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: Lane3 who wrote (73388)	8/27/2003 11:03:38 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"The residual artifacts can be treated as historical artifacts and/or ceremonial by the secular and as holy relics by the Christians" They CAN be, but in the absence of established principle it is simply capricious and problematic. I think it needs to be confronted head to head...not all at once but with a final goal of neutralizing the State as regards religion. You may be capable of considering this or that as an "artifact", but a fanatic is not. If we are to survive on certain principles of humanity then we ought to thrash out those principles and enshrine them in our social institutions.

To: Lane3 who wrote (73388)	8/27/2003 12:21:42 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

Having said that, I can understand that removing displays quacks like endorsing atheism to religionists just as installing displays quacks like the establishment of religion to secularists. Precisely. Maybe the best answer is just the status quo. What's there can remain. What isn't can't be added. Can you persuade the ACLU of that? I read a story, can't find it right now but it was a major paper, that the ACLU is actively trying to persuade some midshipman at the Naval Academy to come forward and let them sue on his or her behalf to do away with the before-meal prayer. Clearly, they aren't going to be satisfied with the status quo. So those who feel under attack by the failure to go along with your suggestion have to make the choice either of fighting back by replacing some of the removed symbols, either directly or indirectly, or of seeing atheism endorsed over and over by the courts. Also, one has to agree on what the status quo is, and when it should be frozen. It occurred to me from one or two comments made here that bibles were once standard items in courtrooms. Shall we consider that the status quo? And given that, showing one ten-line passage from the Bible in a courthose when there are bibles all over the place seems like no infringement at all. I think you underestimate the determination of the atheist/agnostic movement to impose their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, on our society.

To: Lane3 who wrote (73388)	8/27/2003 2:35:26 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

As long as we all admit that absence is NOT advocacy. It is simply silence on the issue, and leaving it up to the individual consciences of the people. A big reminder of a particular religion screams "Look at me, look at my religion...we've got this big rock here with commandments on it". The absence of a big rock does not scream "There is NO GOD". A big rock with "There is no God" would scream that, and THEN the religionists could say it was the same. But absence? Nope