Film studio donates $25K to replace Arkansas Ten Commandments Tribute Monument

[Eugene]

Last edited Sat Jul 22, 2017, 02:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: ABC News

Film studio donates $25K to replace Arkansas Ten Commandments Tribute Monument

By LUKE BARR • Jul 8, 2017, 3:24 PM ET

An Arizona independent film studio has donated $25,000 to help replace the recently destroyed Ten Commandments tribute monument on the Arkansas state capitol grounds.

Pure Flix, an independent faith and family entertainment studio based in Phoenix, gave the contribution to the American History and Heritage Foundation at the Arkansas State capitol on July 6.

“We hope our donation will contribute to the costs to rebuild this beautiful landmark,” Pure Flix CEO Steve Fedyski said in a statement.

The controversial monument was erected on June 27, but less than 24 hours later was toppled when Michael Tate Reed II of Van Buren, Arkansas drove his car into the base of the monument, shouting “Freedom!” at the moment of impact.

-snip-

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/film-studio-donates-25k-replace-arkansas-ten-commandments/story?id=48523504

[AtheistCrusader]

1. I wonder how much Michael Reed needs for a new car?

[Igel]

2. Don't care if somebody wants to put such a thing on public grounds.

I'd prefer it was the 10 words, in Hebrew, but that's just me. As long as it's put in a convenient place--visible is fine, but in the middle of the sidewalk might be a bit much. It represents part of the community, and as such can be reflected in public. If the government is "we the people," surely the people matter, and if they matter then what they respect and hold in esteem matters.

I'd say the same thing about the shehada. Again, preferably in Arabic, but that's just me.

If there's an especially relevant short passage from some Pali or Sanskrit text, from some Taoist tract. Sure. Again, preferably in Pali or Sanskrit or Chinese. Because expression of the community isn't in denying expression but in making expression of something that is meaning, but not hateful. (I've met a few people or more for whom "hate" and "desire to anger others" are deeply held virtues.)

Reading and seeing such things does not constitute imposition of ideas. Just imposition of an instance in which to show civility and understanding.

I'd also rule out things reprehensible to a majority. I'd be against a statue of a lynching in the US, of a pig-god in Muslim countries, or of various other things intended not so much to express a positive virtue but just to piss off people. If some group of Osiris-worshippers, however, showed a black Osiris being dismembered by not-quite-black Set, well, that's just fine.

And, yeah, if the Hebrew/Arabic/Pali/Sanskrit/Chinese bits were transliterated, or even translated, big whoop. Let it be. Then again, I live in a country where the faith I held found very little expression, but I was forced by abide by others'.

[uriel1972]

3. erm... if people want to put it on their private property...

Then so be it, but public land is public land and as I understand it in the USA the Constitution does have a word to say in that.
I could go on about it being extremely provocative to those who don't share the "Faith", however I doubt it would affect you.
As I've said before, why must atheists "Live and let live" and never receive any form of compromise from the "Faithful" except what can be gained grudgingly from the courts.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. The very first line of the 10 commandments excludes all non-abrahamic gods.

It does not belong on public property. Full stop.

[Iggo]

5. I care. (n/t)

[Act_of_Reparation]

6. None of that shit should be charged to public funds.

And since there's an Establishment Clause, that's not just me.

[trotsky]

8. That's nice. Good thing your opinion doesn't matter.

The First Amendment is all that does. And that says there shall be no public/government endorsement of any religion. At least not until the Repubs have stolen enough Supreme Court seats.

[Bretton Garcia]

7. Solutions?

Such things have been maginally allowed by SCOTUS, possibly on two grounds. One 1) freedom of religion. But even more 2) such old ideas have value as "history." Connections made in the past.

But first of all, 1) this was a new monument; not an historical one. And second? In a 2) similar recent case, contributions were solicited to, in addition to the monument, build a wall between the monument, and the statehouse. To symbolize the - note if you insist, historical - "Wall of separation between church and state "