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: The Philosopher who wrote (73075)	8/22/2003 1:55:26 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

”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? As I stated in my last post: “The monument is intended to provoke a particular state of mind. A monument is erected to provide lasting evidence, reminders, or examples of something great and meaningful. So, one must ask what is the particular meaningfulness of this monument.” It is the responsibility of individuals to determine, from the appearance provided by the court, whether or not their side in any issue will be fairly weighed against the other side. It would be irresponsible not to. It is the responsibility of the court and its judges to present an image. The image should be one that offers confidence in fairness, not bias. In the maul you might expect to see every kind of merchandise. You can go to the maul and pick and choose what to pay attention to. You are expected to ignore things that you are uninterested in or that offend you. You don’t expect to be sexually provoked in a maul, however, it may happen. If you are walking through a maul and see a foxy girl wearing a wet halter top, you may divert your eyes to avoid feeling sexually provoked. She has the right to wear what she wants and send whatever message she wants, within limits. And she has the right to expect you to ignore her if you find her behavior offensive. A courtroom is not the maul. It is not appropriate for the court to provoke and expect to be ignored by those who could be offended. ”And if what they're really concerned about is what's in Judge Moore's heart, how will removing the monument change that? “ The monument is a symbol. It is being presented as a symbol of what the court stands for. The complaint is that it suggests bias. Judges are expected to present an unbiased demeanor. Judges who are unable to provide the appearance of unbiased objectivity tend to get removed from the bench...or at least they should. An engraving that simply stated, “Let God guide this court in justice” with no cultural symbols, might be appropriate. But, a monument that identifies a particular strand of humanity is a different thing.