Where Is The Outrage??

[nbcrusader]

In support of her fellow Democrat, California Senator Diane Feinstein is appearing in a frequently run television commercial urging a No vote on the upcomming recall.

Prominately displayed behind Feinstein in the ad is a Vishnu statue (the second member of the Hindu trinity).

So, California's most prominent political figure is appearing along side a Hindu statue. Considering the uproar over a Ten Commandments monument, the silence in California is deafening.



What they say "We support separation of Church and State."


What they mean "We support separation of Christ and State."

 

[BVS]

This was in a government building?

 

[verte76]

In the case of the Ten Commandments controversy it was Moore's behavior rather than the monument per se that bothered me. My criticism of Moore was that he didn't have any dignity and was way too confrontationist when he presented his argument. If he had I think things would have gone differently. Aesthetically, the monument left something to be desired but that's just a matter of taste.

 

[nbcrusader]

This was in a government building?

The commercial does not make that clear.

Does that make a difference? It suggests that a government official can endorse a religion as long as the endorsing is not done in a government building.

 

[verte76]

The commercial does not make that clear.

Does that make a difference? It suggests that a government official can endorse a religion as long as the endorsing is not done in a government building.

The dispute over the Ten Commandments monument was based on it being in a government building, and not really over a government official endorsing a religion. Heck, people could have gone after our governor for having Christian Coalition people in the governor's mansion for prayer breakfasts. No one did and few people even cared. The difference? PR. Moore made alot of enemies. The governor hasn't made enemies because of his religion. They were really after Moore, not the monument.

 

[nbcrusader]

The dispute over the Ten Commandments monument was based on it being in a government building, and not really over a government official endorsing a religion.

No way. Moore may have made his enemies, but the basis for the lawsuit requiring removal of the monument is that it represents an endorsement of a religion. After all, that is what the Constitution says.

 

[BVS]

The commercial does not make that clear.

Does that make a difference? It suggests that a government official can endorse a religion as long as the endorsing is not done in a government building.

Absolutely it does. Individuals in the government can be any religion they want to. In fact I believe all US Presidents have been claimed Christians with the majority of them protestant.

But they aren't allowed to hang a cross over their podium! The difference is that a government can not endorse a religion and when you place a religious monument in a government building then in effect you're stating that this state court or whatever endorses this religion.

Moore could have placed the monument in his front yard. He could have ran commercials with him next to the monument. I don't care. But you can't bring it into the courthouse. It's as simple as that.

This is not a case of "separation of Christ and state." And remember once again 10 commandments are not solely Christian law, so this was never about just Christianity.

 

[womanfish]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that 98% of the population has no clue what that even is.

 

[nbcrusader]

But they aren't allowed to hang a cross over their podium!

Feinstein had her "cross" on her podium.

 

[anitram]

Is this woman even Hindu?

It's possible that it was in her house, she bought the statue on a trip to India for its artistic/cultural merit rather than a pronouncement of her faith.

My mother, a devout Catholic, has purchased Hindu religious icons and one is hanging in my own bedroom. We also have a couple of Buddhist sculptures from Korea and African religious tribal masks on our walls.

If it's not in a government building, she can have whatever she wants standing behind her. I don't care if a politicial wears a crucifix around their neck, but when you put it in a courthouse, then I object.

 

[ThatGuy]

I have not seen the commercial. Did it look like she in her home or office? Or was she standing in front of a Hindu shrine? Was it a life-size statue, or was it just on a bookshelf behind her?

 

[nbcrusader]

It appears in an office setting. The statue was on a bookcase, directly over her right shoulder. It can be seen clearly - and we have a small 13" television.

I find the false distinctions amusing. I really don't care what Feinstein has in her office. But, as my premise was in the Alabama case, the "separation of church and state" crowd is only heard regarding Judeo-Christian matters.

 

[BVS]

It appears in an office setting. The statue was on a bookcase, directly over her right shoulder. It can be seen clearly - and we have a small 13" television.

I find the false distinctions amusing. I really don't care what Feinstein has in her office. But, as my premise was in the Alabama case, the "separation of church and state" crowd is only heard regarding Judeo-Christian matters.

When she tries to place this statue in a government building there will be an uproar. I'm not sure why you're not getting the distinction. This is not someone trying oppress your beliefs.

 

[nbcrusader]

When she tries to place this statue in a government building there will be an uproar. I'm not sure why you're not getting the distinction. This is not someone trying oppress your beliefs.

But you had no trouble equating the Ten Commandments monument with oppression??

She very well may have this statute in her publically funded office and I doubt anyone would make a peep. I bet there are plenty of Vishnu statues that are treated as works of art and therefor ignored.

 

[BAW]

I'm a bit confused. This could have been a gift or simply a part of her office decor. She's not acting in a governmental capacity in this commercial and is not in a govermental facility. How is this in any way endorsing a religion?

 

[ThatGuy]

And I I'm sure it wouldn't have been a problem if Judge Moore merely had a copy of the Ten Commandments in his office. The real distinction here is that he placed a large one on federal property, which literally violates the protections for separation of church and state. But I agree with you, I could care less what Feinstein has in her office. Call me when she tries to place a several-ton statue of Vishnu in a courthouse.

 

[nbcrusader]

Now it is size and location. This cracks me up. I guess we never should talk about principles.

 

[ThatGuy]

It was always about location! If the Ten Commandments monument hadn't been where it was it wouldn't have been an issue at all.

 

[anitram]

nbcrusader, I'm not really sure what the point is you're trying to make.

Moore was on a religious crusade, he kept giving out soundbites about the glory of his God and how the Constitution was based on that very principle, which it was not.

I thought she was Jewish and when I checked, she is. Therefore, I very much doubt that a Jew, to whom having one and only one God is supreme to all sees Vishnu as representative of a religious icon, nor is she arguing that Vishnu should be placed in a court house because the American constitution is based on the Hindu teaching of dharma. Come on.

It's an exotic piece of art to her and I'm pretty sure that if you asked her to tell you the principles of Hinduism, let's say we start with what samsara is and the B. Gita, she'd either have no clue or a very vague idea. She's not pushing anything here, whereas Moore was. Therein lies the distinction.

 

[BVS]

But you had no trouble equating the Ten Commandments monument with oppression??

She very well may have this statute in her publically funded office and I doubt anyone would make a peep. I bet there are plenty of Vishnu statues that are treated as works of art and therefor ignored.

Don't put words in my mouth I have never and will never equate the 10 Commandments with oppression.

You can have anything you want in your office. You can have a bible, koran, statue of buddah...hell you can have them all, in your office (publically funded or not), your home, your car. I don't care. But when you have a public government space that is set up to represent the people of the US then don't exclude any individual by putting up a monument that isn't included in their religious beliefs.

And I can almost guarantee you that you have art, objects, etc. in your very own house that are representative of another religion and not even know it.

 

[nbcrusader]

The point of my posts in this and Moore's thread is this: it appears that lawsuits filed regarding religious symbols as violations of "separation of church and state" are overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, reserved for Judeo-Christian symbols.

Moore was a vocal idiot, but other postings of the Ten Commandments (even those that have been posted for decades and are part of the decor) get the same treatment.

Vigilance to separate church from state is not done on a principled and evenhanded basis.

 

[ThatGuy]

Actually the monuments that have stood for decades have not received the same treatment. Courts have found that they have historical value and thus they have not been removed.

 

[BVS]

The point of my posts in this and Moore's thread is this: it appears that lawsuits filed regarding religious symbols as violations of "separation of church and state" are overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, reserved for Judeo-Christian symbols.

Moore was a vocal idiot, but other postings of the Ten Commandments (even those that have been posted for decades and are part of the decor) get the same treatment.

Vigilance to separate church from state is not done on a principled and evenhanded basis.

Well I guess if you showed me a case where another religion's monument is placed in a government building somewhere here in the states and no one's tried to remove it then I would agree with you. But until then I'm not going to give into the "they're picking on us Christians again argument."

 

[anitram]

Okay, what do you think is the proportion of Judeo-Christian symbols that are hung in public spaces, vs. say Jain, Hindu or Buddhist ones?

When somebody sticks a Golden Buddha outside of the White House or a statue of Ganesh in the main hall of a court house, then that's wrong just like the Ten Commandments are wrong. And I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the frequency with which Christian symbols are exhibited is much greater than the one of other religions.

And EVEN IF, as you claim, Judeo-Christian symbols are being systematically wiped out of public space with a higher frequency than anything else, it still does not mean that they should be there! There either is or isn't a separation of state and church. If you see a Koran displayed in your Revenue building, then go and fight to have it removed. It's that simple.

 

[verte76]

No way. Moore may have made his enemies, but the basis for the lawsuit requiring removal of the monument is that it represents an endorsement of a religion. After all, that is what the Constitution says.

OK, you've got me! Fair enough. The argument was based on it being in a government building. I guess I was just reading my own opinion into the thing. Hell, I don't know.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

To begin with, I thought the controversy over the Ten Commandments monument was ridiculous. I find it hard to believe that serious, intelligent people could waste that amount of time arguing over a monument.

That said, I don't think the comparison between this statue and the one of the Ten Commandments is a fair one. The statue wasn't something which was displayed in order to endorse religion. Would anyone suggest, for instance, that a public official should not keep a Bible in his office as that would constitute an endorsement of religion? I doubt anyone would have objected if Judge Moore had elected to keep a copy of the Ten Commandments in his private office, but it is a different matter when he places such a monument in a public area of a government building.

 

[pax]

We don't have any proof that this statue was in any kind of government building at all, even in an office. If Feinstein merely *appeared* *beside* the statue, that hardly counts as an endorsement of religion.

 

[verte76]

We don't have any proof that this statue was in any kind of government building at all, even in an office. If Feinstein merely *appeared* *beside* the statue, that hardly counts as an endorsement of religion.

I agree. It apparently didn't have any text written on it; it was just a sculpture. It's probably there for artistic reasons and not religious reasons as sculpture is an art-form (my younger sister got her BFA in sculpture).

 

[bonosloveslave]

I'm with you Doug

 

[sharky]

nb -- there are publically funded museums that displays countless pieces of Christian art. I've been to several that have huge sections filled with paintings of Christ and Salome and St. Stephen, etc. But they are placed there as pieces of art.

Several government buildings -- including the Supreme Court and the Capitol building -- have depictions of Moses as well as other historical law-making officials. they emphasis his creation of laws, not the fact that he is in the Bible.

If Feinstein had a cross or a Buddah or a menorah, its ok because she's not using it as a way to institute a state religion. People have crucifixes in their offices and there is nothing wrong with that unless they try to convert people.

Moore clearly said that the Ten Commandments monument that he had placed in a government building that was paid for with public funds was to "put God back into law." He SAID he wouldn't place a monument with the Koran on it because our country was founded by Christians, not Muslims [ignoring the fact that most of the Founding Fathers were not practicing Christians or even Christians at all in some cases].

I don't care who you are or what you believe. If you use government money to place a government-funded monument in a government building, I'm coming after you and making sure you reread the First Amendment. What Moore tried to do was slyly institute a religion in a public courthouse with public funds.

I respect your opinion, nb, but don't try to bait this argument as being anti-Christian. As a Catholic, I proudly attend church, wear a crucifix around my neck everyday and try to live a good life. But I would NEVER support anyone -- including Moore -- who pushes my religion onto someone else. A free country means each person can make their own decisions about religion and not be intimidated by what a politican says in a political forum.