Opinion: Nonbelievers should help rebuild a Ten Commandments monument, but not on public property

To the editor: I firmly believe that displaying Christianity’s texts on public property — other than, say, in a museum’s religious artifacts section — violates the 1st Amendment’s prohibition on government endorsement of religion. (“Destruction of Arkansas’ Ten Commandments monument places spotlight on separation of church and state,” June 28)

Still, there’s no excuse for an addled vandal’s destruction of the Arkansas state capitol’s Ten Commandments monument. He should be held fully responsible for his crime. Though some fellow agnostics may welcome that monument’s destruction, I urge them to join me in underwriting a replacement.

Just one proviso: That replacement must be positioned away from public property. Lawns of churches, monasteries, convents, parsonages and the like would seem ideal. There, such monuments can be designed and sized to please sectarian tastes.

Best of all, they would be revered by most all who viewed them, and the venerable church-state wall would be kept intact.

Gary Dolgin, Santa Monica

..

To the editor: Presumably, Robert Tate Reed allegedly drove his vehicle into the Ten Commandments monument to communicate his view about the separation of church and state. While expressing his opinion is protected speech, no one really thinks he has the right to destroy public property and endanger others in pursuing his expressive display.

Why not? Because one cannot express oneself via conduct that a state regards as harmful to others and regulates via its civil and criminal laws. This is black-letter law under the 10th Amendment, which reserves police power to the states to decide what conduct is harmful to its residents.

Why then would anyone countenance a baker’s conduct in refusing to prepare a cake for a gay couple when the state in which this conduct occurred has banned such discrimination? Answer: hypocrisy.

Michael Weinbaum, San Clemente

..

To the editor: “‘I’m born and raised in the Bible Belt,’ Republican state Sen. Dave Wallace said Wednesday. ‘I, for certain, don’t see anything wrong with it.’”

Well I do, sir. I won’t argue the esthetics of the monument or the issue of separation of church and state. I do take offense, however, that the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments was chosen, not the Jewish or Catholic version.

I know that many American and Western — and Muslim — ideals are based on the teachings of the Bible and the Ten Commandments in particular. But how, Sen. Wallace, can public officials decide that one version of the Commandments is more legitimate and worthy of placement on state property than another?

Ellen Scharlin, Encino

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook