Well said, Les. The protesters (and the good judge himself, I believe) have likened themselves to civil rights marchers in Birmingham. Hmm. Maybe we should dust off the water cannons ...

What’s sort of freaky is A) most of the news stories seem rather sympathetic toward the “good judge” and B) there’s lots of media coverage of Moore’s supporters, cryin’ and carryin’ on about how their judge is being persecuted, but there don’t appear to be any other “normal” citizens saying “Duh, not all Americans are theists, and even if they were, it wouldn’t necessarily follow that they were Christian.  Of course the damn monument has to go.”

Maybe those protestors are afraid to come out, because they believe the Christians would try to kill them. 

I have a bumper sticker “Don’t pray in my school and I won’t think in your church,” but there’s no way in hell I would put it on my car, because I’m pretty sure my car would promptly get vandalized.

Being where I live, FLA, you have to be careful what you put on your car. My sis has a darwin fish much like the religion fish. She won’t put it on her car because of where she works. Too many christians who make their views very open and in your face. She did have a bumper sticker that got ripped off and someone wrote something nasty on her car.
Why is it the christians feel persecuted but are the ones doing the damage?
I am making a shirt that I will wear because I don’t care anymore. I’m sure it can be bought but it’s more fun to make.
It says, When the rapture comes, can I have your stuff?
I know, bad girl...lol

Subject: Letter of Admonishment
To: SEB, et al
From: Mild Bill

On or about July 2003, SEB and other persons on this medium were heard to utter, �I don�t think what Clinton did was all that bad� or words to that affect.  That the President of the United States showed little integrity and committed perjury, an indictable offense, was not a concern to you.  Then, on or about 22 August 2003, the following was posted concerning the 10 Commandments monument in Montgomery, AL:

I�ve been following this story since it first came to light and was wondering when disciplinary action would be taken against Moore. The monument in question is such a blatant violation of the First Amendment that I find it amazing it�s taken this long for this case to come to a head. Especially when a Chief Justice is demonstrating a contempt for the rule of law he�s supposedly in charge of upholding. With any luck this will be the end of his career.

For flagrant display of double standards, I am issuing this Letter of Admonishment.  The President swears an oath to uphold the law of the United States and faithfully execute the office of President.  President Clinton clearly did not do this. I do not condone Justice Moore�s actions, but his issue is one of civil disobedience, not felony perjury.  Your duplicitous statements shall not soon be forgotten and in the case of similar behavior, I may not deal so leniently with you in the future.  This Letter shall remain in your permanent files until you repair or Mild Bill decides to stop harassing you.

Whoa�I forgot�I�m not in the military anymore, sorry guys�

OK, Alabama is near bankruptcy and folks will soon go to the polls to vote on the largest tax increase in the state�s history, and a moron�s rock is the biggest news story in the state�I think this officially takes Florida, and even Michigan, off the hook for a while.  I�ve heard some of the most curious statements over this debate.

I heard Jerry Falwell on CNN Crossfire say that he supported ML King and that he would have supported the women�s suffrage movement, if he was alive then!  After I was revived by paramedics and released from the ICU, I recalled that Reverend �Segregation� Falwell publicly denounced King in a 1965 sermon; calling him a communist and agent of the Left!  I think we all know the Baptists� position on �women folk� (aka Stepford Wives), so I�ll not go there.

The other curious thing is the comparison of this ridiculously petty squabble to the civil rights movement of the 1960s.  I guess we should go all the way then�some of the protestors should be found to have committed suicide by shooting themselves, then walking 5 miles and hanging themselves from a bridge, then walking several miles still to be found by relatives.  When they go to the polls to vote, we will explain to them that since they didn�t pass a literacy test, they will not be allowed to vote.  Then we cap it off by having the current police chief let dogs loose on them. I believe these things will provide a much needed 1960s ambience to this situation

For the record, as I think I’ve stated before. I am a Christian and proud of this fact. I know what I believe, and will happily discuss these beliefs with others, if asked and/or if appropriate.

That said, I also am a person who IM’ed Les the first time I saw this news item pop up on Reuters--expressing incredulity and absolute outrage that the senior state judiciator would use his authority to so blatently violate the U.S Constitution and the fundamental rights of the citizens of Alabama.

But as I think about it, maybe I’m being harsh.

Perhaps Moore is just using himself as the test subject in a bold new initiative. Maybe this isn’t about religion..maybe it’s about complete freedom to choose your own actions. Maybe he was suspended before phase II of his agenda was revealed...the one that frees every prisoner ever sentenced in Alabama who doesn’t feel they should have the law apply to them.

Yes, maybe instead of being a totalitarian religous pusher who should be immediately removed from office, he is a true psychotic who should be immediately removed from office to the nearest hospital.

Either way…

MB, you’re right. I did demonstrate a double standard there. Thank you for pointing it out to me. You’ve given me something to consider.

I was going to offer up a meek defense off top of my head, but on further reflection I think it’s a bit too meek so I’ll just hold onto it for now and contemplate my transgression a bit more.

JethricOne

I think you are being a little harsh on Justice Moore and I am not a Christian; I don�t believe the Constitution explicitly denies him the right to put up the monument.  BUT, when the courts decided that it was unconstitutional, he should have removed it immediately!  How in the hell can this man sit in judgment of others when he defies the very law he has sworn to uphold?  (kind of like a commander and chief who lies under oath) . In this instance, if he didn�t agree with the decision, the appropriate and honorable thing to do would have been to resign.  I guess appropriate and honorable don�t factor in the Alabama judiciary.

MB,

I partially agree with you, but let me elaborate on the first part.

Putting something like that up as Chief Justice of a state is to give it the authority of your office and implication that the views of the chambers you are about to enter have bias towards certain viewpoints.
- In this government building, Christianity
is right; other views or religions
are wrong.
- Christians I see here will be given
preferential treatment over non Christians.
- Laws will be interpreted in line with
Christian beliefs, potentially over the
traditions of law and other common factors
by which supreme courts are supposed to
make their arguments.

So if the placing of his monument had ANY implication of ANY of these things, then they are state-established religion and/or have the force of law and the contitution DOES explicitly forbid that.

Of course, the courts have now agreed with me. Could he be punished for doing it in the first place? Probably not. Until there is a ruling against him, he can claim they are just art. It IS fundamentally offensive, though.

My ire in the post above was not at his hyper-religious-right attitudes, though. It was that as the supreme interpreter of law in his state, he actively defied a court with jurisdiction over him--and I can’t say much more than you have already on that point He should be removed and disbarred.

I have been making the rounds of the blogosphere’s comment boards with what I thought was an inocuous jest, to wit:

Justice Moore and his supporters are defending a graven image. Nine out of ten isn’t bad, I reckon.

You would not believe how much hurt pride this observation has elicited.  So far, no one seems to find it amusing.  I’m surprised.  After all, I believe in the one true religion, like everybody else.

I suppose no one in this humorless country will get that one, either

JethricOne

Alas, I forever give people the benefit of the doubt.  I guess I know that many of these evangelical Christians are elitist and play with the truth (that sounds nicer than bigots and liars�yes?) I was just trying to rationalize Judge Moore�s actions and be fair to him.  The way I see it, those type folks are going to be bigoted with or without that monument present.  Maybe it�s a good thing Justice Moore showed his true colors.

Until recently I tended to view religious people as relatively decent and benevolent people.  After I started going to church with my wife over the last few years, that positive opinion has declined quite dramatically.  When 9-11 happened, I overheard one of the elders say, �This is a terrible thing, but it could be a great opportunity for us to witness�.  Then the preacher at her current church said 9-11 happened because of gays, the ACLU, kicking God out of schools, etc., etc�and I have not returned since.

That statement was a huge overgeneralization and I don�t mean all Christians are that way, but the majority of the ones I�ve encountered are.  I have absolutely no time for people who discern the �revealed truth� and use that knowledge to spread their cynical drivel.  Here�s an example:

Most Christians I�ve spoken to lately tend to think crime is at an all time high.  The preachers are always spouting that garbage, because it fits with their incredibly pessimistic position that society is getting progressively worse, end times, blah, blah, blah.  I�ve had a running argument with my wife about crime statistics for several years (I did a paper for a college class a few years ago).  Now I see on excite.com what I already knew��2002 Crime Rates Lowest Since Records Kept�.  I�ll bet you�ll never hear that bit of news coming from a Baptist pulpit. 

Brett

I�ll assume you�re a guy�bro��what the hell are you tryin� to say?  How is that monument a graven image?  What is the one true religion?  In your last statement, you come off sounding like a gay hairdresser with a European accent�wuddup wid dat?!?!  :confused:

Hey you know the Bible got a little too specific with that graven image thing.  A graven image is one that is carved out of stone, so it�s OK if I cast one out of metal, or plaster, or plastic.  I think that gives me a little wiggle room to make an aluminum can image of Baal to pray to.  :dance:

Think about it Bill--everyone who professes a faith thinks his the one true religion.  They can’t all be right, of course, but civilized relations demand we treat one another as if we are: freedom of conscience, and all that.

No, I’m not European; I was born in Alabama and live in the Blue Ridge Mountains.

What I’m joking about is the irony of believers in the Decalogue defending a sculpture, the creation of which is specifically forbidden by the Big Ten, along with all likenesses (representations).  That commandment is a relic of the ancient day when it was believed that likenesses magically facilitated curses and blessings (see voodoo.)

This observation has elicited general incomprehension.  I can’t decide if witlessness or humorlessness is the cause.  My jest may not be funny to many people, but it is not meaningless.

Goodness�the light bulb has just come on�learning has taken place!!!  :happy:  The �Big 10� DOES say don�t pray to graven images.  That means don�t pray to images carved out of stone (like the 10 Commandments monument, Virgin Mary, and Jesus� likenesses, et al!!!) I�ll bet we do a survey and 8 out of 10 people don�t know graven means carved...I�ll bet they associate it with �false gods� or some such thing.

Now I see said the blind man; the monument itself is a graven image.  I guess building monuments or totems, or whatever you want to call them, does sound like superstition.  It is similar to the way people say, �God bless you� when you sneeze�primitive folk used to think evil demons escaped every time you sneeze.

It�s difficult to understand your humor when you don�t use the symbols of inflection (bold, italic, smiley faces, etc.) Scratch that gay European hairdresser comment�YOU DA MAN!  I�m not going to tear down my monument to Baal and replace it with yours just yet, but very cool observation.

To put it mildly, Bill, thank you.

WB,

Whenever I see references to “majority of the Christians I’ve met” I am reminded of the story from the bible of the Pharasie and the tax collector.

Two men are standing in church, a nobleman who is standing there loudly saying “Yo GOD, aren’t I just the coolest dude you’ve ever seen! Lucky you created me like this and not that loser over there” (pointing at the tax collector.)

The tax collector quietly apologizes to God for his sins, asks for the strength to do better and leaves.

The bible makes it very clear which of the two is the preferred of God..and it isn’t the first.

Very sadly, “Most of the Christians people have met” are the Pharasies. They are loud, obnoxious and absolutely get it wrong. They are a disgrace to the religion they seek to promote.

Most Christians that you haven’t met ARE decent and benevolant people....and usually quiet and unassuming people who are trying to have a relationship with God, and to help themselves and others to hear and understand his message.

By all means, if a minister starts spewing stuff about gays being the source of 9/11...run, don’t walk for the exit---I would.

But keep in mind what it is that you are escaping from...specific idiots in a specific building--the religion itself and the core beliefs that it espouce are still valid and wholesome (and incidentally have nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.)

Brett: I got it. It elicited a smirk.

Les,
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO THE ATHEIST GOD OF BLOG!!!!!!!!!!!!(Your comment box on your birthday entry has vanished.)

Jethirc

Like I said, my comments were a vast overgeneralization and were based on my observations of Church of Christ and Baptist congregations.

Disclaimer:  When I use the word �they� in describing a group, I only mean the majority of those people of that group I have had contact with.

The Church of Christ was rather �interesting�.  They really don�t want to have much of anything to do with other denominations.  They often speak of the Pharisees and �legalistic� worship, then turn right around and practice legalistic worship!  I was kind of friendly with the pastor; he was a really good guy, but I wouldn�t want his job for anything.

During one service, one of the elders knelt while he was saying a prayer up front.  I overheard the pastor saying a parishioner came up to him after the service and said she did not want to attend a church where people acted like that�the guy only knelt!!!  They also go bonzo if someone has the audacity to �raise their arm� during worship!  Very interesting people.

The Southern Baptists are the most interesting folks in Christendom!  I usually call them by their codename AT (American Taliban).  Now they are some nice folks (I mean Baptists, not Taliban), but some of the things they say and do are �exceptionally interesting�.  Many of them firmly believe 9-11 was caused as punishment to us.  They also absolutely, positively believe these are the end times and tend to warp reality to fit their worldview.  They blame evolution and poor Chuck Darwin for racism and immorality and don�t acknowledge that their sect came into existence because of its support of racism and slavery.

The AT hates evolution with a passion, though the majority can not define it.  I found this blog while searching the web for info on �Dr� Kent Hovind, �one of the world�s leading experts on dinosaurs and the bible�.  When I tried to explain evolution to my thoroughly AT indoctrinated wife, she went bonzo.  She actually brought me home a Hovind DVD to watch.

I watched most of it without comment, but then couldn�t stand his inane ranting any longer and left the room.  The crazy part is that many AT believe this guy is real!  I heard him speak dozens of outright lies and use a bad grade school textbook to refute scientific theories developed by some of the most brilliant people who ever lived.  This guy talks like he is a paleontologist, astrophysicist, microbiologist, nutritionist, geologist, Indian chief, scuba diver�you name it.  He is really the biggest CHARLATAN I�ve ever witnessed!

If I have to accept a bunch of outright lies to be a �member of the club�, then count me out.  I am many things, but a hypocrite would not be one of them.  I have never heard anything approaching coherence or truth in any explanation of any religion or religious denomination.  The ironies and contradictions are just too much for my little mind to comprehend.

MB,

You know the real problem with Southern Baptists? The politics.

I have had such good experiences with them---they are charming, hospitable, and so very glad to have had you visiting them--which I normally do a couple times a year with my grandmother.

Okay, there was an easter service that went for three full hours of sermon. Shoot me...even my most devout relatives felt that was about 2.5 hours too long.

But for the most part, they are just the quiet and devout fundamentalists--believing that the bible contains the whole, true word of god.

But as I said, there is the politics. This fundamentalist attitude leads to all sorts of horrible battles within the church, which leaves the quiet and devout members as the wounded.

They pass (or try to pass) hateful legislation at their annual conferences. Anti-gay, anti-women, anti-thought.

What I find interesting is your comment that “if I have to accept a bunch of outright lies to be a member of the club, then count me out.” One big thing recently (since 2000, but still going strong) is a push that all employees of the church were required to sign the Baptist Faith & Message in order to remain employed. Check here for the actual document.

Anyway, WB, I realize you were generalizing, and based on your experiences, I’m suprised you are so open minded about it

Jethric

Wow that Faith and Message was pretty interesting.  I liked this part under the heading Religious Liberty:

God alone is Lord of the conscience (but your conscience better agree with ours), and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate (except when we say it shouldn�t be). The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others (especially those darn Catholics). Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God (unless sucking up to the faithful with a hunk of stone). The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work (except going to civil court to keep the hunk of stone where it is).

I added the parenthetic statements to clarify the document, but the rest is cut and pasted, verbatim!  I understand that most people are just trying to do what they think is right, but�

Please go to the August 1st posting titled �Over 300 Proofs��, and read Daryl�s comments near the end.  It is the most �interesting� post I�ve seen thus far on this site.  I don�t know if he is serious or not, but he has an extremely dry sense of humor if he is joking.

A friend of mine just sent me a link...it’s a MUST see parody of this topic.

Check out: Alternate Universe 1

I STAND BEHIND SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ROY MOORE.  WHEN IT BOILS DOWN TO IT--GOD IS OUR JUDGE, AND OUR FINAL JUDGE. I COMMEND HIM FOR STANDING UP FOR HIS FAITH FIRST.  GOD WILL REWARD HIM.  ITS FUNNY HOW ALL OF YOU POINT FINGERS AT CHRISTIANS, AND THEN ACCUSE THEM OF THE SAME THING.  THIS ENDLESS CYCLE WILL GO ON UNTIL YOU SEE FOR YOURSELF THE ULTIMATE POWER OF GOD.  WHO IS IT THAT YOU WILL CRY OUT FOR ON YOUR DEATH BED? IF THERES A SHADOW OF A DOUBT IN YOUR MIND THAT GOD EXISTS, THEN I’M SURE HE’LL BE HEARING FROM YOU THEN.  CHRIST IS THE WAY, THE ONLY WAY.  NO JUDGING UTILIZED.  IT WOULD SURE BE AWFUL IN THE END IF YOU WERE ALL WRONG--ME, I WOULDN’T WANT TO TAKE THE CHANCE.  HEAVEN, OR HELL.  THE CHOICE IS EASY FOR ME, BECAUSE I SURE WOULDN’T WANT TO BURN FOR ALL ETERNITY GIVEN THE OPTION, AND WE ARE GIVEN THAT.

I STAND BEHIND SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ROY MOORE. WHEN IT BOILS DOWN TO IT�GOD IS OUR JUDGE, AND OUR FINAL JUDGE. I COMMEND HIM FOR STANDING UP FOR HIS FAITH FIRST. GOD WILL REWARD HIM.

I would be happy to commend Judge Roy Moore for standing up for his faith if that’s what he was actually doing. If his faith conflicts with his duty to enforce the law then he should resign as a judge. Instead, he’s used it as a means of political grandstanding probably in a bid to run for Congress at some point in the future. He’d better hope God will reward him as he may be close to losing his job here on Earth.

ITS FUNNY HOW ALL OF YOU POINT FINGERS AT CHRISTIANS, AND THEN ACCUSE THEM OF THE SAME THING.

I have no idea what the above statement is supposed to be referring to.

THIS ENDLESS CYCLE WILL GO ON UNTIL YOU SEE FOR YOURSELF THE ULTIMATE POWER OF GOD. WHO IS IT THAT YOU WILL CRY OUT FOR ON YOUR DEATH BED? IF THERES A SHADOW OF A DOUBT IN YOUR MIND THAT GOD EXISTS, THEN I�M SURE HE�LL BE HEARING FROM YOU THEN.

Blah, blah, blah. Do you guys all read from the same script or something? How is this supposed to convince me you’re right? You make predictions on how we’ll die and who we’ll be crying out for at the time as if it’s a given. How do you know I won’t be blindsided by a bus while crossing the street and won’t have a chance to call out to anyone?

CHRIST IS THE WAY, THE ONLY WAY. NO JUDGING UTILIZED. IT WOULD SURE BE AWFUL IN THE END IF YOU WERE ALL WRONG�ME, I WOULDN�T WANT TO TAKE THE CHANCE. HEAVEN, OR HELL. THE CHOICE IS EASY FOR ME, BECAUSE I SURE WOULDN�T WANT TO BURN FOR ALL ETERNITY GIVEN THE OPTION, AND WE ARE GIVEN THAT.

Like so many other Christians, you attempt to sway us with the spectre of Hell without realizing that one has to believe that something like Hell exists in order to be afraid of it. If I don’t believe it exists or that I have something along the lines of a soul to survive after death then why would I be frightened of the possibility of going to Hell? That’s like me trying to use the Boogeyman to change your opinion. Ooo! You better start believing or the BOOGEYMAN will get you! See? It doesn’t work. Try again.

SHEL

STOP SHOUTING DAMMIT�WE HEAR YOU JUST FINE.  USING ALL CAPS IS EQUIVALENT TO SHOUTING�YOU ANGRY LITTLE MAN!

I really do not understand why people refuse to see the reason behind separation of church and state.  Besides Jefferson�s letter to the Danbury Baptists, there is also The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which clearly explains the rationale for separation.  It was authored by Jefferson and sponsored by James Madison in 1786, three years before the US Constitution was ratified.  Madison was coincidentally the �Father of the US Constitution�.  Here�s a link:

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/42.htm

The founding fathers saw the real affect of government sponsored religion and thought it necessary to limit it.  The true story of the Puritans coming to America to escape religious persecution is rarely ever told�the Puritans turned right around and persecuted religions other than their own.  I think The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom is one of the finest demonstrations of why the founding fathers wanted separation. 

Jethric�s link to the page parodying Justice Moore brought up an interesting point.  It showed how though the Constitution clearly states that, �the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed �, we can�t own attack helicopters or fighter jets.  There are all manner of rules and restrictions on what kind of weapons I may own.  It could be argued that the founding fathers didn�t intend to restrict my owning a fighter squadron (if a bit of common sense wasn�t applied).

Justice Moore needs to go!  He has not �kept the faith�; followed the law, which he swore to uphold.  When I was in the military, I was legally bound by numerous restrictions that did not apply to civilians.  I could be sentenced to prison or even death for relatively minor infractions:

Showing up late to work- prison time
Falling asleep at work- maximum penalty�DEATH!

If I wanted to support Justice Moore I could, but I could not wear my uniform while doing so.  If I did I would have been sanctioned, because it could be inferred by some that the military officially supported that position.  Moore dishonorably used his position to push a personal agenda.  He can argue his points walkin��as a private citizen.

I don’t know Moore’s church affiliation, but even the American Taliban�I mean�the�er� Southern Baptists, call for church/state separation in their political manifesto�er�I mean… Statement of Faith.

It seems that there is no limit to the sensitivity of the populace. While I definitely see the value of the separation of church and state, I don’t see why the removal of one monument is important to it’s sucessful application. The courts of this land swear people in every damn day so that they may deliver testimony. This would have to go. Money would need to be changed to not mention in whom we trust. The point I’m making here is that people should pick their battles. Some things are more iconic and historical in nature and do not necessarily affect the governmental process. Where is the distinction between art and religious symbol? Should a museum that recieves government funding not be allowed to display The Last Supper, or any of the other thousands of Renaisance art pieces that depict Christian themes?  Whose to say?

Erik,

There are a couple things that make the Alabama case special.

First, Moore did not inherit the problem of a religious statue that was installed years before he got there. He put it there himself, on his own authority.

Second, after being told that this was inapproprite and that he should remove it by a court with influence over him...he refused to abide. This was his big mistake, because it changes him from “religous idealist” to “hypocrite"--a man who sentences others to loss of property, freedom or maybe even life..yet refuses to acknowledge the system that gives him this authority.

And I do pick my battles. What I saw as a “simple” affront to one of many 1st ammendments rights violations in the country quickly became a call for his removal..when he snubbed the law that he is supposed to be the final arbiter of in his state.

Finally, as both a Christian and a lover of humanities, I have no problem with Christian religious symbolism in state museums. Much of the best art work is religious in nature...nor do I have any problem with the display of Ancient, Jewish, Arabic, Hindu, Greek or Oriental art.

Because such art is highly representative of the culture that produces it, it’s display is not specifically religious and does not imply a government mandate to worship the displayed gods or symbology...which in my mind is a key point in considering separation of church and state issues.

It seems that there is no limit to the sensitivity of the populace. While I definitely see the value of the separation of church and state, I don�t see why the removal of one monument is important to it’s sucessful application.

The monument shouldn’t have been placed there in the first place thus its removal is the righting of a wrong. This wouldn’t even be an issue if people weren’t trying to insert their religious beliefs into areas they don’t belong.

The courts of this land swear people in every damn day so that they may deliver testimony. This would have to go.

It already has. While most courts still use the traditional oath out of tradition, atheists and others who oppose it for whatever reason are allowed to make an affirmation which is as legally valid (and binding) as the traditional oath. In U.S. District Court, for example, the affirmation is something along the lines of “You do affirm that all the testimony you are about to give in the case now before the court will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; this you do affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury?”

If you ask me, the phrase “pains and penalties of perjury” is a much more frightening thought than a pissed off “God.”

Money would need to be changed to not mention in whom we trust.

You make it sound like our money has always had the phrase “In God We Trust” on it, which it hasn’t. I’ve been over that here at SEB many times in the past. The original motto on our money was “E Pluribus Unum” which translates to “One Unity Composed of Many Parts” and was originally proposed by none other than Thomas Jefferson himself. The first coin struck in this country with that motto was the New Jersey cent of 1786 and the first United States Mint coins to be struck with that motto were minted in 1795.

A formal bill to change the motto on all U.S. currency to “In God We Trust” was not submitted or passed until 1955, over 160 years after the first coins with the original motto had been introduced. Another bill to make “In God We Trust” our National Motto was passed in 1956.

Again, this motto should never have been allowed to attain it’s status on the coins in the first place. It’s removal would simply be the righting of a 48 year old wrong. If it was OK to change it once, why shouldn’t it be OK to change it back?

The point I�m making here is that people should pick their battles. Some things are more iconic and historical in nature and do not necessarily affect the governmental process.

Perhaps. So you’re saying that if the courthouse you were due to stand trial in had a plaque on the front of it outlining the Reht Maryada tenets of the Sikh religion and you were Christian you would still feel that you wouldn’t be looked upon unfavorably by the court for being of a different faith?

I mean, those tenets are pretty good if you take the time to read them. Kinda like a different version of the Ten Commandments in some respects. Though one is left to wonder just how many Christians would tolerate a plaque listing them off on a courthouse.

Where is the distinction between art and religious symbol? Should a museum that recieves government funding not be allowed to display The Last Supper, or any of the other thousands of Renaisance art pieces that depict Christian themes? Whose to say?

We are. That’s why we have discussions such as this. If the museum is displaying such items for their artistic or historical merit then there would be no problems. Court houses are hardly art museums, however, and few people go to museums to be judged by the government.

Even if there were problems with providing funding to museum showing religious oriented items, how is that any different that politicians seeking to remove a museum’s funding for showing items that they find offensive to their religious faith? How many news items have we heard over the years of calls by various politicians to remove the funding from art programs that contained content they felt was obscene based on their religious beliefs? Is that OK in your view?