"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:NZ4nd.2241$Tq6.1205@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

DianaC wrote:

"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:rsCmd.28511$KJ6.23371@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

DianaC wrote:

<skipping all the way to this, which seems to be the main point>

However....when there is a diffuglety over the ten commandments in the
courthouse, I say...let 'em stay. And put the Code of Hammurabbi next to
it, as well as whatever the equivalent Muslim statement is, and the
Napoleonic Code, and the Magna Carta, and all the other ancient and
important documents and ideas that have contributed to the formation of
our rule of law. Ignoring history in order to abide by some politically
correct idiocy is NOT a good idea.

If the 10c is in this context,then I agree. But in the Moore case, and
many others, this is not the situation. Do you see why it is not
appropriate in these cases?

The thing is, in the context in which the Moore case existed, it was not
correct. However, the solution is not to deny everybody the right to
speak freely about religion...it's to change the context. All the judges
had to do to fix Moore and everybody else was to say 'yes, it's annoying
to have it there and be so very big. People can bark their shins on the
thing. Put it in it's own room and allow religious and other displays in
that room as well. Even if that 'room' is the front hall or the foyer
everybody walks down. Just make certain that they all comply with certain
size requirements, and certain minimum content requirements.

In those cases, besides certain obvious size requirements, the only other
rule would be that the displays couldn't be disrespectful to any other
belief. In other words, an atheist could post a display to say that man
should rely on his own ability to reason; that god does not exist. But he
could NOT say that 'theists are idiots'. The Christian/Jew could post the
ten commandments, but couldn't put a sign up that said all Muslims are
going to hell. The Muslim could post a prayer to Allah, but couldn't call
for a jihad against Christians.

Tell me, wouldn't that solve the whole mess?

I believe that rulings similar to this have already been made, actually.

I guess you don't get it after all.

Moore believes that his duty as a judge was to decide cases based on the
laws of his religion.

The Constitution is the foundation of law in the US. The rules of any
religion are *not* the foundation of law, and displaying them *as if they
were* in a government building which dispenses law is an outrage.

No. I DID get it. That's why I said that the solution is to change the
context. Because Moore is quite correct, the rules for religion ARE the
foundation of law...because religion is inextricably bound with the culture
throughout human history. You may wish it were not so, but it is so.

That doesn't make the religion TRUE. It just acknowledges the importance of
religion in human culture, thought and history. To pretend that religion
never existed and never had an effect upon the rule of law is revisionist in
the extreme, and frankly, very, very stupid. Not to mention short sighted.

The idea should be to acknowledge the contributions religion has had. All
contributions of all religions, as well as the other influences that had an
effect. For instance, you will notice that I mentioned the Napoleonic code,
the code of Hammurabbi and the Magna Carta right along with the Koran, the
Bible and whatever other documents and rules that have played an important
part in the growth of human thought.

In other words, let Moore display his rock with the 10 commandments. They
ARE important to human history, especially western civilization. However,
since Islaam, Hinduism, Budhism, Greek and Roman philosophy, humanist
thought and a bunch of other sources have also been vital to the history of
our rule of law, then they should be there as well.

So Moore gets his Ten, but they are seen in the proper context.

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:29:17 GMT, J Forbes <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote:

Moore believes that his duty as a judge was to decide cases
based on the laws of his religion.

The Constitution is the foundation of law in the US. The
rules of any religion are *not* the foundation of law, and
displaying them *as if they were* in a government building
which dispenses law is an outrage.

Everything else aside, if you assume (safely) that most people won't know
enough not to
be taken in by bald claims that 'the laws of this country are based on' a
particular confession's
holy speak, the prejudice to the rule of law, the resulting, albeit
unconscious, sense that "we deal
xian justice in this court" is intolerable, and threatens the worst sort
of grass-roots theocracy
aborning. If you wanted to be even tepidly honest about 'displaying the
sources of the law', the
displays should honor the Magna Carta (standing in for English common law)
and the U.S.
Constitution, along, perhaps, with the body of laws a state may have had
prior to its joining the
Constitution. Pictures of Druids alongside trees would be truer
representations of the "sources"
than Moses' tablets. If we were truly concerned with showing "sources",
the decalogue would be
dismissed as derivative, and the Hammurabic Code shown in their place.
But to do so would abandon
the true motivation of such displays, the civil blasphemy of jumping up
one's cult to the status of
Saintly Ancestor to the law. It stinketh.

If my religion's symbol was the "Angel of Bukakke", would such a statue be
allowed the same space allowances?

Why not?

It wouldn't be disrespectful of other religions.

How about satanists?

Do you know what satanists actually believe? (Grin) I don't see a problem,
but even if I did, it wouldn't matter. Freedom of speech cannot be
restricted only to those who agree with me.