They built the war memorials with taxes collected by force, and we’ve not had a war that wasn’t protested by a fair number of Americans.
I figure that, if government can build a memorial to a war protested by, say 10% of the population, and use tax money — including money collected from those 10% — to do it, then they can equally well build a Ten Commandments memorial protested by 10% of the population, and use tax money — including money collected from the 10% — to do it.
No matter what you support or oppose, as a taxpayer, one of the first things you realize is that somewhere, somehow some government agency is doling out YOUR tax money to advance an agenda that you’d NEVER DREAM of supporting, so if we’re going to nullify Ten Commandments displays on the basis of the tax dollar argument, we’re going to also have to unhinge a HUGE swath of Federal, State, and local government bureaucracy. And, if it’s ludicrous to do that, than it is equally ludicrous to bar a Ten Commandments display on that basis. If it’s NOT ludicrous to do that, the I’d assert that we’ve got MANY MUCH bigger fish to fry before we go after some local municipality over a couple of tons of sculpted stone.
I disagree. First of all, I don't the government should be in the memorial-making business anyway. That is properly the province of charities and private associations, and something they are perfectly capable of doing on their own.
That having been said, I agree that the nature of taxation inherently involves making people pay for things they might not want to. That's why I think it's crucial that tax monies are only used to pay for the essential functions of government. I don't think commemoration of history or of our religious heritage is an essential government function. Those may be nice things, but they are not on par with things like national defense or a functioning court system.
I also think religious belief is more important, more fundamentally tied to individual rights and dignity, than opinions on foreign policy. Making someone pay for a monument against their beliefs as to the latter is bad, but making them pay for a monument against their beliefs as to the former is even worse.
No matter what you support or oppose, as a taxpayer, one of the first things you realize is that somewhere, somehow some government agency is doling out YOUR tax money to advance an agenda that you’d NEVER DREAM of supporting, so if we’re going to nullify Ten Commandments displays on the basis of the tax dollar argument, we’re going to also have to unhinge a HUGE swath of Federal, State, and local government bureaucracy.
Cut down on government bureaucracy? Why, that seems to be the inspiration for this website...and it's also music to my ears :)
But I agree, tax dollars are always going support things that some taxpayers don't like. That's why we should minimize the areas of government spending as much as possible, and try to avoid making people pay for things that go against their personal convictions. This is the same reasoning behind conservative opposition to PBS, public funding of the arts, no-questions-asked welfare entitlements, etc.
And, if it’s ludicrous to do that, than it is equally ludicrous to bar a Ten Commandments display on that basis. If it’s NOT ludicrous to do that, the I’d assert that we’ve got MANY MUCH bigger fish to fry before we go after some local municipality over a couple of tons of sculpted stone.
Drastic reduction in government bureaucracy is not ludicrous to me. In fact, it sounds like a darn good idea to me.
Part of me agrees with you, though, about our priorities. In terms of all the abusive, intrusive, rights-infringing, and conscience-shocking government problems we face, Ten Commandment displays are very low on the list. I've always thought the partisans of both sides in the debate are a little silly. The display of the Ten Commandments in courthouses is not essential to our survival, but neither does it represent the death of religious liberty in this country.
But part of me does think it is important, only because of the value of precedent and the slippery slope it may lead to. If we accept that a community may compel others to pay for a religious display in this form, how do we later deny the same power to a Muslim majority that wants tax support for a minaret? Or SHOULD we deny tax dollars for this purpose if that's what the majority wants?