[RonF]

Neither the current Justices' viewpoints nor any new Justice's viewpoint changes what the intent of the artist and the people who put it up, said intents being well documented.

And for a new Justice being of the opinion that there's something wrong with the display, well, he'd have to convince at least 4 other justices (3 others just to have the suit brought before the Court). And if a majority of Justices want anything changed in the SCOTUS building, I imagine it will be.

[VRWC_minion]

According to your views, if the original long dead artist or the people who commisioned it had any intent to make a religious message then the SC freize should be removed otherwise it should stay ? You can say with a straight face that this isn't one of the most silliest arguments you have ever made ?

Ron, your arguments about whether the monument is objectionable or not would be more consistant if you looked to the impression of those who view it, like the laws on obscentiy. You would be more consistant.

The idea that an objects representation as a religious object can only be measured by the intent of the person who put it their is stupid.

[VRWC_minion]

Neither the current Justices' viewpoints nor any new Justice's viewpoint changes what the intent of the artist and the people who put it up, said intents being well documented.

You really don't see the stupidity in having to do forensic researsh into the mind of the artist in order to determine if it has religious intent do you ?

What if the family of this artists unearths s long lost diary that the artist kept and in it he wrote how is real secret purpose was to perserve and advance the Christian relgion. Using your acid test, we would have to remove it then. Thats plain nuts.