I am for it (placing the statue in a public government building). They shouldn't put it in the Oklahoma capitol but the US capitol, or Supreme Court or White House. It is quite the symbol of where this country is headed. Even those first six years of Bush's administration, he could have done anything since conservatives control all government and stopping the tide. He didn't and no other 'conservative' will either.
What is a good reply to the objection, "It's not fair for Oklahoma lawmakers to let a Ten Commandments statue stand at the building, without also allowing monuments that reflect other spiritual beliefs"?
FWIW, if anything, a couple of my half-baked practical suggestions:
At least as I understand it, Satanism make self-centeredness a virtue. If so, and assuming most people in the community still share moral sensibilities with us, then we could argue to promote its monument would be to promote self-centeredness which is in fact a vice. To the extent that a "spiritual belief" is immoral, we could argue to promote the "spiritual belief" would be to promote a degree of immorality for the community. It'd be like trying to promote a brothel in a community, or something along those lines, I guess.
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is meant to be a farce. If we allow its monument, then we might as well allow every absurdity under the sun to become a monument. We might as well set in stone every circus freak we run across who wants a statue of him or herself. I doubt most people would go for this. It'd be an argumentum ad absurdum.
i) Historically, the First Amendment allows states to discriminate on religious grounds. The First Amendment (i.e. Establishment Clause) forbids the Federal gov't from mandating a national church, but the states are free to have established churches. I'm not saying that's a good idea. But that's the idea behind the First Amendment.
ii) We should only treat two claims equally if they are equal claims. There's nothing improper about treating unequal claims unequally.
iii) There's also a difference between sincere expression of belief and pushing the envelop just to prove a point or show that you can.
Should Christians be opposed to Muslims or Buddhists citizens (i.e., more sincere expressions of belief) being permitted to put a monument reflecting their spiritual beliefs on government (public) property?
I am for it (placing the statue in a public government building). They shouldn't put it in the Oklahoma capitol but the US capitol, or Supreme Court or White House. It is quite the symbol of where this country is headed. Even those first six years of Bush's administration, he could have done anything since conservatives control all government and stopping the tide. He didn't and no other 'conservative' will either.
ReplyDeleteWhat is a good reply to the objection, "It's not fair for Oklahoma lawmakers to let a Ten Commandments statue stand at the building, without also allowing monuments that reflect other spiritual beliefs"?
ReplyDeleteFWIW, if anything, a couple of my half-baked practical suggestions:
DeleteAt least as I understand it, Satanism make self-centeredness a virtue. If so, and assuming most people in the community still share moral sensibilities with us, then we could argue to promote its monument would be to promote self-centeredness which is in fact a vice. To the extent that a "spiritual belief" is immoral, we could argue to promote the "spiritual belief" would be to promote a degree of immorality for the community. It'd be like trying to promote a brothel in a community, or something along those lines, I guess.
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is meant to be a farce. If we allow its monument, then we might as well allow every absurdity under the sun to become a monument. We might as well set in stone every circus freak we run across who wants a statue of him or herself. I doubt most people would go for this. It'd be an argumentum ad absurdum.
i) Historically, the First Amendment allows states to discriminate on religious grounds. The First Amendment (i.e. Establishment Clause) forbids the Federal gov't from mandating a national church, but the states are free to have established churches. I'm not saying that's a good idea. But that's the idea behind the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteii) We should only treat two claims equally if they are equal claims. There's nothing improper about treating unequal claims unequally.
iii) There's also a difference between sincere expression of belief and pushing the envelop just to prove a point or show that you can.
Should Christians be opposed to Muslims or Buddhists citizens (i.e., more sincere expressions of belief) being permitted to put a monument reflecting their spiritual beliefs on government (public) property?
ReplyDeleteSorry this won't be an answer, but D.A. Carson has some related thoughts on the matter here (pdf).
Delete