Therefore, if it is true that some non-organized belief system is aided by the stone monument, then it is true that a non-organized belief system is aided by removing the stone monument.
How is non-belief aided?
Better to just allow everyone in charge of the building to have their turn to set up the displays/artwork that interests them. The next guy in charge will decorate differently and/or put up different displays. If he's an atheist, he can put up nothing. If a Buddhist, he can put up Buddhist art. If he's a Christian, he can hang Michaelangelo on the walls.
I would rather see government out of the religion business entirely.
As to this suggestion, do you think the religious right would quietly stand by while a statue of the Buddha is erected? What if he’s a Pagan, and erects a statue of the Mother Goddess?
2. The questions were based on your saying in the previous post that you could not see how a "non-religion" is viewed as a religion.
I still fail to understand how a lack of something can be a thing.
If a state judge of Alabama is a Buddhist, and his job is to decorate, then he should be able to decorate however he wishes. It's just art or an information display, for pete's sake. The next judge will change the furniture to suit his tastes.
To say that he can hang up Norman Rockwell or Pablo Picasso but he cannot hang up Salvador Dali is blatant religious discrimination. It's saying that religious opinions are less protected than other more acceptable opinions.