Posted by PJ on August 18, 2004 at 22:12:03:
In Reply to: And this time, I'll argue the other side, just to prove to Jeff I am still saved. posted by PS on August 18, 2004 at 20:28:51:
: : After all,there is this beautiful thing (supposedly) called the separation of church and state, and even if the bible was placed there, in the monument, by private donations, I still don't think it's an appropriate placement. It's on government property, in front of a place where there's supposed to be impartial judgement and having a book of any religion placed there could imply that there's not so much impartiality going on as moral judgment based on one religion.
: : ~Nancy
: Hmmm... you certainly have the ACLU anti-Christian dialogue down pat. ;-)
: The key to the separation of church and state is not to prohibit expression; it is to prohibit coercion and forced adherence to a particular religious tradition imposed by government. A statue hardly qualifies as such coercion. Regarding the "government" property -- it is the county government, correct? When the federal government (a U. S. district judge here) tells the states, counties, or cities what they can and can not display, they are way over the line of "separation." What do the residents here want? If the monument was erected and maintained for 50 years without a serious issue, until an outside watchdog group got involved, that pretty much says it all.
: A little history will show that the activists here oppose many public expressions of Christianity that are not government-related at all. This movement is about restricting "public" expression-- which is the opposite of what the forefathers intended. They believed that all should be able to express their religious views without the interference of the government promoting or censuring a particular religious tradition. If a statue were removed because it depicted two gay men embracing, the sides would immediately reverse, and the issue would now be about "free speech and expression." The Christians would claim that the statue was promoting and endorsing an opposing religious tradition (to be against Judeo-Christian morality IS a religious stance), just as the ACLU-ites now are. This is not an objective issue at all; it is about specific subjective agendas, and neither side is consistent as a champion of "separation" or "free speech." Clearly the specific history of complaints by the ACLU-style groups will show that this issue is primarily about Christianity and Christian morality, not religion per se.
: Finally, the idea that any "Christian" art, monument, or historical exhibit that is displayed somehow precludes fair and impartial judgment is a bit extreme, don't you think?
: Oh well, I have to go oppress some religious minorities in the name of Christ. ;-)
Steve,
Totally here you on what you were saying down below, does Bush have problems, heck yes but I am just over all tired of the Bush-Kerry saga in general, I have my own opinions but do not want to exert the finger muscle to type them, over all I am just tired and run down, I feel so used sometimes being a pastor, I somehow am starting to relating to people on why they quit going to church but on the other hand I could not see myself serving the Lord in a pastoral role to young people, Oh well I'll sjut up now, Im starting to sound psychotic.
Jeff