Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (72911)	8/21/2003 4:51:49 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"Such symbolism should be kept to the absolute minimum in places people are forced to be present- government buildings, schools, etc. imo " Oh good. Then you will be advocating for the removal of those offensive pro-gay posters that have been placed in all your Berkely schools.

To: epicure who wrote (72911)	8/22/2003 6:26:33 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Nice misread. The issue is not whether there is symbolism attached to the display of the Ten Commandments, but whether any single individual or group determines the content of the symbolism. The fact that something may be subject to such and such an interpretation does not show that the interpretation is necessary. Regardless of what the judge and his supporters have said, it remains that the Ten Commandments are of historical/cultural importance, and their display does not automatically entail a violation of the First Amendment. As for symbolism that may be interpreted as prejudicial: there is always a question of whether a complaint is reasonable or we will live under the tyranny of the squeaky wheel. I do not think that we ought to concede veto power to anyone who wants to make an issue.........