Commandments monument: Hard issue
Published: Saturday, Feb. 2, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
After reading the various letters about the Ten Commandments monument and the lawsuit involving the New Kensington-Arnold School District, I would like to outline the issues of the real argument.
The pro-monument groups see morality based upon Christian ideas as historical because they are the foundation of the United States. The anti-monument groups see it as a Christian symbol violating the separation of church and state.
Diversity has resulted in there being millions of Americans of multiple faiths and beliefs, some of whom are offended by Christian symbols.
Those who support the Ten Commandments monument do so because Christianity is the most common religion, and they believe the monument is historical and contains good advice. They believe in “freedom of religion,” not “freedom from religion” and think that opponents are targeting Christianity but support “more” freedoms for other groups like Muslims and atheists.
Those opposing the monument believe minority groups need to be protected from the majority seeking to impose its beliefs — that it infringes on people's freedoms and is a purely religious symbol. They believe opposing this protects all people of all faiths.
So who is right? The preamble of Pennsylvania's Constitution states: “We the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”
But issues like this are never as simple as one sentence.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Delinquents often the working poor
- Christians must vote
- More overreach
- Legacy: All lose
- Unconstitutional funding
- Today’s Pharisees
- Promises not kept
- Brashear & discipline
- Prevailing wage misunderstood
- Roenigk stands for safety
- Forgetting troops