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 (73023)	8/22/2003 11:04:52 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

It is clearly a symbol- a religious symbol- a religious symbol that embraces only those religious traditions that follow the bible. I can understand the argument that it is somewhat more than just a religious symbol. And I can understand the argument that its positive cultural value outweighs its negative. But the notions that it isn't a religious symbol and that it is harmless are just too precious.

To: epicure who wrote (73023)	8/22/2003 11:15:13 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Have you been to the Supreme Court? Above the head of the Chief Justice of the United States is a representation of Moses and the Ten Commandments. Now, it is true that there are other Lawgivers represented in the frieze, but Moses has pride of place. That representation has been deemed Constitutional. If there were a representation of the Code of Hammurabi or the Athenian Laws of Solon in Alabama, we would not be having this argument, because it would be indisputably Constitutional to represent the Commandments in a secularized context. The Court could just as easily have told them how to cure the defect, rather than demanding that the representation be removed. In another case, in Philadelphia, I believe, a court was allowed to retain the Ten Commandments because its preservation was predicated upon historic grounds, as it was an old court, and the representation was integral. Still, it was there, and did not intrinsically consitute a harmful thing, according to the court. So I have some basis for saying that the TC is harmless, in and of itself, and for asking the question "Who caused the trouble really?".........