More on the Dalai Lama's visit to Bloomington

By Scott Tibbs, November 27, 2007

There have been several letters defending the way city government promoted the Dalai Lama's visit to Bloomington, which merit a response.

David Patin misses the point himself in claiming that people who want the Ten Commandments to be displayed are missing the point. Had the city simply announced that a world leader was visiting Bloomington and included non-religious art from Tibet, there would not have been a problem. The problem was the artwork displaying religious images, specifically a very large mural depicting a Buddha. Should the Ten Commandments be displayed in City Hall? No, but neither should Buddhist artwork.

John Brewer actually argues for discrimination based on the content of religious belief. Regardless of what one thinks of the exclusionary nature of Christianity, to argue that city government should discriminate based on whether a religion is Politically Correct is simply un-American. Furthermore, it is absurd to claim that all Christians should be held accountable for those who have killed while claiming the name of Jesus Christ.

Michael McCafferty makes the laughable statement that The Ten Commandants say that there shouldn’t be strange gods "before" Jehovah, not that you can’t have strange gods. This is an intentional "misinterpretation" of the Bible's prohibition of idolatry. In other words, it is a lie.

The Bible prohibits all worship of other gods. Leviticus 19, Deuteronomy 13, Judges 3, I Samuel 15 and Isaiah 44 are just a few places where this prohibition is made. Liberals love to misuse the Ten Commandments to justify sin, while intentionally ignoring the rest of the Bible. But II Timothy 3:16-17 says that All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. You don't get to pick and choose.

Finally, since when is the American Civil Liberties Union the final authority on what is and is not constitutional? Because the ACLU did not complain about the images of Buddha, it is automatically constitutional? This is just silly. The ACLU does a lot of good things, but to argue that something is constitutional unless they complain about it is just plain stupid. Has the ACLU complained about every single display of the Ten Commandments and every single inscription of Scripture in a public building? By McCafferty's own "logic", they must all be constitutional.

Comment on this post.