Questions for consideration: Would any of the rulings have been different
if it had been a Buddhist organization wanting to create a monument to the
Four Noble Truths?
At 02:37 PM 4/19/07 +0300, you wrote:
So the next step is a monument of an erect phallus next to the image of
the two tablets of the ten commandments? Then what about equal rights for
the women?
PLEASE, no cracks about erecting statues!
But the "we would have to include all of them argument" recalls my
previous post, which failed to draw any comments, about the Impaler and his
plank to
"erect the "Wall of Religious
Beliefs" in the Capital. This wall will have everything
from the Wiccan Rede to the 10 Commandments."
So, aside from the logistical problems of "including all of them", is this
project considered sufficiently nondiscriminatory? Or would it be assailed
as an establishment of "religion", as opposed to irreligion? Or does the
aim of extolling religious freedom constitute an overriding secular purpose?
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
