder what they were suggesting be placed in the empty space to show goverment religious neutrality?When I heard about this suit, I wondered about the same thing, and have a growing suspicion that there are at least two real motivations at work:

1. (If they lose) A political play to the audience of Moore's supporters and potential recruits to show how their arguments are entirely "reasonable", but that there is a bias against religion.

2. (If they win) A demonstration of the futility of being neutral toward religion. Many supporters seem to regard the 10C issue as simply a degenrate "PC" ploy, and consider turnabout to be fair play.

If enough disruption or pain can be caused by this legal tactic, they may hope that a different accommodation toward religion will be reached, affording majority or "founding" status to Christianity. Sane judges are the only defense in the short term.

A recurrent theme is that an attempt is being made to remove all public references to God. This plays well to the fears of a certain demographic. A way needs to be found to diffuse those fears.

My thought is that Church/State separation advocates should emphasize (a) the distinction between "government" and "public", and (b) the innumerable places in which religious views will always be welcome to participate in the public life of the country. To counter the "slippery slope" feelings, a clear line must be drawn and repeatedly invoked, beyond which people can be confident in their liberty.

This will not satisfy those who insist that God not be limited by man, nor those who have a paranoid fear of the secular, but it should undermine their appeal to "fairness", while improving our own. I feel that all that is needed is to reassure the more reasonable majority that their personal religious freedoms are in no danger, and indeed are made stronger by keeping government neutral.

--James
(Hmm. I didn't just accidentally make a post to PCE&H did I? Oh well, at least it wasn't R&P)

[mjv]

1. the lawyer(s) should be disbarred.
2. the plaintiffs should be fined.

Just for being stupid and wasting the time of everyone involved in trying cases in the judicial system.

[Tmy]

What gives a fed judge the right to decorate a Fed building as he sees fit? WOudl it be OK for the courthouse janitor to errect a satantist pentagram in the court bathroom? Even if he paid for it himself?

[Brown]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
In a 10C thread that Brown started (and has been lost due to my slow home connection - were I at work I could screw off and dig it up) we discussed the "those who not for me are against me" zero-sum mindset that pervades - perversely I might add - so many of those most vocal of Evagelicals.I can't take credit for starting the thread. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870074355#post1870074355) What I said in the thread was:An additional disturbing belief (and this one is really scary) is the notion that it is not possible to separate religion from anything. Never mind separating religion from government, you can't separate religion from any endeavor. As a result, the belief is that it is impossible for anyone or any governmental entity to be neutral on matters of religion. These folks apparently believe (and a couple of them tried to file a lawsuit so saying) that unless the government promotes their religion, the government is necessarily promoting a competing religion. This "If you're not with us, you're against us" mentality is very troubling indeed. UnrepentantSinner's comments about the zero-sum mindset follow thereafter.