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: one_less who wrote (73074)	8/22/2003 1:23:43 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The monument is intended to provoke a particular state of mind. Even granting for the sake of argument that that is true, and I'm not sure it is, but let's assume it is, whether any individual allows themselves to the provoked in that way is up to the individual. The monument is mute. It doesn't speak, it doesn't intrude, its message isn't one that'a hard to ignore as would be a huge banner hung over the doorway. From what I have seen, you have to choose to go up to it in order to read anything it has to say. If it were a loudspeaker chanting the TC, that would be different. If it were a neon billboard you couldn't reasonably be expected to walk past without reading, that would be different. If it even were a sign over the doorway of the courthouse saying "those who don't believe the TC may not enter here," like the "whites only" signs over water foundtains that Karen mentioned, it would be different. But it isn't any of those things. It's a chunk of granite that sits there and has content that can only be read by those who choose to read it. In that way, it's more akin to a book in the law library. Do the opponents of the TC contend that it's illegal to have a book containing the TC in the law library of the courthouse?? That's a closer analogy than any of the other ones that have been mentioned here. As I've said, I wouldn't have put it there myself. But it's there, and was put there by a person with lawful authority to do so. Where's the obligation of individuals to take responsibility for their own reactions to the block of granite, to choose not to read it if they don't want to, to choose to walk right by it? And if what they're really concerened about is what's in Judge Moore's heart, how will removing the monument change that?