# Should the 10 commandments be allowed in gov't buildings?



## ginshun (Mar 4, 2005)

Since it is in the news, I thought I would get some other peoples opinions on it.

 Personally, I am not a Christian, and I am not going to display them in my house or anything, but they don't offend me either.  I think that if you are walking through a courthouse, and you are offended just by seeing a monument with them on then you really need to get a life.

 So, I guess my opinion is to just leave them there and not even bother with the whole thing, but I am not going to shed a tear if they are taken out either.

 What I do think, is that the whole case is a waste of time, and the Supreme Court really should have something better to worry about.

 But that is just one mans opinion, what do you guys think?


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 4, 2005)

I think you should provide a reference to the story, if you want to talk about it.  It's just good form.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 4, 2005)

Its been all over the news, but here is a link to a story from Reuters on Yahoo! News.

 Supreme Court Considers Ten Commandments Displays


----------



## Ray (Mar 4, 2005)

If Hammurabi's code can be displayed as an example of early law then the 10 commandments can, too.

Three are currently enforced in some form in the US: murder, stealing and bearing false witness.  Three, though not enshrined in current code, are pretty good ideas:  Honor Mom & Dad, adultery and coveting.  

Does it constitute establishment of a state religion to display them?  Probably not.  Should it be a big divisive issue?  No.


----------



## Deuce (Mar 4, 2005)

I really don't think this is a big deal. I suppose it's easy for me to say that being a christian and all, but I'd feel the same if there were other religious beliefs posted in public. Sure, the ten commandments have a christian origin, but in this case it's being displayed as a symbol of law. Leave it up, take it down, or add a disclaimer, it really makes no difference to me.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 4, 2005)

Ironically, the ten commandments have a Jewish background, not a Christian one, but I don't hear the Jews making much of an issue one way or the other.

As a Christian, I don't care.  "State sanctioning" of my beliefs doesn't interest me..  Not that I think it's bad or good, it's just kinda 'so what?'  I wouldn't care if they put up verses from the Koran or whatever.  I think it's more motivated by a desire to feel justified or included in the group or whatever.  I don't find much in the bible that says I should worry too much about what any government thinks about Christianity or that my position with God is contigent on what other people think so...I don't worry abuot it one way or the other.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 4, 2005)

This will surprise people but here is my opinion on this:

I think that the Ten Commandments and other historical documents of cultures trying to formalize law should be written or allowed in goverenmental buildings, as historical references.

You cannot move forward until you really understand where you ahve been and what ground has already been covered.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 4, 2005)

Rich, I totally agree with that.:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 4, 2005)

I'll be interested to read opinions the day after some radical fundamentalist Islamic group sneaks into a Federal courthouse in the middle of the night, leaves a ten-ton rock with, "THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH AND MOHAMMED IS HIS PROPHET," behind, then uses the resulting furor to push their fundamentalist candidates for public office, then gives repeated press conferences in which they accuse everybody else of being America-hating godless monsters.

These claims about, "history," are, as everybody knows, simply a fig leaf. If fundamentalist Protestants simply were doing that, there'd be no problemo with hardly anybody. Regrettably, that isn't even close to what's going on.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 4, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> If fundamentalist Protestants simply were doing that, there'd be no problemo with hardly anybody. Regrettably, that isn't even close to what's going on.


I see this point, however, don't you see it as overkill to comprehensively disallow anything that even remotely smells of extremism?  It seems to me to be a bit over the top.  Why not focus on the specific instances wherein people's civil liberties are being infringed upon?

There is, of course, a motivating force to all things.  Attacking all things that are remotely related to a cause, as opposed to the circumstances where people are actually being treated unfairly is immoderate, in my opinion.


----------



## Ray (Mar 4, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> "THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH AND MOHAMMED IS HIS PROPHET"...
> 
> These claims about, "history," are, as everybody knows, simply a fig leaf. If fundamentalist Protestants simply were doing that, there'd be no problemo with hardly anybody. Regrettably, that isn't even close to what's going on.


I disagree that claims of "history" are [is?] a fig leaf (or are fig "leaves"?).  A big rock with the inscription "There is no God but Allah..." does not contribute to anyone's historical knowledge.  Now, something from Koranic legislation or sharia (sp?) might be appropriate.  And if it is important to leave out the religious parts of the 10 commandments "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" etc but to show the historical nature of the commandments, then I suppose that could be done.

Is there an appropriate venue for a display of historical legal development?  Is it in the courthouse?  Certainly the display behind the supreme court has a depiction of the 10 commandments in some fashion.

Does a display of historical legal development, in its appropriate venue, exclude everything religious?  Why would it?  Excluding everything religious would also preclude the historical lessons in school showing Geo Washington praying with his troops and being a religious man of high moral fiber---those things shouldn't be excluded from lessons on the Father of Our Country anymore than the beliefs of Gandhi when learning of him.  The depth and breadth of it should be appropriate to the audience. 

The day that this kind of action brings about a restriction for me or my children to pray in school or in public (or to be forced to pray in school or in public) is the day when the we've gone too far.  Whether one must walk past the 10 commandments as they're going to see the judge is a non-issue.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 4, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I'll be interested to read opinions the day after some radical fundamentalist Islamic group sneaks into a Federal courthouse in the middle of the night, leaves a ten-ton rock with, "THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH AND MOHAMMED IS HIS PROPHET," behind, then uses the resulting furor to push their fundamentalist candidates for public office, then gives repeated press conferences in which they accuse everybody else of being America-hating godless monsters.
> 
> These claims about, "history," are, as everybody knows, simply a fig leaf. If fundamentalist Protestants simply were doing that, there'd be no problemo with hardly anybody. Regrettably, that isn't even close to what's going on.


 You honestly think that the situation you described parallels the current state of America?

   I knew we thought about things differently, but if that is really the way you see things, then I think now I just pity you.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 4, 2005)

Since most western law is blatantly based in religious morals. There obviously is historical value to the root of western law. I wouldnt expect the 10 commandments to be posted in an Islamic courthouse, because their historical root is obviously different. We still place our hands on bibles when taking the oath in this country.....


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 4, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I'll be interested to read opinions the day after some radical fundamentalist Islamic group sneaks into a Federal courthouse in the middle of the night, leaves a ten-ton rock with, "THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH AND MOHAMMED IS HIS PROPHET," behind, then uses the resulting furor to push their fundamentalist candidates for public office, then gives repeated press conferences in which they accuse everybody else of being America-hating godless monsters.
> 
> These claims about, "history," are, as everybody knows, simply a fig leaf. If fundamentalist Protestants simply were doing that, there'd be no problemo with hardly anybody. Regrettably, that isn't even close to what's going on.



rmcrobertson,

But I see nothing wrong with the Tenants of Islam and the laws there of as an example historical law to help stabalize the culture and population.

To put it in a place as a sign of worship, or make those pay homage too it, I disagree with this as well I would the Bible or Ten Commandments being in the same place.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> We still place our hands on bibles when taking the oath in this country.....


 
 I never even thought of that.  Do they still / actually do that in court for the witnesses?  As in place your hand on the Bible and swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?  

 That seems like a much more blatent endorsment of Christianity than walking past a plaque or statue.

 Do you *have* to do it to testify in court? What if you are not Christian? I don't know if I would be comfortable doing that, seeing as how I don't even believe what is written in it.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 4, 2005)

Depends on the courthouse...some just have you raise your right hand...some still have "So help you God" as part of the oath...some dont.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 4, 2005)

and in the end, if the person saying it doesn't mean it, does it mean anything?

How many people take that oath and then lie?

It's not a statement of faith, it's just a common way of trying to get other people to believe you are going to tell the truth.

  Ironically, if you don't believe in the bible your hand is on or the 'God' you are swearing to, it really lets you of the hook from even attempting to honor ut


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 4, 2005)

1. Pity away; personally, I'll be sticking with the humanist and Enlightenment traditions and ways of knowing upon which our Constitution rests.

2. For the umpteenth time: nobody in their right mind is arguing that anybody's rights to believe, or to pray, should be taken or limited in any fashion whatsoever. We're simply going with the Constitution as interpreted by some very conservative people opver the last two hundred plus years: the power of the goevernment, and the money of the taxpayers, should not be used to push fundamentalist Protestantism.

3. You folks would do well to read up on the guys you're supporting, and the issues they repeatedly cite. The judge in Alabama, Roy what's-'is-name, is NOT, repeat NOT, merely posting the Ten Commandments and letting that be enough. Oh my goodness, no. He and a group of followers--fundamentalists all--have been demanding that their views and their views only be put into courthouses for quite some time; they snuck in with a ten-ton rock with the Commandments attached; they're running the guy for office. What's more, he and his supporters are citing PRECISELY the State's Rights doctrines that have been used, again and again and again, to block Federal laws about minor things like voting rights for a century and a half.

4. The notion that citing the essence of Islam contributes nothing to the historical understanding of Western law, or to the understanding of this country's history, is absurd. Moreover, my point was that--despite the repeatedly-cited smokescreen--this has nothing to do with, "religion," in general. (Unless of course you think that the words, "religion," and, "Protestantism," are synonyms.) It has to do with the State's sponsorship of a particular religion. 

The oral arguments in the Supreme Court on Wednesday--which, despite the frequent lying and distortion by right-wingers, is a quite conservative Court--specifically addressed the issue of the difference between a ceremonial remark such as, "God bless this honorable Court," and the systematic, explicit sponsorship of a particular sect.

Listen up, guys: what you are supporting is not religion, or even Christianity in general. What you are flogging is the narrow, extremely-conservative Christian fundamentalism pushed by guys like Jay Sekula, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell ("9/11 is God's punishment for homosexuals and the ACLU..."), Bob Jones and the rest of these clowns.

These are the guys who are pushing this, together with an occasion somewhat wacky atheist or two. The fundamentalists are well-financed, they are insistent, they have pretty much the same set of beliefs as the guys currently running Iran or the Taliban, and they have been extremely explicit about their plans and their strategies. It isn't "Christians," it ain't Catholics, it ain't Buddhists and Muslims, and it damn sure ain't Jews. It ain't even Jimmy Carter, a Southern Baptist his whole life, or Cornell West, deacon of his church for decades. You're arguing for right-wing Christian fundamentalism.

So if you're on their side, it's certainly your prerogative as an American citizen--a prerogative, I might add, fought for by the very humanists and Enlightenment people who you fantasize are your enemy. So support Robertson, Falwell ("9/11 is God's just punishment for the ACLU"), and the likes of Ollie North (arms for hostages/death squads for Christianity Ollie) as much as you like.

Just be honest about what you're arguing for.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 4, 2005)

All it really means is that if you are caught in a lie, the court can drop a perjury charge on you.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 4, 2005)

Funny how if "one" doesn't agree 100% with "ones" point of view than "one" is automatically supporting some extreme right wing agenda.

I guess if "one" doesn't support religious content in public buildings 100% than "one" must be an extreme left wing liberal hippy....


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 4, 2005)

And funny, too, that people refuse to find out what it is that they're supporting. Hilarious that they are unable to explain, and therefore must try, "if "one" doesn't agree 100% with "ones" point of view than "one" is automatically supporting some extreme right wing agenda." Absurd that they project onto others their own reductionism.

I can provide documentation to back up my claims. Can you?

Please supply an example of any Catholic, mainstream Protestant, Buddhist, Islamic, Jewish or ecumenical group that is pushing the display of religious symbols in public buildings.

Then, try WorldNet Daily's various articles supporting Roy Moore, including:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34192


----------



## Tgace (Mar 4, 2005)

So EVERY courthouse that posts the 10 commandments is part of an extreme right wing agenda??? And if you are just saying "I dont have a problem with them being in a courthouse." then you are supporting an extremist take-over of the gvt????

I dont recall making any "claim" to support other than saying that our cultures legal history has roots of Christian religious origin, among many others...mostly of Western cultural influence...

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/histlaw.htm


----------



## donald (Mar 4, 2005)

Should'nt the citizens of the affected community be the ones who decide if something stands or falls in their community? On the federal level, should'nt we the citizens decide if something should, or should'nt be displayed on OUR(ie.federal) property? Is'nt that how a demacratic society works?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 4, 2005)

1. I certainly didn't argue that every presentation of the Ten Commandments was the product of some right-wing agenda. That's YOUR fantasy, not mine. I argued that Roy Moore's sneaking a two-ton rock into a courthouse in the middle of the night, and following that up with daily prayer rallies by fundamentalists that were supported by groups like Jay Sekulow's ACLJ, damn sure were right-wing, Protestant fundamentalist events. I also argued that when guys like Savage screech about "religion," they mean only one particular part of one particular religion. Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Buddhists, etc., need not apply.

And oh, by the way, citing a Web dictionary that says "there is some truth in," the idea that we owe our legal system and government to Christian ideals is not exactly overwhelming evidence for your argument.

2. I wish folks would find out what the Constitution actually says, what our legal tradition in the matters has been, and what actually hppened in American history. (I really DO blame teachers for this, but that's another issue....) NO, "the local community," is not free to do whatever crackpot thing they decide would be nifty. UNFORTUNATELY, the history actually says that again and again, this, "state's rights," argument has been used to defend slavery and Jim Crow and segregation, book-burning in all its charming variety, and the whole panoply of rightist and wacko ideas. IN FACT, there are Constitutional and legal limits on what citizens can do, and what communities can do.

Roughly speaking, the Constitution actually says that you can't vote away your rights or anybody else's. In this particular case, the Constitution actually says (and two hundred years of legal tradition supports the idea, I might add) that neither the State, nor the federal government, is allowed to push for any particular religion, or for "religion," itself. As far as we can tell, the "original intent," of the Framers was to say that all that stuff is the People's business, NOT the government's. You and I are supposed to decide what we believe, what/who we worship, how we worship, who we get together with to worship. You and I, NOT THE LOCAL JUDGE. 

And oh yeah, you and I do NOT get to get together with a mob, or with my sister the mayor, or with the local school board, or even with the Federal government, and start telling everybody else how to believe and to worship. We're Constitutionally barred from this, and the courts have pretty clearly been saying exactly the same thing for the last two hundred years. I don't get to have the school teach my religious views. Neither do you. I don't get to lead school kids is the Prayer to Joseph Stalin (just kidding); you don't get to lead schoolkids in the Lord's Prayer at school. Doesn't matter who's right, who's wrong, who's got the majority on their side. 

In fact, the clear intent of the law and the Constitution seems to be that it doesn't matter a damn if ONE person in the tri-strate area worships differently--you don't get to have the government tell them to cut it out.

Just incidentally, this is so because the Framers wanted to protect YOUR rights to worsip as you wish.

Which is why this stuff ticks me off--far from what people seem to think, it's a radical redefinition of the Constitution and American history.

I realize that some of you will just read this as further evidence of liberal evil, or pointy-head intellectualism, or whatever. You may even see it as further proof of whatever pet theory you have about me personally. Fine.

But try to keep a few things in mind: 1) I'm not the one sneaking into the courthouse with the big rock; 2) I'm not the one getting on the radio and the TV and yelling that the ACLU and lesbians are bringing down the Great Punta's wrath on America; c) I'm not the one demanding that everybody recite whatever holy book I believe in every morning before they start school, and I'm not the one demanding that everybody get up and recite some Pledge that me and my buddies rewrote some year when we were making specially wacked-out politicial decisions because we were afraid of Joe McCarthy; d) I'm not the one thumping the Good Book while I run for office and screaming about traitors and flag-haters and everybody's going to he-double-hockey-sticks and anyway who are these intellectuals and on and on and on.

Basically, I want what the Constitution offers: to be left the hell alone by the flag-wavers and bully boys, to have my own religious beliefs without some clown in school telling me they're wrong every five minutes, to have my kids or whatever taught in schools that teach real science and real history, and leave the rest of it to the People.

So explain it to me: why do you HAVE to have the Commandments up everywhere, why do you HAVE to have kids reciting a pledge to your God, why can't you just leave it alone?

And oh yes--have you guys ever actually READ the damn Constitution, let alone an important Supreme Court decision?

Oh well. Me shut up now; taking self too seriously. Have at it.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Mar 4, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> Ironically, the ten commandments have a Jewish background, not a Christian one, but I don't hear the Jews making much of an issue one way or the other.


Okay - here's The Jew making an issue one way or the other. 

No. No. And, no.

Why?  

Read Robert's posts which, despite some of the political windmills he tilts at, make perfect sense.  The presence of *a big rock* with the Ten Commandments engraved into it displayed in a public place is symbolic of other agendae in this country, as Robert pointed out.  In my opinion, it's inappropriate -- and potentially dangerous to (political) life as we know it. 

That's why.


----------



## Ray (Mar 4, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. For the umpteenth time: nobody in their right mind is arguing that anybody's rights to believe, or to pray, should be taken or limited in any fashion whatsoever. We're simply going with the Constitution as interpreted by some very conservative people opver the last two hundred plus years: the power of the goevernment, and the money of the taxpayers, should not be used to push fundamentalist Protestantism.


No one here on this web-site is arguing anybody's right to believe.  But there have been nights in school when people (profs included) were arguing my right to believe.  In more than one class, too.  And they started it, not knowing my religious affiliation.

You should have been with my son a couple years ago when a teacher in an elementary school told him he could not give a blessing on his food at lunch time.  And we're talking a bowed head, closed eyes and a quiet prayer.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 3. You folks would do well to read up on the guys you're supporting...


Dis-include me in that, I am not supporting any of those people.  But I don't necessarily believe that a display of the ten commandments is an unconstitutional establishment of religion.  A HUGE display is not the right display - the supreme court's display is okay (it doesn't show the text of the commandments).



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 4. The notion that citing the essence of Islam contributes nothing to the historical understanding of Western law...


I have nothing against quotes from Koranic legislation or Sharia being similarly displayed.  And my feelings wouldn't be hurt if there were no display.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Listen up, guys: what you are supporting is not religion, or even Christianity in general....


I support none of those people.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Just be honest about what you're arguing for.


I'm not arguing. You be honest too, there are those on the opposite spectrum-end of the "fanatics" you name that would, if they could, take away my right to pray in public--or to say that (for example, not that I have said it) homosexuality is a sin.


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 4, 2005)

> 2. I wish folks would find out what the Constitution actually says, what our legal tradition in the matters has been, and what actually hppened in American history


No, what you wish for is that people would agree with your interpretation of the Constitution.  I will quote the Bill of Rights  for everyone to see that we are all on the same page.  

First Amendment:



> CONGRESS shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Tenth Amendment:


> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The Bill of Rights lays out what the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can or can't do, not what the states can or can't do.  



> The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added


Right from the first paragraph of the Bill. It states the purpose and that is limiting the federal govt' in state matters. It wasn't uncommon for states to authorize public land to support various churches. Also, in relating to the 1st amendment Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1804, "While we deny that Congress has a right to control the freedom of the press, we have ever asserted the right of the States, and their exclusive right to do so".  

Some states (Viriginia, Rhode Island, and New York) only ratified the new Constitution with statements that they could voluntarily withdraw from this for fear that the new federal government would infringed on their rights of self-government.

Explain how this is not about states rights?


----------



## DuneViking (Mar 4, 2005)

So, should we take down the 10 coms displayed in the US congress rotundra?

Seems to me I recall the founding Fathers making refs to God, and what about the Pledge of Allegiance, "one nation under God. . . " ? 

Seems to me there was a document written of historical significance about Wed, Mar 4, 1789, that said in article 3 something like 

*"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievences"* 

and that same doc said nothing about separatin' church and state, regardless of the arguments to the contrary, those word do not exist in it, unless I missed something . . ???


----------



## Ray (Mar 4, 2005)

DuneViking said:
			
		

> Seems to me I recall the founding Fathers making refs to God, and what about the Pledge of Allegiance, "one nation under God. . . " ?
> QUOTE]Good try, but no.  The founding fathers didn't write the pledge.  The author did not put in "one nation under God."  It was added by congress during the 50's;  terrible fear of atheistic USSR times.


----------



## DuneViking (Mar 4, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> DuneViking said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DuneViking (Mar 4, 2005)

Also : 
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html


From the Declaration of Independence . . .

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
*The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,*

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation


While I can't find them at the moment, there are available early drafts of documents with references not only to God, but to eliminate slavery, and other things my senile mind can't recall . . . My point is, there is no separation of church and state clause, and the nation was founded on principles modeled after some of the prevailing christian religious thought, but even then it was a tricky business and most of that type of wording was upgraded to be politically correct.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 5, 2005)

Sigh.

1. The previous poster is quoting the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, which is what's at issue here. It may be worth pointing out that neither document specifically cites Christianity, but refers instead to, "Nature's God," and "Creator," which may very well be at odds with the notion that the Framers were Christians in exactly the sense that, say, Pat Robertson has in mind. 

2. At the risk of pointing out what citizrens are supposed to know already, Federal law supersedes State law. We are a republic, not a Confederacy. Moreover, the Constitution specifically supersedes State and local law in all situations where such things as civil rights are at issue. This has been stated againb and again and again in the legal record--and, I might add, it has been stated very strongly indeed with regard to civil rights. It is also worth noting that claims of, "State's Rights," have been, historically, associated again and again with resistance to civil rights and freedoms of all sorts.

3. Obviously, schoolteachers have no right whatsoever to tell children that they may not pray before lunch (not to mention the fact that any teacher who would do so is an idiot anyway). it should be noted that this is for EXACTLY the same reason that schoolteachers have no right to lead children in prayer of any kind whatsoever: the Constution, and 200 years of evolution in Constitutional law, have made it clear as clear can be that employees of the government are not supposed to be enforcing their private religious beliefs, whatever they happen to be. 

4. You will find it instructive to get on a few of the Christian Right websites, and look at both their claims about the United States being exclusively (and exclusionarily) a Christian nation, and their insistence that the disappearance of forced school prayer is the cause of the rising crime rate, teenage pregnancy, drugs, the decline of the family, the teaching of evolution, the rise of homosexuality, and Dr. Seuss and Harry Potter and Judy Blume. No doubt when children are again forced by the government to pray to whoever Jerry Falwell thinks appropriate, these things will disappear too.

5. It is not mainstream Christian organizations that are supporting these big rocks with sky-god commandments carved into them. Groups such as the National Council of Churches agree with the Supreme Court; groups such as the Anti-defamation League argue that the rise of these right-wing demands is directly a threat to the Jewish community in this country. Be sure that you want to support the likes of Michael Savage, Ollie North, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggert, Phyllis Schafly, and the rest of this pack of loons that Jefferson would most likely have horsewhipped.

6. While we're on the subject, Jefferson--who pretty much wrote the Constitution--was a Deist, a humanist and rationalist, and apparently a Mason. His central ideas are in opposition to just about everything they teach at, say, Bob Jones University.


----------



## donald (Mar 5, 2005)

What I believe most of the nay sayers fail to recognize about this issue. Is that these things were at one time permitted with out hesitation. Due to the fact. That at one time this nation was primarily christian in faith, and practice. I know alot of you are going to suggest different actions of our nation in the early years as being blatantly anti-christian. I whole heartedly agree with that assesment, at least in part. That does'nt change the fact that the majority of the population was christian. Therfore, it was smart politics to play at being a christian believer. Things have(to our shame)changed some what since those early days. Back then we would'nt question whether displaying the 10 commandments was right or not. It was accepted as being right. Our common sense has become askewed when we consider displaying God's word as being questionable. It is a list of reminders of what The Lord Jesus has already put into the heart of man, as right, and wrong. Why argue with that?


----------



## donald (Mar 5, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> . No doubt when children are again forced by the government to pray to whoever Jerry Falwell thinks appropriate, these things will disappear too.
> 
> What? Its not who Mr.Falwell says who to pray to. It is who GOD says to pray to. You may argue all you want about the validity of man's words, but GOD'S??!!


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 5, 2005)

I think 'THOU SHALT NOT KILL' would be appropriate on the Texas Governor's Mansion.


----------



## Ray (Mar 5, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> At the risk of pointing out what citizrens are supposed to know already, Federal law supersedes State law.


Federal Law is not automatically a trump card superseding every state law that it comes into contact with.  When a federal law comes into contact with a state law then the law which give greater protection receives precedence.


			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Moreover, the Constitution specifically supersedes State and local law in all situations where such things as civil rights are at issue.


Yes, but you believe that your interpretation of the constitution supersedes everyone elses.


			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Obviously, schoolteachers have no right whatsoever to tell children that they may not pray before lunch (not to mention the fact that any teacher who would do so is an idiot anyway).


Obvious to you and me.  But not to extremists who would believe that people who practice religion should do so locked away in the confines of their homes; that there should never be a religious display in public or a religious word spoken.  There are those people...I've come acrossed a few.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> You will find it instructive to get on a few of the Christian Right websites, and look at both their claims about the United States being exclusively (and exclusionarily) a Christian nation


They have the right to believe that.  And you have the right to believe differently.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It is not mainstream Christian organizations that are supporting these big rocks with sky-god commandments carved into them.


I don't know the sky-god, which system of belief are you referring to?

I'm curious: Would you support a gov't funded museum displaying artifacts and writings from different religious backgrounds (Egyptian, Hebrew, Babylonian)?  Even more modern display, too?  Obviously religion is one of the constituents of history and culture.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Groups such as the National Council of Churches agree with the Supreme Court


I do not belong to the national council of churches.  But I will abide by the supreme court's decision; my people always have.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> While we're on the subject, Jefferson--who pretty much wrote the Constitution--was a Deist, a humanist and rationalist


Nice to have idols, isn't it?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 5, 2005)

As always. michaeledward rocks.

Ray, you're probably right. However, what you wrote differs from your earlier claim that states were entitled to abrogate the Constitution.

As for others, "Old Noboddy aloft/Farted and belched and coughed/And said, I love hanging and drawing and quartering/Every bit as much as slaying and slaughtering."

If Freud, "Future of an Illusion," is wrong--and I don't think it is--I pretty much guarantee you that, a) we won't be judged on belief, but on decency; b) any decent Deity would be warming up a special place for the moral imbeciles who think that sticking the Commandments on a rock is the same thing as worship.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 7, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I think 'THOU SHALT NOT KILL' would be appropriate on the Texas Governor's Mansion.


 
   For what it is worth, I think that it is relatively well accepted that that is an incorrect translation from the old Hebrew texts, and it should actually say, "Thou shalt not Murder", but I digress.

  Back to the point.  Please explain again how displaying a statue in a few courtouses is a government esablishment of religion?  How does that statue force people into Judao-Christian beliefs?  I guess I just don't see the connection.

 Also, you seen to love bringing up Jerry Fallwell, Michael Savage, Pat Robertson ect., but I don't remember hearing any of them pushing for the US  Government to pass any laws to establish Christianity as a national religion.  The people who are bringing this case, are the ones who are against religion, and are trying to change the status quo.

 Like I originally said, I could pretty much care less whether they are displayed or not, I think it is just a huge waste of everybodies time (and monley) to go through a lengthy court battle over something that I see as pretty much trivial.


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 7, 2005)

Does this mean no more swearing over the Bible? Please raise your "right" hand. Are these just silly motions we go through for the hell of it?

I guess that's what's next to be removed after the commandments are gone. But if you're going to lie under "oath", why should the 10 commandments bother you?


----------



## raedyn (Mar 7, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Please explain again how displaying a statue in a few courtouses is a government esablishment of religion? How does that statue force people into Judao-Christian beliefs?


It doesn't _force_ anyone into Judao-Christian beliefs. But it does contribute to creating an environment hostile to divergent viewpoints. If you are not Christian and you walk into a public building with a Cross prominently displayed on it, and Christian writings are given a special place of prominence, and they force you to take an oath that you seal by touching THE Christian book... Do you think that's an environment that is welcoming and open to everyone?



			
				ginshun said:
			
		

> Also, you seen to love bringing up Jerry Fallwell, Michael Savage, Pat Robertson ect., but I don't remember hearing any of them pushing for the US Government to pass any laws to establish Christianity as a national religion.


 Well they aren't stupid. That would get shot down pretty damn quickly. But they do try and get all the laws changed to be in accordance with their interpretation of Christian teachings. They do try and have children required to participate in Christian prayers in school, Christian creation stories taught with the same weight as scientific theories, abstinance-only sex education, bible quotes displayed in public buildings, pulling funding for sexual health clinics that offer abortions, not paying for abortions in any circumstance, formally declaring marriage is only between two people of the opposite sex, etc etc.

So in a way, I guess you're right ginshun. They're not asking the government to formally declare "We Are A Christian Nation", but they are asking the government to make it a Christian nation in everything but name. (And with this president, they are on their way)



			
				ginshun said:
			
		

> The people who are bringing this case, are the ones who are against religion, and are trying to change the status quo.


 Wrong. It's the Christian fundamentalists that 'snuck' in with the big rock with the Commandments inscribed on it. "Status quo" was that there was no big rock there.



			
				ginshun said:
			
		

> I think it is just a huge waste of everybodies time (and monley) to go through a lengthy court battle over something that I see as pretty much trivial.


Obviously not everyone sees it as a trivial issue.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 7, 2005)

There is a fundamental difference between my beliefs and, say, those of Michael Savage and Pat Robertson: I do not scream endlessly, on the radio and the TV and from the pulpit, that everybody who disagrees with me is a perverted, America-hating coward who will burn in everylasting hellfire, and probably ought to be hanged for being a traitor anyway. 

The point of my citing Constitutional law and the National Council of Churches was to underline the fact that what I'm arguing is pretty much mainstream opinion, as mapped out by 200 years of legal decisions and the largest American ecumenical organization. 

The claim that a small group of radicals has somehow taken over our courts, schools, etc., and driven God out is ludicrous, a claim--unsupported by reality--that is pushed and pushed and pushed by guys like Falwell, Robertson and Savage for their own financial, political and theological benefit. 

And they do very well with it, having become wealthy and powerful thumping the Bible and screeching that most Americans are, by their, "standards," perverted, damned and traitorous. 

For the umpteenth time: the point of the Constitution, as outlined by legal decisions since, what?--1787?--is that government ought to get out of the God business. For example, you have no right whatsoever to demand that the government force me to put my hand on a Bible and swear a damned thing. (Nor do I understand why you would expect this to be more-trustworthy than a simple promise to tell the truth--unless of course you think that everybody's a Christian and just doesn't know it.) I have no objections to your doing that, pretty much anytime and anyplace you feel the need: why do you feel that you need the law and the government to force me and mine to pray as you wish? Is your faith really so flimsy? Or have you just bought the Big Lie that only your religion is worthy, only your community of believers can be trusted?

Give me Billy Graham's sermons, or C.S. Lewis' writings on being a Christian in a secular society, any day of the week.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 7, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> It doesn't _force_ anyone into Judao-Christian beliefs. But it does contribute to creating an environment hostile to divergent viewpoints. If you are not Christian and you walk into a public building with a Cross prominently displayed on it, and Christian writings are given a special place of prominence, and they force you to take an oath that you seal by touching THE Christian book... Do you think that's an environment that is welcoming and open to everyone?


 I suppose that I could go along with this. I have no problem saying that I believe the culture in America is highly influenced by Christians. Most people here are Christians, so most don't really notice. I am not, so I do. Personally I just don't think much about it though. Having things be there and having them actually affect you, is a choice that people have to make on a personal level. Rarely do I see Christianity being in any way forced up me or anyone else. That being said, I think things like you mentioned only affect you if you let them. 

 Would I be comfortable swearing on the bible? I suppose, if that were what was expected, what is the difference? It would be the same to me as swearing on a book filled with greek mythology, as I hold them in about the same regard. It doesn't offend me to have to do so.




> They do try and have children required to participate in Christian prayers in school,


 I was not aware of this, I would be against that.



> Christian creation stories taught with the same weight as scientific theories


 More belief systems than just Christian have creation myths. As long as it is not taught as a strictctly Christian theory, I don't have a problem with it being taught as an alternate to evolution. Although I do believe fully in evolution, I see no problem offering an alternative. There is some merit to inteligent design IMO.



> abstinance-only sex education


 I think it is safe to say that that is not a good idea, but again, do only Christians believe in the practice of abstinance?



> bible quotes displayed in public buildings


 I didn't know about this either, but most likely wouldn't care either way. Could you list some examples of what you are talking about?



> pulling funding for sexual health clinics that offer abortions, not paying for abortions in any circumstance


 You don't have to be Christian to be against abortion.



> formally declaring marriage is only between two people of the opposite sex


 I could really go either way on this one too. I don't care that much, but I tend to say that if they want to get married let them. Again, I doubt that everyone against gay marraige is a Christian.



> So in a way, I guess you're right ginshun. They're not asking the government to formally declare "We Are A Christian Nation", but they are asking the government to make it a Christian nation in everything but name. (And with this president, they are on their way)


 
 I can see where you are coming from, and I will not deny that it is Christian leaders that are pushing for most of the things that you are talking about. I also can see that many of the things that you are taling about, whether they are right or wrong, are not strictly Christian beliefs.
 I also don't really see why people give old W such a bad wrap for being openly Christian, and admiting that his faith influences his decisions. I personally don't see him forcing religion on anyone. It doesn't seem to me that he looks down on those people who are not religious. Something has to influence and shape his morals, it doesn't offend me that he admits that Christianity does so. It would be fine with me if he said that Islam, or Judism or Rastifarianism were influencing him. What influences everyone elses morals? I think, like it or not, a lot of the morals that we as a society hold in high regard, were at one point or another, influenced by religion.




> Wrong. It's the Christian fundamentalists that 'snuck' in with the big rock with the Commandments inscribed on it. "Status quo" was that there was no big rock there.


 If there were the only one place in the country that the 10 Commandments were placed in a courthouse, then I could agree with you. That, however is not the case. I don't remmeber a massive movment all over the coutry of people erecting courthouse statues of the Commandments or anyone saying that all courthouses should be required to have them.



 I suppose that the only way that I could see the stuff we are talking about being anything more that trivial to me is if I were a devoutly religious person, or if I were really against religion in general. I am niether of those. Really I don't think that this stuff has much of an effect on anyone's day to day life, unless you are a member of one of those two groups, so it kind of boggles me why people get so excited about it.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 7, 2005)

> The point of my citing Constitutional law and the National Council of Churches was to underline the fact that what I'm arguing is pretty much mainstream opinion, as mapped out by 200 years of legal decisions and the largest American ecumenical organization.


 I doubt that the majority opinion of the US population is that the 10 commandments aught to be removed from all public buildings.


----------



## Deuce (Mar 7, 2005)

What do you guys think about Christmas decorations being displayed in public and government institutions? Most places that I've been to have x-mas decorations all over the place during the season, on government, city and private property. Should people have to be exposed to a nativity scene while driving down a public street? 

If people don't see religious symbols in a government building, they'll still see it elsewhere displayed on private property, so removing the 10 commandments won't prevent people from "having religion forced on them", which seems to be the justification for the removal of relgious symbols for some people. Should would restrict religious symbols from being in public view while on private property to prevent offending others?

I really don't have an opinion one way or another about what is displayed in court rooms, I just wanted to bring up some comparisons to think about, or maybe it's not comparable?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 7, 2005)

First off, the objection to Hizzoner isn't that he's a Christian. It's that he's a hypocrite. I suggest that you compare President Bush's biography, political life, and moral decisions to that of another not-so-good President, Jimmy carter, a lifelong Southern Baptist.

Second off, most major religious institutions in this country either oppose, or are silent upon, the question of forced prayer in public schools. It's the relative minority of Bible-thumpers who are pushing it, for financial and political gain.

Third off, the constellation of ideas that, "ginshun," proposes are pretty much in line with what the Christian Right wants. Let's go down that path...what's there?


----------



## ginshun (Mar 7, 2005)

Wait, what do I want?  I didn't realize that I proposed anything.  [face_confused]


----------



## Tgace (Mar 7, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Wait, what do I want? I didn't realize that I proposed anything. [face_confused]


Thats just part of "ones" argument strategy. If you dont fully oppose the point in debate then you are automatically proposing something that supports a radical right wing nutball group. Its an easy way to polarize the majority of posters......


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 7, 2005)

First off, would this be somewhat like the practice, beloved of the Michael Savages of the world, of screeching that anyone who dosen't agree with them hates America? These are the guys who appear to need so much stroking that they encourage callers to being by declaring that they're a, "dittohead," (Limbaugh), or, "You're a great American, Shawn," (Hannity).

Second off, please do what I did--actually read, "Ginshun's," post. He repeatedly wrote that he, "didn't care," whether the Ten Commandments were posted or not, and whether or not we swore on Bibles--so that practice of imposing conservative religious doctrine on everyone would continue. He remarked that he too opposed abortion, and looked to me like he argued for abstinence-only sex ed...so on reproductive rights and sexuality, there's the Christian Right position. And, he asserted that he didn't see anything wrong with teaching pseudo-science such as, "Intelligent Design," theory--I confess to assuming that he meant in science classes. 

Third off, glad to see that others besides me think of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggert, Bob Jones et al as belonging to, "a radical right wing nutball group." One wonders how to square that we the repeated asseretion that their ideas are precisely those of a majority of decent Americans, but wotthehell...

Personally, I've no objections to posting the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, along with examples of the other ancient codes upon which our system of laws is distantly based. I don't mind Christmas lights and a tree or two, because I enjoy the spectacle of Christians worshiping a pagan phallic image with lights on it. I don't particularly care for, but I am willing to be polite about, the distorted version of the Pledge of Allegiance imposed on us by a ***********, red-baiting Congress back in 1954.

But the bit with the Big Rock with the Great Punta's words carved on it...it's a bit much. And the attack on rational sex education, actual science and an occasional note that, gee, not everybody in the world is either Fundamentalist or even straight...it's way more than much.

Get on some of the loonboxes' web sites...Bob Jones University....the 700 Club...Orel Roberts....then compare what they say to groups like Christian Identioty and the Church of Creator...then get back to us.

In other words, some of you folks need to actually take the time to find out what it is that you're supporting.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 8, 2005)

rmcrobertson, with all your rederic and telling people to actually read stuff, I would think that maybe you would take your own advise.  Your reading comprehension seams to be seriously lacking from what I can see.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Second off, please do what I did--actually read, "Ginshun's," post. He repeatedly wrote that he, "didn't care," whether the Ten Commandments were posted or not, and whether or not we swore on Bibles--so that practice of imposing conservative religious doctrine on everyone would continue.


 So by your reasoning, my not caring either way equals my wanting to impose conservative religous doctrine on people?  Nice leap of logic there slick.  Personally I don't see having to walk by a statue with some ancient words on as the Christain right trying to impose their religious doctrine on me, but I guess I am just not as sensative as some people.  And from what people have said in the rest of the thread, swearing on the bible doesn't seem to be a universal practice, so you could probably do it or not, I don't really know.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> He remarked that he too opposed abortion,


 No, I didn't.  I stated that not everyone against abortion is a Christian.  I never stated my stance on abortion.  My stance is actually that it is moraly wrong, and that I think there are better choices that can be made, but I also think that it should not be against the law.  Pro-choice with a caveat I suppose.


			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> and looked to me like he argued for abstinence-only sex ed...so on reproductive rights and sexuality, there's the Christian Right position.


 Wrong again, go back and read what I actaully said.  I said that it was a bad idea first off, but I also said that not only Christains are for teaching abstinence.  I stand by that statement.  I never said I personally was against it.  Personally I think it is ridiculous to try and teach sex ed without teaching about contraception.


			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And, he asserted that he didn't see anything wrong with teaching pseudo-science such as, "Intelligent Design," theory--I confess to assuming that he meant in science classes.


 You assumed right.  Why would it be wrong to openly teach the theory that the first life began from something other than a spontaneous spark or lightening bolt, or however the current theory goes?  If you go back and read, I also said that I fully believe evolution should be taught.  There is plenty of scientific evidence for evolution, and it would be foolish not to teach it, but that first spark of life *may *not have just been spontaneous.  There may have been something else behind it, perhaps a God or whatever, I don't know.  I honestly don't see the harm in entertaining the theory.  For someone who claims to be all for the debate of things, it really seems that you would rather not practice what you preach.  Its either your way or its wrong right?  What were you saying about Pat Robertson and Micheal Savage again?

 Do I want schools to start teaching Adam and Eve as fact?  No, that is stupid.


 So looking back, if you actually read my post and look objectively at it, I never really stated my opinions on things or stated a specific proposal as you suggest.  I mearly pointed out that not all of the "imoposing of right wing Christain doctrine" examples that you posted are strictly Christain beliefs.  I know it is hard for someone like yourself to admit that not all the evil in the world is caused by right wing fundamentalist Christain nutjobs. I am sure it is also difficult to accept the fact that there are non-christains that don't think Christains are inherently evil, or that don't agree with all your positions, but that is in fact the case.  

 Take a step back, relax and look at things from a different angle once in a while, and maybe your blood pressure will go down a little.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 8, 2005)

"Someone like yourself," eh? You may find that coinversations go easier when we don't, a) remark about how other posters with whom we disagree are being, "sensitive," or refer to people as, "slick," b) grossly distort their positions, or, c) make patronizing remarks about their blood pressure.

First off: "Intelligent design," theory has no place whatsoever in biology class, because it isn't science. It's a religious belief, perfectly discussable in history, cultural studies, religious studies or for that matter English. For that matter, it's perfectly discussable in science classes as the sort of thing that science cannot handle. But it ain't science. If you insist that it is, you simply don't know what science is, or what evolution says. 

Second off: if you think abortion is, "morally wrong--" your words--it kinda logically follows that you oppose abortion. The pro-choice position--which I suppose is what you're espousing--is that you believe that your beliefs should  govern only your own behavior. Apologies for the misunderstanding...which was, all the same, based on what you actually wrote.

Third off, the note I made about leaving conservative practices in place is precisely correct--didn't say a word about what you think, only that if one ignores it, it continues.

Fourth: "looked to me," means, "this is my interpretation, but I'm not sure." I made that interpretation because of your phrasing; if I'm misreading, well, it's wrong, but it's a reasonable mistake.

Please show me where I've written anything that so much as suggested that all Christians are inherently evil. In actual fact--but let's not have that stand in the way!--my last three posts contain approving remarks about Jimmy Carter, Billy Graham and C.S. Lewis.

And to go back to the evolution thing. In science, it doesn't matter what I think. And it doesn't matter what you think--what matters is what is true, and what can be proven to be true in the terms of science. Science isn't about beliefs, no matter what the ignorant try to claim. (It may be about cultural practices, but that's another issue altogether.) So imposing religious doctrines upon science--nope, not OK, and not something to be sluffed off, either.

In other words, try this: "I can see where you are coming from, and I will not deny that it is Christian leaders that are pushing for most of the things that you are talking about."


----------



## kenpo tiger (Mar 8, 2005)

Ginshun's point about not really caring about swearing on a Bible since it could just as well be a book about Greek mythology is well-taken.  I found myself agreeing, for the sole reason that people will say anything at times in order to get themselves out of trouble (can you say perjury?)  The point about not being sensitive to Christian -- or any -- symbols is also a good one.  Robert, I do believe you even agreed somewhat with it in your own inimitable fashion...  

Oh -- about those symbols being displayed in public/government places.  I work in a place which is privately run by a Board of Trustees but sits in and on public land, owned by the county.  We are cautioned every year that if we display certain symbols at certain holidays, they either must be fully inclusive of everyone or none displayed at all.  Granted, we're not a court of law, but I think the larger point being made is that if it's a public building, which exists for _all_ the public to use and enjoy, it has to meet the needs/approval of everyone (since they pay taxes which are used for the care and maintenance of same building.) 

While I agree that it _probably_ doesn't matter to most people entering or exiting a public building what the *hunk of rock* outside the front door is (more's the pity if it's a Calder or Leger), I also think that it is largely ignored because those same people are usually preoccupied.  If you were to ask if they noticed the *hunk of rock* outside, I'd be willing to bet that most would answer "Huh?"


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 8, 2005)

OK, I see your point, and anyway just because I'm cranky now, you were cranky last week...oh. Not very reasonable.

Anyway, I do see what you mean. Still, I'd ask: if this stuff doesn't matter...if it's nothing important...than why should the default position always be the right-wing Christian one? It's more or less what Adrienne Rich noted about, "compulsory heterosexuality," or what might be said about ethnicity--when in doubt, take the white guy's point of view.

Please note that I'm writing, "right-wing," because that pretty much seems to be the case...and because I have to confess that I get foolishly tired of people who don't know what the National Council of Churches is making judgments about whether or not Jerry Falwell's craziness is mainstream...


----------



## Phoenix44 (Mar 9, 2005)

> What do you guys think about Christmas decorations being displayed in public and government institutions? Most places that I've been to have x-mas decorations all over the place during the season, on government, city and private property. Should people have to be exposed to a nativity scene while driving down a public street?


In fact, I DO object to seeing nativity scenes on public property.  I am not Christian, I am a Jew, and I find it alienating and exclusionary, like "This is about US, and it doesn't include YOU."  Because it's PUBLIC property, and it's RELIGIOUS material.  I don't want Jewish decorations on public property either.  Want to know why?  Because I don't want Christians, Muslims, pagans or atheists feeling alienated either.  To me, it's simple respect for my fellow human beings in a nation that is supposed to exercise such respect.  

The great thing about this country is that we are all free to put religious decorations on our own property without interference from the state.  And I really don't understand why such decorations MUST be on public property where many people are offended by it.  To me it's just that simple.  Respect for your fellow Americans.

It doesn't mean that Jews, Muslims, pagans and atheists don't have values, and don't respect morality.  I just fail to see why a religious symbol must be used to express these values, when so many people are hurt or offended by that religious symbol.

Now is this a battle I'm going to fight?  No, because I will lose this battle, and it's not the number one issue on my hit parade.  I have WAY more important battles to fight.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 9, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Now is this a battle I'm going to fight? No, because I will lose this battle, and it's not the number one issue on my hit parade. I have WAY more important battles to fight.


 I guess that is pretty much the same way that I feel about things.  I will fully admit that there is more Christain things thrown into our public lives than there is from any other religion.  To me this is not surprising, as most of the people in this country are Christians.  I rarely if ever feel that it is being shoved down my throat.  Personally I am not a religious person, and I generally keep my spiritual life pretty much private.  I just don't see the point in fighting over it.

 If the Commandments get taken out of courtrooms/government buildings, (which I believe they probably will) I sure as heck am not going to shed a tear.  On the other hand if things stay just like they are, I am won't loose any sleep over that either.

 In the end its just not something that actually affects my life enough to fight for or agianst.  If you (and I am not singling anyone on either side of the issue out) are someone who feels that it does affect you enough, then fight away, and good luck.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 9, 2005)

The roads are public property, should we make placing those little memorial crosses on the roadside illegal? How about those little fish on peoples cars? Just joking there, but how far should we take this? Like ginshun stated. The majority of citizens are of a Christian denomination of some sort. Expecting to remove every trace of religion from public life seems silly. People want to talk about the founding fathers intent, but tell me what point in our history we ever had a total "separation" of religious expression from public life? Like the debate over posting the words "Merry Christmas" that popped up last year.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 9, 2005)

For reference, two related threads here:

Christmas vs. "Christmas"

Has it come to this?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Mar 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The roads are public property, should we make placing those little memorial crosses on the roadside illegal? <snip>tell me what point in our history we ever had a total "separation" of religious expression from public life? <snip>.


I think the little crosses have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.  [I do understand why you brought it up.]

There is no clean separation between religion and public life.  However, having traces of it (like swearing on the Bible in court) versus being hit over the head with it (Robert's *hunk*) is what I believe is being debated.  Part of the whole *politically correct* new America is being painfully aware of other people and their feelings - NOT saying it's wrong, just how it is from my view.  Portions of it are good, in that they promote awareness of groups as "viable" entities not to be demeaned or discounted any longer (e.g. persons with disabilities of all types, women, gays, blacks, Asians, and so on.)  Portions take it to extremes, like whether religious symbols are appropriate to be displayed at certain holidays or quasi-religious hymns sung in public schools.  I learned the Lord's Prayer and recited it along with my classmates until around third or fourth grade -- didn't make me less of who I am religiously.  I also sang many liturgical pieces with titles like Ave Maria, and words including 'in spiritus sanctus - Jesu Christe'.  Beautiful music -- well written and a pleasure to perform.  Did I object because there were no Jewish hymns in the same program? Nope.  Not appropriate to the venue or the performance.

What it comes down to is what you are comfortable with.  I think many adults are able to discern what's important to them.


----------



## Mathusula2 (Mar 9, 2005)

"I mearly pointed out that not all of the "imoposing of right wing Christain doctrine" examples that you posted are strictly Christain beliefs. I know it is hard for someone like yourself to admit that not all the evil in the world is caused by right wing fundamentalist Christain nutjobs. I am sure it is also difficult to accept the fact that there are non-christains that don't think Christains are inherently evil, or that don't agree with all your positions, but that is in fact the case.

Take a step back, relax and look at things from a different angle once in a while, and maybe your blood pressure will go down a little."

Man Ginshun, I wish I could reach right through my computer sceen and give you a high-five right now...

artyon:


----------



## Phoenix44 (Mar 9, 2005)

> Portions take it to extremes, like whether religious symbols are appropriate to be displayed at certain holidays or quasi-religious hymns sung in public schools.


I guess I just don't see it as "extreme."  I see it as pretty basic.  You don't get more purely Christian than a nativity scene, do you?

When I ran a business, I closed on Christmas.  Christmas has no special meaning for me, but I closed out of respect for the importance of the holiday to my Christian friends and neighbors.

To me, it's a public reflection of private respect.  Like "My wife really hates it when I wear white socks with my grey suit, but I do it anyway, because it shouldn't be that big a deal to her."  But it IS a big deal to her, so why MUST you do it? Save the white socks for another occasion.

Why MUST religious icons be put on public property when it offends many people?  You are free to have the religious icons on YOUR OWN property. Why should you offend anyone when it isn't necessary to do so?

I just don't get it.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 9, 2005)

What I actually object to isn't the little crosses on the sides of the roads (which are put there by private individuals, by the way), and it isn't the display of the Ten Commandments in a reasonable way, and it isn't even a string or two of the Christmas lights that bring a nice touch of paganism into a holiday. Nor do I mind students having religious beliefs--if anything, I encourage them to express their beliefs in a polite and intelligent fashion, both in speech and in writing. 

What I actually object to, for starters, is the government imposition of fundamentalist, protestant beliefs on everybody else, especially when they use taxpayers' money and State power to do it. 

After that--speaking as a scholarly type--I object to the gross distortion of our history and our present culture that the guys pushing for school prayer rely upon. I don't much like kids getting a pack of lies about their country's history, and I don't much like them being systematically taught that only right-wing Christians are religious, and I don't much care to have students taught that only the Almighty Dollar and blind faith mean anything, and I especially don't much care for seeing the endless pursuit of money and religious intolerance directly connected to our little jihad in Iraq.

After that, I dislike very much having a born-again President (an issue he raises all the time) who relied on his family's money to get him where he is and who is more than a little Johnny-come-lately to the whole morality thing, endlessly telling the rest of us that we ought to shut up and get in line as he pushes for his religious beliefs in schools and courthouses, "reforms," the government around his own faith and nobody else's, and trumpets about non-issues like gay marriage so he can get himself re-elected on a platform of fear and hatred. 

After that, it bothers me a bit that anybody who reads a book and (not often enough, to be sure) thinks about issues rather than just repeating what they've been told gets attacked as a pointy-head intellectual, if not a limp-wristed girly-man who Hates America. I suppose it's because I recognize the repetition of politically-correct propaganda when I see it. 

But most of all, I object to the gross distortion of reality, of science, of public life, of history that's going on these days. And that isn't happening because of pointy-head leftist intellectuals, or Catholics, or Jews, or Muslims, or even the majority of Christians. 

It's happening because a substantial minority of right-of-center, conservative, fundamentalist Americans have become aware that the country changed forever a couple of decades back, and they can't figure out how to reconcile their religious beliefs with their faith in capitalism, and they want a scapegoat for the way corporate capitalism is changing their lives and their country for the worse. So, they're pushing for big rocks Jehovah's Commandments written on them, because they think that'll solve things. 

What's my problem with the scuzzy likes of Michael Savage and Pat Robertson? They're the ones who are getting paid and rewarded very, very well for leading the charge to ignorance. 

Oh, well. So it goes.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 9, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What I actually object to isn't the little crosses on the sides of the roads (which are put there by private individuals, by the way), and it isn't the display of the Ten Commandments in a reasonable way, and it isn't even a string or two of the Christmas lights that bring a nice touch of paganism into a holiday. Nor do I mind students having religious beliefs--if anything, I encourage them to express their beliefs in a polite and intelligent fashion, both in speech and in writing.
> 
> What I actually object to, for starters, is the government imposition of fundamentalist, protestant beliefs on everybody else, especially when they use taxpayers' money and State power to do it.
> 
> ...


 
 Sheesh, and you act like my crack about your blood pressure was out of left field.  Calm down a little before you have a coranary.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 9, 2005)

Yeah, that's pretty much what I expected. 

But then--and here I'm going to be a little mean--ad hominem attacks are a helluva lot easier than studying history and culture so you'll know what you're talking about, or thinking through issues so you don't end up spouting the politically-correct party line.

When was it, exactly, that a little passion in the discussion of ideas became a Bad Thing? used to be, in the traditional America I grew up in, that this was what we expected of the discussion of ideas. 

Personally, I blame Wal-Mart. Or perhaps it's the case, now, that you're only allowed to believe in anything if you're the scuzzy likes of Jimmy Sawggert, weeping to get your parish back after you've been caught for the second time in a motel with two hookers, weeping so you can fire off your next attack on that there teacher, down the high school, what is teachin' evil-lution.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Mar 9, 2005)

Also, as I explain to my kids all the time, having a level-headed but heated discussion doesn't necessarily mean that anyone is angry with anyone, nor that it's raising anyone's blood pressure.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Mar 9, 2005)

Ginshun,

I'd like to point out that Robert, and I, and a few others in this forum, are [almost] old enough to be your parents and thus grew up in a vastly different time and country (as Robert so eloquently, if at great length, pointed out.)

Perspective figures greatly in a discussion such as this. 

Back in the Dark Ages when we were children, there was a strict (read: rigid) moral code which was adhered to by all. No one spoke of *things* which were deemed *inappropriate* in *polite* society -- and it was perfectly okay to use what are now considered derogatory terms for certain groups and persons, which I shan't go into here. There was a distinct class hierarchy in place until people like Martin Luther King and the leaders of the Women's Movement and the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) spoke out and took action to change things. The Establishment was broken --- and I believe that Robert is saying that The Establishment is attempting a come-back in the forms of extreme capitalism and fundamentalism as promulgated by Mr. Bush and his cronies. So -- do we want to return to those days of yesteryear (raise your hand if you recognize that one), which certainly was _not_ a kinder, gentler era under the facade displayed for years, or do we want to continue with what all those people fought and died for?

As a 30 year old, you are living in a society formed by us. That's what we all wanted for ourselves and our children -- a better place and better opportunities. The prospect of the encroachment of conservative thought as the ruling philosophy in this country -- possibly turning the clock back to the Fifties -- is frightening.


----------



## agatanai atsilahu (Mar 9, 2005)

As long as the federal govt. advertises the the fair and equal treatment of all religions/beliefs, and as long as that same govt. promotes the freedom of all to believe as they wish on religious issues or doctrines, then the commandments should not be posted about in federal buildings, as it appears biased. If all are to treated equally , including atheists, then no religious icon or statements of any kind prevalent to any single belief should be placed in govt buildings.  (Normal blood pressure, honest  )


----------



## ginshun (Mar 10, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Ginshun,
> 
> I'd like to point out that Robert, and I, and a few others in this forum, are [almost] old enough to be your parents and thus grew up in a vastly different time and country (as Robert so eloquently, if at great length, pointed out.)
> 
> ...


 Honestly, my last comment was in jest, I had no intention of offending Robert or anyone else, if I have done so I am sorry.

 Obviously he and I see things differently, and I am fine with that. What fun is having a debate with someone who has the same opinion as you?

 As for you guys creating the country / environment that we now live in, sure I can go along with that. That doesn't however give your opinions more wieght than mine. If you want to be disgruntled against the government for imposing conservative values on you and society in general (as robert so obviously is) then more power to you, rant and rave all you want. Personally I don't think things are all that bad right now, and if you ask me American society in general is a little too sensative and PC today. 

 I don't want to live in a counrty were all the decisions are made by the Michael Savages and Jerry Fallwells of the world, but I sure as hell don't want them all made by the Barbra Boxers and Ted Kennedys either.


  and just as an aside, Robert's constant tone of condescension doesn't make me want to take his opinions any more seriously.


----------



## DuneViking (Mar 10, 2005)

Personally, I blame Wal-Mart. Or perhaps it's the case, now, that you're only allowed to believe in anything if you're the scuzzy likes of Jimmy Sawggert, weeping to get your parish back after you've been caught for the second time in a motel with two hookers, weeping so you can fire off your next attack on that there teacher, down the high school, what is teachin' evil-lution.
*rmcrobertson*

Big Amen there! When the people are placated, by say, enough to survive and have a few cheap extras, it seems they-we- do not pay attention to things unless there is a big noise about it. I think the reference to the 10 Coms was a big noise for the extreme groups as referred to in previous posts when it _should be reference to the fact that there is a higher authority from which we derive our ideas of right and wrong and they should be fair and just, even though fair and just are not always compatible. _I like the suggestion too of other codes as well as the 10 coms, it supports the idea of just and fair, above and beyond the ideas of individual interpretation. I think it was, and should be, an ideal attempt to say all must answer to the laws we use in the same way without favoritism etc, like the blindfold on the LAdy Justice holding the scales. 


As a 30 year old, you are living in a society formed by us. That's what we all wanted for ourselves and our children -- a better place and better opportunities. The prospect of the encroachment of conservative thought as the ruling philosophy in this country -- possibly turning the clock back to the Fifties -- is frightening.
*kenpo tiger*

I'd just say each generation has to make its own contribution, we did not form this society, we added our contribution to that of our father's of the WWII and Korean War era, just as they added to their father's world. Without those stresses, we can relax a bit and not be so 'uptight'. Unfortunately, that also can go too far. Ultimately, misuse can come from either the right or the left.

In summation, I would say, let us vote on such things as the 10 coms in public places. I would again suggest that they may be a good idea, especially if part of a multiple society historic display of laws and values from whatever cultures advanced such ideas-greek, roman, babylonian, chinese, viking, what have you, if it is voted on and passes. It could allow us see how we have moved from trial by fire to trial by jury and the like.


----------



## Melissa426 (Mar 10, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> I guess I just don't see it as "extreme." I see it as pretty basic. You don't get more purely Christian than a nativity scene, do you?


  I don't know about that. Unmarried Jewish teenager gets pregnant. With her Jewish fiancee in attendance, she gives birth to a baby in a stable in the city of David (a Jewish king).  

I am surprised fundamentalists celebrate Christmas at all!   I think they would prefer Jesus's Jewishness be ignored or at least not talked about.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 10, 2005)

1. Reading a passion for ideas and issues, faith in education, and a belief that you should know what you're talking about as, "a tone of condescencion," or, "ranting and raving," is symptomatic of the New America. Hell, if you had any of that stuff, you'd stop shopping.

2. I think KT was trying to point out that some folks are attacking precisely the traditional American values--equality, tolerance, respect for religious beliefs, respect for learning and for science--that we keep hearing Bush et al trumpeting about.

3. Sorry--I'm old-fashioned. I think it is a Bad Thing when the President of the United States pushes that old-time religion with one hand, and torture with the other.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 10, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Reading a passion for ideas and issues, faith in education, and a belief that you should know what you're talking about as, "a tone of condescencion," or, "ranting and raving," is symptomatic of the New America. Hell, if you had any of that stuff, you'd stop shopping.


 If you look at your post from yesterday, and it doesn't look like a rant to you, then I am not sure what your idea of a rant is. I don't even know what you mean by the shopping thing, but I suppose that is because I am not as smart or edumacated as you are.



> 2. I think KT was trying to point out that some folks are attacking precisely the traditional American values--equality, tolerance, respect for religious beliefs, respect for learning and for science--that we keep hearing Bush et al trumpeting about.


 I have nothing against any of those things, if I have given the impression otherwise, it was not my intention.


> 3. Sorry--I'm old-fashioned. I think it is a Bad Thing when the President of the United States pushes that old-time religion with one hand, and torture with the other.


 I don't know that I would agree that he is exactly pushing either one, but then again I am not going to say that I even begin to understand half the crap the W does. As old-time religion and torture, I don't think too highly of either one, but the two pretty much fit hand in hand if you ask me. Throughout history, Christians haven't exactly been the most tolerant of people.


----------



## Ray (Mar 10, 2005)

After reading all the good and varied opinions of so many people in this thread I have finally been given enough information to make a recommendation:  Don't post the 10 commandments in gov't buildings; but do post the address in very large letters on the outside of the building so that we can easily know where we are.


----------



## OUMoose (Mar 10, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> After reading all the good and varied opinions of so many people in this thread I have finally been given enough information to make a recommendation:  Don't post the 10 commandments in gov't buildings; but do post the address in very large letters on the outside of the building so that we can easily know where we are.


Even better, reconstruct all the government buildings into the shape of GIANT thumbs, with the entrance beneath them.  That way we really know where we are.


----------



## DuneViking (Mar 10, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> After reading all the good and varied opinions of so many people in this thread I have finally been given enough information to make a recommendation: Don't post the 10 commandments in gov't buildings; but do post the address in very large letters on the outside of the building so that we can easily know where we are.


 
ROTFLMAOHMBWTIME !!! Can we get an AMEN!!?? Hallowlouisyaa!

That is great thought Ray!!!


----------



## kenpo tiger (Mar 15, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> After reading all the good and varied opinions of so many people in this thread I have finally been given enough information to make a recommendation: Don't post the 10 commandments in gov't buildings; but do post the address in very large letters on the outside of the building so that we can easily know where we are.


A most sensible suggestion.  And I'll second that with an 'AMEN'!


----------



## Loki (Mar 22, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> Ironically, the ten commandments have a Jewish background, not a Christian one, but I don't hear the Jews making much of an issue one way or the other.


Stupidly enough, Judaism is incorporated into Israeli law, so there's no need to fuss if you can't simply see the ten commandments.

The Ten Commandments should definitely not be in government buildings. The first two are offensive to anyone who doesn't believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God.

Some others are simply not always correct. Should you respect parents that beat you? No, not really. Respect has to be earned, even by your parents.

The general problem with the commandments is that they're all given in God's name. Don't kill because God said so, don't steal because God said so. You shouldn't do these things because you're stepping all over other people's basic rights, and that makes it wrong, not the word of God.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Mar 22, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Stupidly enough, Judaism is incorporated into Israeli law, so there's no need to fuss if you can't simply see the ten commandments.


Okay -- and your point here?


----------



## Loki (Mar 23, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Okay -- and your point here?


My point is that the ten commandments are already part of the law. So if the purpose of hanging the commandments in a courtroom, for example, is to uphold justice in the spirit of the commandments, then it's pointless in Israel because justice is based on the commandments.

If you're question referred to why I bring this up in the first place, I'm just venting some anger 

~ Loki


----------



## Kane (Mar 23, 2005)

I'm not a Christian, or Jewish. So I should be against removing the ten commandments right? Wrong.

 Well personally I could care less, well at least I thought that way at first. However I am starting to be more for it. Why? The reasons are simple;

  1. It isn't hurting anyone; it being there only promotes better behavior.

 2. It is a doctrine that basically outlines the most basic human morality such as the wrongs of murder, theft, adultery, ect. ect.

 3. It is a complete waist of time when we can be focusing on more serious things in our country than this. As said in reason 1, it does not hurt anyone, and I am going to explain in reason 4 why it will actually lower the crime rate by at least 1%. Waiting our time on something that will help the nation because of some Atheists want are offended by the words of it, not worth our time. I personally wouldn't care if we put Buddhist or Muslim doctrines all around the country and these atheists should view them as a "mythical decoration", and pay no attention to it.

 4. The most important one. As mentioned in reason 1, it promotes only better behavior in society, not worst. It may not stop all criminals for doing wrong, but at least 1 out of every 100 criminals can look at this document before they commit a crime and it might prevent it. Let us say that man named Jack is about to kill another man named Bob. Let us say that while walking with his big shotgun to kill Bob for whatever reason Jack sees the 10 Commandments in front and reads the words "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Jack is reminded that killing is wrong, and Jack decides not to kill Bob. Thus the crime called murder is prevented. I know this won't work on many criminals; in fact it might not work for majority of the criminals. However those few criminals that see these words might change their minds in killing them. I hope it will at least help 1/10 or 1/100 of the criminals in America. That enough is to save a life or relationship (relationship-wise for someone considering adultery).


----------



## Blindside (Mar 23, 2005)

> 4. The most important one. As mentioned in reason 1, it promotes only better behavior in society, not worst. It may not stop all criminals for doing wrong, but at least 1 out of every 100 criminals can look at this document before they commit a crime and it might prevent it. Let us say that man named Jack is about to kill another man named Bob. Let us say that while walking with his big shotgun to kill Bob for whatever reason Jack sees the 10 Commandments in front and reads the words "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Jack is reminded that killing is wrong, and Jack decides not to kill Bob. Thus the crime called murder is prevented. I know this won't work on many criminals; in fact it might not work for majority of the criminals. However those few criminals that see these words might change their minds in killing them. I hope it will at least help 1/10 or 1/100 of the criminals in America.



By that logic we should put up "An it harm none, do what thou will" on every streetcorner.  That would cut down on assaults, drug use, murder.... 
Think the Christian right would go for that?

Lamont


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 23, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Since it is in the news, I thought I would get some other peoples opinions on it.
> 
> Personally, I am not a Christian, and I am not going to display them in my house or anything, but they don't offend me either. I think that if you are walking through a courthouse, and you are offended just by seeing a monument with them on then you really need to get a life.
> 
> ...


Let's look at how the text is being used:

1.  Is it there as an endorsement of Judeo/Christian values above all others?

2.  Is it there as a representation of one of the foundations for law/values that this country was built on?

3.  Is it a representation of the local communities values and moral structure?

People have to be willing to see the text as simply a moral code and NOT just a religious text.  I have found 'wisdom' in Buddhist/Muslim/Native American (Iroquois/Hodenoshownee) values (as did Ben Franklin)/Christian/Animistic....you name it.  There is a core of human decency and values that any of these specific codes can be lumped under.

We are a NATION OF DIVERSITY, fine.  Why do we waste so much time complaining about the differences instead of focusing on finding common ground?

Muslim moral structure shares a common heritage with Judeo/Christian values.  Some of the Native American beliefs/tales were inspired by Christian contact.  Jews were inspired by Greek mythos, ......

First and foremost we are all citizens of the same country.  Divisiveness clogs and bogs down an already intentionally slow governmental system.....If government is going to bicker over something while I am paying for the man hours let's devote more time to resolving medicaid/medicare and Social Security instead of arguing over a rock with words that, taken as wisdom and not Religion, people would generally agree make a pretty good message.


----------



## Loki (Mar 24, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Let's look at how the text is being used:
> 
> 1. Is it there as an endorsement of Judeo/Christian values above all others?


Yes, there is.



> 2. Is it there as a representation of one of the foundations for law/values that this country was built on?


The Founding Fathers were deists, not Christians. Ask Kane for the difference.  



> 3. Is it a representation of the local communities values and moral structure?


That's not relevant. Government buildings' appearance is dictated by state/federal law, not community. It's simply not practical.



> People have to be willing to see the text as simply a moral code and NOT just a religious text. I have found 'wisdom' in Buddhist/Muslim/Native American (Iroquois/Hodenoshownee) values (as did Ben Franklin)/Christian/Animistic....you name it. There is a core of human decency and values that any of these specific codes can be lumped under.


Could be a good idea to see a religious text as a moral code, but when God's in it, that's a problem for people who either disbelieve or see God as immoral.



> We are a NATION OF DIVERSITY, fine. Why do we waste so much time complaining about the differences instead of focusing on finding common ground?
> 
> Muslim moral structure shares a common heritage with Judeo/Christian values. Some of the Native American beliefs/tales were inspired by Christian contact. Jews were inspired by Greek mythos, ......
> 
> First and foremost we are all citizens of the same country. Divisiveness clogs and bogs down an already intentionally slow governmental system.....If government is going to bicker over something while I am paying for the man hours let's devote more time to resolving medicaid/medicare and Social Security instead of arguing over a rock with words that, taken as wisdom and not Religion, people would generally agree make a pretty good message.


The question still has to be resolved. Do you just leave it at default and allow the commandments? Petty and time-consuming or not, these issues have to be answered. And allowing a religious text (even if it's a "moral code", though I beg to differ) can make way for more religious appearances in government business.

~ Loki


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 24, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> 1.  Yes, there is.
> 
> 
> 2.The Founding Fathers were deists, not Christians. Ask Kane for the difference.
> ...


1.  Really, prove it.  Show me where the government is using this to promote/endorse Christianity over all.
2.  Don't need to.  I know Jefferson was definitely. I have seen his version of the bible....interesting.  Some may have been, not all for sure IMO.

3.  The 'appearance' is not 'dictated' by state and federal law.  If a town court has a plaque with the 10 Com. on it and the community has no objections, it stands.  If a Village assembly wants to observe prayer at the beginning of a meeting (with a rotating host of local religious representatives as I have seen done in some cases), then it is fine.  The power of local authority over local issues.  If it was 'dictated' then this would be very cut and dry.

4.  So they personally can choose not to accept those points.  I have heard people stop during the pledge at the mention of 'Under God' because of personal reasons but still participate with the rest....that's fine with me.

5.  It does have to be resolved, and it will, but isn't there also a 'pettiness presedence' when a Judge allows things like this to clog his schedule and cases that actually affect human lives in immediate/more urgent ways get delayed because of things like this?


----------



## Loki (Mar 26, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> 1. Really, prove it. Show me where the government is using this to promote/endorse Christianity over all.


I heard of at least one judge who put up the commandments in his court. I'll look for the exact case. This is an an endorsement of Christian/Jewish morals above others.



> 3. The 'appearance' is not 'dictated' by state and federal law. If a town court has a plaque with the 10 Com. on it and the community has no objections, it stands. If a Village assembly wants to observe prayer at the beginning of a meeting (with a rotating host of local religious representatives as I have seen done in some cases), then it is fine. The power of local authority over local issues. If it was 'dictated' then this would be very cut and dry.


Appearance meaning not the exact specs. for a building, but what things aren't allowed. I don't think a picture containing nudity would be allowed in any courtroom, because it offends certain groups. Same goes with the commanments. It's a matter of policy. You never know who'll be tried/testify.



> 4. So they personally can choose not to accept those points. I have heard people stop during the pledge at the mention of 'Under God' because of personal reasons but still participate with the rest....that's fine with me.


We can also take racist quotes and put them over a courtroom and say whoever doesn't identify with them doesn't have to accept them. It's an extreme example, but some people see the commandments as wrong as racism and in a country with a church-state seperation, that has to be respected.



> 5. It does have to be resolved, and it will, but isn't there also a 'pettiness presedence' when a Judge allows things like this to clog his schedule and cases that actually affect human lives in immediate/more urgent ways get delayed because of things like this?


If he does, then you're right, he shouldn't. But it shouldn't be disregarded either.

~ Loki


----------



## Tgace (Mar 26, 2005)

Besides the source, what content of the commandments could be found "offensive"?


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 26, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Besides the source, what content of the commandments could be found "offensive"?


"I am the Lord your God, and you shall have no other gods before me"

What if that is not my god?


----------



## Tgace (Mar 26, 2005)

Thats a point. Yeah..that and "Keep holy the lords day" I guess. However I personally wouldnt be offended if some non-Christian display were put up either (as long as it was relavent), but I guess some people would.

Im not adamantly "for" the Commandments being installed as some conspicuous display in Gvt. buildings, I just find it odd how easily people can become "offended" over the whole thing. The Alabama (was that the place?) case was obviously a political statement and I dont think it should have been allowed to stay just based on the intent. I do disagree with "purging" displays, traditional decorations, etc. that have been around for "ages" in some municipalities because a minority of people have an issue.


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 30, 2005)

Fine points. 1) the Hebrew doesn't call them commandene=ments but 'utterances'
2) there are so many different English translations out there, if you really want to display them, do it in the original Hebrew. See how well THAT goes with the religious right. :supcool:


----------



## cashwo (Mar 31, 2005)

My 2 cents:

I work in a state building and I think it's fine if someone has it hanging in their cube but to make a public display in a common area I think is wrong.  In the main area where I work someone has made a big display with a 3 foot tall angel and a bible laying open.  I don't think that that is right at all.


----------



## Ray (Mar 31, 2005)

cashwo said:
			
		

> I work in a state building and I think it's fine if someone has it hanging in their cube but to make a public display in a common area I think is wrong....


I think you may have made the most fair and reasonable post so far.


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 1, 2005)

A public display of the 10 Commandments is not an establishment of religion.



> Amendment I
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



Since there is no law made, or religion established by this act, I see no problem with it.


----------



## BaiKaiGuy (Jul 1, 2005)

cashwo said:
			
		

> My 2 cents:
> 
> I work in a state building and I think it's fine if someone has it hanging in their cube but to make a public display in a common area I think is wrong. In the main area where I work someone has made a big display with a 3 foot tall angel and a bible laying open. I don't think that that is right at all.


Agreed.  I work for my county goverment, and I certainly don't care what people put up in their own cubies or offices.  But...



			
				[b said:
			
		

> Tgace][/b]
> _Besides the source, what content of the commandments could be found "offensive"? _




_As pointed out, the part about "I am the Lord your God" is pretty religious.  _

_My problem isn't so much the display of the Commandments, it's how they are displayed.  If they are part of a freize like the one at the United States Supreme Court, recognizing one aspect of law, that's one thing.  When it's a giant monument in the middle of the courthouse standing alone?  I take issue with that.  Especially if you have a rabid judge who wished to pop his religious beliefs on my clients..._


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 5, 2005)

Here is a refreshingly well thought out compromise to the whole issue by Noah Feldman, printed in the New York Times on July 3.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/magazine/03CHURCH.html?

The article is sympathetic to Evangelicals (believe it or not) as well as secularists.

If the Supremes take this stance, the whole issue might be put at rest.


Subscription might be necessary for access...but its free.




Regards,



Steve


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 6, 2005)

Ok, I'm a noob to this site, but I have just read this entire thread (among several others) and it is time for me to jump in with both feet.

 First- I will not beat around the bush regarding my political and sprirtual beliefs. I am a left-leaning independant. I think Republicans are basically good people, but thier leadership are greedy, Draconian overlords who have figured out that if they keep the far right nutcases appeased and in the press, they can run amok freely within the government and do what they want to the environment, the middle class, and the world at large while filling thier pockets. I think Democrats are basically good people, but thier leadership are a bunch of spineless cry-babies who when their anger gets riled-up, go into meetings to make sure that they don't offend anyone and keep everyone smiling and happy instead of kicking *** and taking names and leaving right-wing smoldering bodies in thier wake as they should.

 This country was founded on the ideal that the individual is paramount, and that the state cannot override the individual with regard to his/her rights. When the religous/fundamentalist Christian right makes statements like, "this is a Christian nation", they have not really read thier history nor the Constitution. I especially love when they espouse the ideals and morality of the Founding Fathers, a group of white businessmen (mostly Deist, not Christian)that essentially did not want to pay taxes to a foreign power and figured that they could make more money and gain more power by pulling away from England, creating the "great experiment" that is the US. 

 If we accept that the individual right are paramount, than it is logical that the 10 Commandments should not be presented in a public display paid for by the state. Not everyone is a Christian and saying that it is "harmless" or "historical" is disingenuous. Perhaps we, the staunch suporters of the seperation-of-church-and-state, wouldn't be so voracious in our opposition to this display if the far right propaganda were not so voracious in thier agenda to convert us all.

 In my studio, if one or two kids are not behaving properly and the others either fall into step with them, or do nothing about it, all of them do push-ups. Some have said that this is not fair since they were not guilty of the transgression; but I tell them that either ignoring or being apathetic about the problem does not make it go away, it makes it worse. It is a problem that can grow and grow until it is out of control. 

 When some on this thread have stated that it "doesn't matter" or they "don't care", it tells me that they will just fall in step with whatever comes down to them until it is perhaps too late. Then they will not have the ability or the right (since rights are not born, they are granted by the body politic) to do anything about it.

 Long winded- but my stance is NO to any state sponsored or sanctioned religous icons or ideology. And all the propaganda and rhetoric the right can put out to defend their position does not change that.

 I was sorry to see that Robert's account was closed. I will pose the same questin that he did in a previous post that noone on the defense of the fundamentalist view answered: Why do you _have_ to have these icons like the 10 Commandements posted supported by the state? Your churches already have the tremendous gift of tax free status, why do you have to infringe on my right to be free from you and your beliefs?


----------



## Kane (Jul 6, 2005)

To the coward who gave me a negative rep. for my post, what did I say wrong in the post that made you think I am anti-atheist? I bet you are anti-God for assuming I am one. Perhaps you should go back in read my post carefully.

----------------------------------

 Anways, IMO, I personally don't care what religious text you put up in the courts. Whether it be the 10 comandments, quote from the Bhagavad Gita, quote from Buddhist religious books, whatever it is. There is no harm in having any religious document up. It can be a decoration, a desired behavior, or whatever but to say that it is a "violation of church and state" defied logic. Does it make the government more religious? Will it make them judge things based more on religion than on fact? I do not think so, nor do I think it will do anything.

 Were are founding father Christian? No, they were freethinkers to a more bigger level as some of the so called freethinkers of today. Would are founding fathers be upset to see the 10 Commandments in courtrooms? No, persoanlly I don't think they would give a rat's behind what decoration they have in the court room. Would our founding fathers be pissed if our government used religion to judge things? Yes they would. Would our founding father think that a 10 Commandments decoration would be the cause of it? No they would not.


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 6, 2005)

> I was sorry to see that Robert's account was closed.



So was I.



> I will pose the same questin that he did in a previous post that noone on the defense of the fundamentalist view answered: Why do you have to have these icons like the 10 Commandements posted supported by the state?



Perhaps there are no fundamentalists on the board. But I doubt however fundamentalism has anything to do with why the monuments are there in the first place. It is my understanding that many of these were donated, or have existed for as many as 40 or 50 years. Why all the hubbub now? Weren't many of our laws based on these simple tenets anyways?



> Your churches already have the tremendous gift of tax free status, why do you have to infringe on my right to be free from you and your beliefs?



I'm not sure what one has to do with the other here, but have you ever entered a courthouse with a 10 Commandments monument? As I read this I began to have flashbacks of Dr. Who. It almost sounds that if you did see one, that as you walked past it, it began to glow fire red, trapping you into a trance as it subliminally injected your brain with fundamentalist Christian thought.

To me, people who follow the "logic" of removing the Ten Commandment monuments are also for removing "In God We Trust" from all currency, "In the year of our Lord" in COUNTLESS historical documents, etc.

I do not hear complaints about those, so the logic must be flawed somewhere. Perhaps it is only what they see in front of them (even though many have not ever seen the monuments in person) but isn't this shallow. If the goal is to truely remove all reference of God or the Lord from the government, I think the task will be overwhleming. Sounds like the logic is, "What you cant see wont hurt you."

I can understand the dilema. Liberal thought is a million shades of gray. You can do this but you can't do that. This is OK, but this isn't. All because of how this makes them feel versus that. God on money is OK. God in the courthouse is not.

I also have the same dilema. My point weas not addressed either. 



> Amendment I
> 
> *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion*, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> ...



If the "liberals" are using the First Ammendment as their ammunition, show me how the displays have violated it.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 6, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> ...
> To me, people who follow the "logic" of removing the Ten Commandment monuments are also for removing "In God We Trust" from all currency, "In the year of our Lord" in COUNTLESS historical documents, etc.
> 
> I do not hear complaints about those, so the logic must be flawed somewhere. Perhaps it is only what they see in front of them (even though many have not ever seen the monuments in person) but isn't this shallow. If the goal is to truely remove all reference of God or the Lord from the government, I think the task will be overwhleming. Sounds like the logic is, "What you cant see wont hurt you."
> ...


I am all in favor of removing "In God We Trust" from the nation's currency. And, while I think it would be difficult to remove the "In the year of Our Lord ..." from historical documents, I think that would be a good thing too. 

"Liberal thought is a million shades of gray" 

I think all thought is a million shades of gray. Describing anything without subtlety and nuance is a silly position. There are very few absolutes in a society of small group animals. So, please don't start going all Sith on us. 

To your question, and your point.

The Father God of Christianity, the God of Islam, and the God of Israel are all exactly the same God. Yet each faith has a different name for this God. These three faiths are said to be the Abrahamic religions. 

So, what if the courthouse you enter, has inscribed on a granite block .... "la illaha illa Allah" .... would, then you be decrying liberal shades of gray? 

Seems to me, that 'God' is just fine on money and in courthouses and governement policy, as long as we are talking about 'My' God. But, if you think that Jesus was a wise and patient man, and not the Divine; if the story that he was crucified and resurrected for mans' salvation seems just a little bit nutty, well then, that is a different 'it doesn't matter' all together. 

As for the calendar, take your pick ... 
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar.html


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 6, 2005)

That's somewhat all fine and dandy. People may very well be offended by it, but it falls under free speech in the end.

To your point, if this country was founded by Islamists and we replaced everything with Allah, I probably wouldn't be offended as I would most likely have been brought up under Islam.

Point is we can't rewrite our history or forget our heritage, much to the dismay of public schools and Boston Universities. So until someone can find some lawful reason why they should be removed, I say that they stay.

If 51% of the country turns Buddhist and more Buddhists occupy judicial positions, I suppose we mght start seeing Buddha over the coutroom doors. For some reason that I can't explain, I doubt there would be such outcry being it is non-Christian. Just a gut feeling though. There are currently more offensive things I can find already, like "Obedience to the law is freedom." - Gardner, MA.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 6, 2005)

You speak of 'our heritage' as if it is for some reason beyond review and reconsideration. The country was founded by Europeans. Because of that, there is a natural European influence. As 'our heritage' is from Europe, are you suggesting that we look to that continent for our civil policies? You know, like Universal Health Care?

I don't think that is what you are suggesting. The fact that the Roman Army conquered most of Europe, thus, and through the Emperor Constantine, do we have such phrases as 'In the year of Our Lord', or, if I recall correctly, 'Anno Dominea' (A.D.) should not mean that we can not review any aspect of our society. 

As the current trends seem to show, in another couple of decades, most of the citizens of the United States are probably going to be Catholic Hispanics. I wonder if the Evangelical Christians are aware of, and perhaps, terrified of that fact. 

Regardless ... when the 'State' says something, it is not an action of 'Free Speech', it is an embodiement of policy. Surely, you have heard of the 'Bully Pulpit'. What can that phrase possibly mean? Could it be that when 'The State', as voiced through the elected officials, carries more weight in its language than the 'Free Tibet' bumper sticker on the back of the VW Golf?

If I am a citizen of the United States, raised in Theravada Buddhism (such things do happen, especially in places on the west coast), were there is no such entity as "The Lord Your God" ... (as in "I am ...., you shall have no other before me"), why should I be brought before a court, as indictee, witness, or juror, that in any way states policies based on Abraham's God?

So much for the 'Melting Pot', Eh?


----------



## AikidoCal (Jul 6, 2005)

Disclaimer: I haven't read the entire 7 page thread, I simply don't have that much time to do so. Of what I read I got the gist I think, well I am it pretty much is a uncomplicated division between two camps. The complication is with those in power who have decided what to do. If I am redundant I appologize. 
1. Kill everyone involved...start over (kidding).

1. the 10 commandments are a symbol of a morality and ethics in my mind which are not new and universal. I don't really see them as anything more then social laws or rules, and less of being a religious doctrine that brain washes anyone to send money to some church, or fooling people into thinking there is some old man up there that controls everything. 

Take for a moment, what if Bernard Shaw wrote don't murder/kill. Or stick to your own wife, stop wanting the other guy's wife. Don't steal, etc. it is pretty universal stuff that can seen as just getting a bunch of unrulely people to along, curbing unwanted chaos, long enough to get people organized. 
IMO. 

The 10 Commandments are implying to a group of people to stop partying and listen to what God has to say. It was for the Jews (slaves or lower class) who rebelled aganist the majority and part of that was a single more powerful God then the gods of the majority. The 10 commandments was targeted to and for the Jewish people at that time that went with Moses who lead them out of Egypt into a unforgiving dessert/wilderness/gone camping. I doubt Moses was thinking the 10 commandments was for everyone in the world and the future. He had his hands full as it was. 


Sure Moses said, God spoke to him. If he said it was his ideas they really would have ignored him, or never followed him in the first place-they probably would have stoned him in some fashion otherwise. As we know, there is no greater authority then to say it came from God. Look at what Wacko Jacko said in terms of God being on his side inorder to restore his cred. We all know how powerful it is when someone says without earmarks of being a psychotic, God told me, this is from God. God did it for me. Culturally in relation to the bible, look who we are at war with and what they do in the name of God. They haven't changed for thousands of years. They needed God in the first place. Ever wonder why God showed up there first in that part of town first? With that in context the Bible makes sense. 

Today, by choice or chance are living with many Christian things, this was due to those who came to the is country from England at first and later to make a buck, and keep their rich teenagers male off-spring out of their hair, the framers of this country, and others. You would think we would just not care if the 10 commandments where in a court house since we don't pay attention or fuss over the fact that "In God We Trust" is on our money amoung other Christian things. 

2. The 10 commandments and Christianity where accepted by many if not all the framers of this country and because of their Freemason beliefs set up our Government with God in mind. "In God We Trust" that is on our money. Like I just said. Or the fact the framers included things like freedom of religion separate Church ( Church of England) and State. Their reasons for saying such things don't apply today. Never the less, Christianity is the mortar of the foundations of our government. Like it or not. The problem is someone hasn't figured a way to make a tourist buck off of it. 

3. Government needs true morality and ethics. Something should be in the halls of courts and offices that reminds them of morals and ethics. A powerful message. Government has become a big business. People use to say it was big brother and it was telling us what to do and spying us. Well we are way past Orwell. But we don't keep that going. We are more like in the throws of our government becoming an L.L.P., inc. where the oxymoron of business ethics are put in fine print. Where the "bottom line" is "policy." Something the framers ( businessmen some where) didn't intend government to be, I am sure. In this day and age China is wanting to get mineral rights by buying a large American ( we think is American who knows now a days ) oil company. They get that the get better weapons and hence stronger military. Why in the first place are they allowed to do it? It goes back to policies our government made for the interest not for the people, or by the people, but for corporations, by corporations. Corporations who have no loyalty or interest to their nation. 

4. Turn the 10 commandments into art. How, by just saying it is a work of art in the court house. 

Real morals and ethics are an endangered species. Orwell missed the boat, he thought government was big brother. He didn't realize Big Brother was coporations who whould take over and control government. Or should I say corpoment; for profit, of profit, by profit, to insure those CEOs have the wealth and power of kings. We should be more concerned with the separation of corporations and state. And a law against corporations selling religion.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 6, 2005)

Is "Eh. It's just hegemony." Really that compelling an argument?


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 7, 2005)

Wow MisterMike - you really hate us on the west coast, huh? Let's see, I'm also pro-choice and my father was born in Boston- so I guess I just hit the Evil Heathen Trifecta! Tell him what he wins Bob!

 Seriously, it's really cute of the right to demonize those of us who actually think instead of react. Does the fact that I live on CA make me less of an American than you? Does the fact the my late father- a 20 year Marine Corps veteran- was born in Boston and always voted Democrat make him less of an American than you? 

 I am so sick and tired of the right using the word "Liberal" as if we were just not as rightous or as patriotic as the rest of you. When Ann Coulter put out her book Treason a few years ago, I nearly lost my mind. How dare that little hate mongering trollop impune my, or anyone else that differs from her (and the rest of the hard-line right), opinion as a traitor. My father and most of his family put thier lives on the line for her right to speak freely and her response is to imply that he is a traitor? The current war in Iraq is not being faught exclusively by right-wing suck ups. Ther are plenty of men and women from both Boston and California risking thier lives to give all of us the right to have an opinion and to express it freely. 

 Mike, your snide and party line comments have irked me not only because they do not address the real topic at hand- why you conservative Christians just don't get the seperation of Church and State- but they insult everything that we as a country are supposed to be: a union of differing ideas and opinions. I put it to the right that they are largely responsible for the horrible divisivness in this country today.

 I am a Californian, I am an American, I am liberal in many if not most of my views, I vote, and I will not be told what or who to worship by the state. I would defend your right to believe what you want and to pray to whatever God you choose without labeling you with some smart-*** comment like "well, what do you expect from someone from - insert red state here- ? Their not as rightous or as American as I am."

   My rant for the moment- let the flame begin...

 I have re-read the posts previous to this one and noticed that the CA comment was not from MrMike, but MichaelWard.  And I was not entirely sure of MichaelWard's stand from said post on those of us from CA.  I apologize for any error on my part...

 but I'm still irked


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 7, 2005)

dngrRuss .. my comments about the 'west coast' are based strictly upon immigration patterns to the United States over the past 400 years.

The east coast was settled primarily by European's, bringing their predominately Christian belief systems with them - Anglican, Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran.

Eastern Religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism are, perhaps, more prevelant on the west coast because immigrants with those beliefs are geographically more likely to immigrate across the Pacific Ocean. These belief structures do not 'DO' the 10 commandments.

That's all I meant, nothing more.


----------



## qizmoduis (Jul 7, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> That's somewhat all fine and dandy. People may very well be offended by it, but it falls under free speech in the end.



This isn't a matter of free speech.  The government doesn't have that right, only individuals do.  When a judge acts in his/her official capacity, he is an agent of the government.  As such, he has no free speech rights.  He can doff the robe and rant on a soapbox outside the courthouse during his free time as much as anybody else, of course.


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 7, 2005)

Thank you for clarifying your point MichaelWard.  I understand now and agree with what you were saying.  Again, I apologize for any misunderstanding to you.


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 7, 2005)

DngrRuss said:
			
		

> Wow MisterMike - you really hate us on the west coast, huh? Let's see, I'm also pro-choice and my father was born in Boston- so I guess I just hit the Evil Heathen Trifecta! Tell him what he wins Bob!
> 
> Seriously, it's really cute of the right to demonize those of us who actually think instead of react. Does the fact that I live on CA make me less of an American than you? Does the fact the my late father- a 20 year Marine Corps veteran- was born in Boston and always voted Democrat make him less of an American than you?
> 
> ...



Snide partyline comments? From what I got from your post, you aren't intelligent enough to read who wrote what, so your whimpering critique really doesn't hold water. As to the "real issue," why not read the subject line instead of jumping in both feet with the typical "It's the big mean Christian Right" sky is falling B.S.

My comments are my own and if you would take a little time to read you must not be so quick to lay down the rhetoric. Later smarty-pants.


----------



## ginshun (Jul 7, 2005)

WTF, I haven't posted in this thread is 4 months and people are giving me negative rep points for it?

 Whatever.


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 7, 2005)

Not intelligent enough?  Wow, I call your rhetoric on the carpet and you impune my intelligence.  Ok...

 For the record, you will notice my post was at 1:45 in the morning.  No excuse, but I was fighting a bout of insomnia and mixed up a couple posts.  I did address that in my response and, with the exception of spelling errors, I am not one to change my statements in edit.  I may add to the post and clarify or even acknowledge an error- but i believe in leaving my words out to be viewed as written- no matter how bleary-eyed and long winded they might be.

 Now, as to your implication that I just can't read:
_The point is we can't rewrite our history or forget our heritige, much to the dismay of public schools and Boston Universities.
_What did I misread there?  It seems to me, based on your own posts in this and other threads, that you are simply saying that public schools and Boston universities (favorite targets of the religous right) are full of godless heathen revisionists.  Maybe their just full of people who STUDY rather that accept whatever opium they have been given.  Revision, if it is factually correct, should be welcomed.  Aren't we all after the truth?  

 As to your assertion that if 51% of the country were Buddhist and Buddhist judges and/or public officials wanted Buddhist teachings displayed in a public forum that there would be much less of an outcry since their not Christians: I can only speak for myself- I would be first in line to fight them on the same grounds.  NO RELIGOUS ENDORSEMENTS BY THE STATE.

 As for the whole "Big Mean Christian Right" comment:  I happened to see a Senator the other night (forgive me, I do not have his name and info handy, though i will get it if needed) railed against the "war on Christianity" in this country.  Yeah, it must be really tough being a Christian in this country.  I mean, it's not like you control the House, Senate, and the Presidency or anything.  I feel really sorry for you guys- you know- being so hard up and all.


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 10, 2005)

Yea, I got negative rep points for this thread too...
  Geez... get a little passionate and rant against the Christians and someone wants to fire back at me...

  Hmmm...

 Not sure who gave me the neg rep, but, if you're one of those Evangelicals or Fendamentalists, or just plain old Sunday-Go-To-Meeting Christians I seem to so easily annoy- 

  Then forgive me :boing1:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 10, 2005)

DngrRuss said:
			
		

> Yea, I got negative rep points for this thread too...
> Geez... get a little passionate and rant against the Christians and someone wants to fire back at me...
> 
> Hmmm...
> ...



Like I said before, I think the 10 Commandments should be there as a form of history on what laws proceeded out system, as well as the Magna Charta and other laws codified, that influenced our system.

I have also said, it should not be used in the court room, to justify people telling the truth.

I have also said that is should be removed from our money.

Yet I respect that the U.S. Constitution allows for no state religion which has been accepted as religious freedom, which is fine and dandy, until you disagree with the masses. Then they all want to shove down your throat their way of thinking, and tell you, that you are wrong. Personally, Ithink religion helps some people, I also think it causes problems, of intolerance, and hatred and seperation. Which open minded religious people will tell you is the failing of the people and not the religion. I just wish, I could express myself, without being told I am wrong, in an intelligent manner, with arguements, from people who wish to actually listen to both sides, and make an intelligent decision based upon what is presented. Yet, many get into a knee jerk reaction, and fall back to what they think they remember they learned in church or at home as "True" religous values. When if they did a study of the culture and the time frame and put things into perspective, they might be able to understand why certain things were written down, in the different religous scripts.

Just my thoughts. I wish people were open minded.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 10, 2005)

Boy, I sure we could get away from the phrase "shove it down your throught". The imagery of oral rape is repugnant to me, and overpowers any argument being made. Now maybe some don't see that phrase in this manner; maybe some see it as force gluttony. Either way, there has to be a better phrase to describe intolerance.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 10, 2005)

The majority opinions got it right.


We are dealing in shades of gray here. What I would like to draw attention to is the intention behind each decision. 

The justices clearly affirmed the valuable contribution that religion makes to civic life. The Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol is one of 17 monuments and 21 historical markers that adorn a public park that envelopes the Capitol. Symbolically, the exhibit celebrates that religion has shaped American history and merits a place smack-dab in the middle of the public square. 

"Of course, the Ten Commandments are religious," Chief Justice Rehnquist noted in his comments bolstering the majority opinion. He then added the linchpin:_ "Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause." _

Some secularists are bent on stripping the role of religion in public life, of course, but they are dead wrong when they take the "separation of church and state" to mean that people of faith should keep their religious sentiments hidden away in the privacy of a closet in their home. 

No Christian, Jew, Muslim, or other person of faith should feel coerced to suppress their faith in the workplace, at the social security administration office, or at school. Get over it, secularists, "God" has never been a taboo subject in American society and never will be. People are free to show up in public wearing their faith on their sleeves. 

The Supreme Court ruling against the Kentucky monuments had a quite different intention. In Kentucky, monuments displaying the Ten Commandments were posted alone by orders of county governments. They added secular documents only after a suit was filed - evidence that the government's motivation was religious, the Court said. 

The key question in each case hinged on whether the display of religious monuments violates the First Amendment's prohibition against an official "establishment" of religion. The state, in other words, cannot identify itself with a particular religion. American legal tradition thereby protects the integrity of citizens to pursue their own religious traditions without the interference of the state. 

Many Christian conservatives interpreted the Kentucky decision as yet another expression of hostility to their faith, and a deviation from the intent of the Constitution's framers. They operate under the assumption that "America is a Christian nation," but they are as wrongheaded as the secularists. I, for one, don't want the government to start speaking for God or claiming God's blessing, even if it is my faith tradition being referenced-not that there's any chance of that(more on this later). Why would any devout Christian or Jew want a county courthouse to equate its application of law to the deep moral justice that the Ten Commandments demands? 

In sum, the intention of the Court's decision was to undergird the free expression of religion, yet prevent the association of the state with a sole religion. Lest we lose ourselves in the application of law to these two particular cases, can we at least come to agreement regarding the importance of this distinction for American civic life? 

As far as this goes:



			
				First Amendment to Constitution said:
			
		

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.




It's been violated in one way or another since its inception, by various local and state governments, as well as the federal government. *Especially* by the federal government.The federal government continues to violate it by being the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes a "religion," and who can practice it.

It was illegal for Catholics and Jews to vote in various states, including New York, until well towards the end of the 19thh century.There are other examples of unconstitutional practices governing the support and limits on religion , but I'll just stick to a personal favorite.

There are religious practices that I engage in that are illegal in certain areas, perfectly legal in others, but still considered illegal-though the law is largely unenforced-by federal law, just as there are other practices that are perfectly legal for me, but might be totally illegal-and prosecutable-for caucasian practitioners.

I'm a Sundancer. Traditionally, I can have and use eagle feather instruments. Luckily for me, I'm a registered and enrolled member of two tribes, and legally 1/2 Indian, so I can "legally" have my eagle feathers, and practice my "religion." There are more than a few white Sundancers, though, and they could get into trouble.

Of course, in some areas the Sundance is illegal, as are a few other things, so, for me, the argument over the 10 Commandments-which are interesting in and of themselves, is silly from both sides, in that it is the federal government that determines who it is that can practice Indian religion, and to what extent they may practice it, as well as regulating (and I'll spare you the long, lengthy sad stories on this) who gets what they need to practice it, and when.

Legally, as I said, the Commandments are interesting, and worth examining.
The first 4 Commandments deal with "God's Law": respect for the Creator, not having any other Gods, keeping the Sabbath. They deal with mankind's relationship to the Creator, and are, as such, religious.

The fifth, _honor thy father and mother_ is special, *and we all should follow it, right?*

The second five, though, deal with our relationship to our fellow men, and are therefore, civil law. However, a closer examination of them reveals something interesting; in our current society, only *two* of those commandments, _Thou shall not kill, _and _thou shall not steal_, strictly speaking, remain illegal, with a third, _Thou shall not bear false witness_, only being "illegal" in the context of courtroom perjury.

So maybe the real compromise would be to only permit the display of commandments 6 and 8, and maybe 9-since 7, _Thou shall not commit adultery_, is practically a national pastime, and 10, _Thou shall not covet_,forbids what has become *the American way.....*


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 10, 2005)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Some secularists are bent on stripping the role of religion in public life, of course, but they are dead wrong when they take the "separation of church and state" to mean that people of faith should keep their religious sentiments hidden away in the privacy of a closet in their home.
> 
> No Christian, Jew, Muslim, or other person of faith should feel coerced to suppress their faith in the workplace, at the social security administration office, or at school. Get over it, secularists, "God" has never been a taboo subject in American society and never will be. People are free to show up in public wearing their faith on their sleeves.


 Nowhere in my posts (though I would agree that some extreme athiests might like the idea) do I suggest that people of faith should keep their beliefs hidden away. Just not on grounds and buildings owned by the state. And let's be honest, people of religion- especially the Christian right- do not keep thier faith hidden away. They fill the airwaves of both tv and radio, they knock on doors, they minister- or at least express thier opinion- at the workplace, they stand on street corners and preach (though those guys usually haven't bathed in awhile and are "dentally challenged"). So the idea that they will be hidden from view is a falacious one.

 I am a person of faith. I beleive very much in a higher power greater than mine and my duty is to investigate the truth and seek out answers for myself and my family. If someone asks me what I beleive, I will be happy to tell them and let them make thier own decisions as to whether they see things the same way or not. It is called respect. I respect everyone's right to thier own thoughts and feelings. I have always been a person who values openmindedness and appreciate it in others.

 If I were working at the Social Security office, and in my cubicle I had a framed copy of the 10 Commandments, a picture of Jesus, and an autographed copy of Jerry Fallwell's latest book at my desk, that is perfectly acceptible- as long as I am still able to do my job correctly. If a coworker asks me about my faith, I should be able to discuss it with them on my free time (lunch hour, etc.) without fear of reprisal. If the office manager decides to put up a community bulletin board in our lobby for public use, then any local church should be allowed to put up a flyer right next to the ones offering free kittens. 

 But, the moment it is not a personal or community issue and put up any sort of religious icon on the state paid walls or grounds, it is considered an endorsement and therefore should not be allowed. 

 It has been posted previously that many of these icons were donated. Okay, when I see the Buddhist, Muslim, Zorastrian, Hindu, American Indian, and Pagan icons being placed on public property, maybe I'll back off on the whole issue, because then it is obviously not a case of endorsement.

 As to whether these items are of historical significance or not, perhaps they are. But that is what museums, historical societies, and historical tours are for.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 10, 2005)

DngrRuss said:
			
		

> Nowhere in my posts (though I would agree that some extreme athiests might like the idea) do I suggest that people of faith should keep their beliefs hidden away. Just not on grounds and buildings owned by the state. And let's be honest, people of religion- especially the Christian right- do not keep thier faith hidden away. They fill the airwaves of both tv and radio, they knock on doors, they minister- or at least express thier opinion- at the workplace, they stand on street corners and preach (though those guys usually haven't bathed in awhile and are "dentally challenged"). So the idea that they will be hidden from view is a falacious one.


_Lighten up, Francis._No where in *my* post did I suggest that you did. I'll add, though, that I prayed in school the entire time I attended, at least to say a blessing over my lunch, and-while it was a long time ago, and it's hard to imagine anyone who noticed taking offense-_no one ever knew. _




			
				DngrRuss said:
			
		

> It has been posted previously that many of these icons were donated. Okay, when I see the Buddhist, Muslim, Zorastrian, Hindu, American Indian, and Pagan icons being placed on public property, maybe I'll back off on the whole issue, because then it is obviously not a case of endorsement.
> As to whether these items are of historical significance or not, perhaps they are. But that is what museums, historical societies, and historical tours are for.


And the religious right makes a great deal of the portrayal of Moses at the Supreme Court Building, but _multiple_ pieces of artwork in the Supreme Court building, including the courtroom, show the historical significance of the Ten Commandments in a context that puts it on par with other influential laws from numerous cultural backgrounds. None of those artworks includes the actual text of the Ten Commandments, although four commandments are partly visible in Hebrew letters in one image. It is perhaps notable that those specific commandments, Nos. 6 to 10, are totally secular in nature, unlike the first few commandments, which are, as I said, explicitly sectarian.

Courtroom friezes portray Moses as one of *18* historic lawgivers. He is given equal prominence with lawgivers from a variety of religious backgrounds, including Islam, Confucianism, sun worship, and both Egyptian and Greco-Roman paganism. While Moses is shown holding the tables of the Ten Commandments, Muhammad is shown holding the Quran, the primary source of Islamic law, and the first pharaoh, Menes, is shown holding the ankh, an Egyptian mythological symbol representing eternal life. Other figures are shown holding secular legal documents. 

The frieze also includes Greco-Roman-style allegorical figures, including Equity, Philosophy, Right of Man, Liberty and Peace. To see an actual image of this frieze, visit this page on the Supreme Courts Web site.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 10, 2005)

I would agree that no government employee ought to be deprived of their right to religious expression in the form of wearing a yarmulke, a crucifix, a star of David, a veil, or a pentagram...provided the item was within the rules of decorum as prescribed by the job.

An example of a violation of rules of decorum...a city clerk wears a t-shirt that has a gory/graphic representation of the crucifixion (a la "The Passion of the Christ") or is printed with acidulous Hellfire and Brimstone admonitions towards repentance.  That goes beyond the limits of religious observance and enters into the realm of evangelism...and rather tasteless evangelism at that.

The compromise article I linked to above stated that government ought not sponsor displays such as the ten commandments.  Indeed, our tax dollars ought not pay for any religious expression, whether Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, or Rastafarian.  If, however, we expand the right to public expression and avoid tax subsidization for this expression, we avoid walking the fine line the courts are now forced to walk.

Downside:  People don't want competition in the marketplace of ideas.  If we allow the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn...we must allow the Muslims to have chosen suras posted.  The Jews might want to post the wisdom of Hillel.  The lawn might be very crowded after a bit...with each group trying to raise their own money to have a more ostentatious public display.  The government, owning the property, might alot a certain dimension to each group.

This "all or nothing" approach has some appeal.


Regards,



Steve


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 10, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Boy, I sure we could get away from the phrase "shove it down your throught". The imagery of oral rape is repugnant to me, and overpowers any argument being made. Now maybe some don't see that phrase in this manner; maybe some see it as force gluttony. Either way, there has to be a better phrase to describe intolerance.



What do you call people who insist on coming to my house to tell me I am wrong in my beliefs. What do you call people who then send women and children with the men, so you do not speak profanity or anything in front of them? What do you call people who tell me I am wrong and crazy for having an idea, or belief that is different form them and are willing to spend hours trying to convince me I am wrong to save my soul? 

After I reply that I am not interested, they should just leave, and not bother me, but they keep coming back, and insisting that I am the one who is in trouble, or should listen to them. Yet, when I ask if they believe, and state only that I wish for a Yes or No answer, not a qualified answer, then we can have a discussion on beliefs, and how they affect us, and those around us, but they must qualify it, in their terms, so if you do not believe the same way then you are wrong. 

Give me a better phrase for these types of people, and I will use it, until then I will continue to phrase it the best way I can, which is "Shove it down my throat". Which is to imply that I do not wish to heat what they have to say, but they continue to insist that I have too.

Hoping for a better way to communicate.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 10, 2005)

Rich, I call those people rude. Rude, insensative, and very un-christlike. 

But when similar evangelists approach me, I smile, nod, thank them for their concern and ask them to move on.

And I certainly don't mean to address my comment toward you directly. This phrase is entirely too common in our language today. I hear it on talk radio, I hear it on television, I read it in several of the threads on this board. I am of the mind that if people think about what these words actually are saying, they would use them less often. 

I understand that many will use this phrase as a colloquialism for another asserting beliefs into an arena where those beliefs are not welcome. I further understand that language evolves over time, and I can not prevent new phrases from becoming commonplace. But I can resist.

The imagery is vulgar.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 10, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Rich, I call those people rude. Rude, insensative, and very un-christlike.
> 
> But when similar evangelists approach me, I smile, nod, thank them for their concern and ask them to move on.
> 
> ...




While I agree the imagery is vulgar so are their actions. If they approach and then leave me alone. If they leave stuff on my house and I never get nack to them or ask them not too, (* kindly *) and they do, then I have no problems with them. Their rudeness was minor and not worth the mention.

It is those who keep coming back until you insist upon threaten them with violence, or you end your friendship or associations with them. 

These are the ones, who I am referring too. 

Peace


----------



## Marginal (Jul 10, 2005)

Along those lines, when did the most likely not politically correct ('cause only Godless liberals use PC language), but PC nonetheless term, "person of faith" emerge? Seemed like it popped up out of nowhere during the Fillibuster power waggle.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 11, 2005)

Try and convert them to Wicca when they come to the door, have some books on Witchcraft handy that you can try and give them.

 Personally I got nothing for or against the display of the 10 Commandments, as long as it is done tastfully.  But opening the door to religious displays from one group of religions opens the door for others, not just ones from that Jewish/Christian/Islam family.  

 Would the people that put that display up agree to the Satanic commandments being posted?  Or some Confuscious says... laws?

 Religion in community that is not united on religious ideas does need to be kept private to some extent.  Public practices whould be limited to non-invasive acts and displays which are not aimed at offending other peoples religions.

 The 10 Commandments could be seen as offensive to some peoples religious views, they are religious laws that not only dictate things like "Do not murder" but also dictate things like "I am the only God".  So if it is a neutral display then some contrasting religious laws should be put in to show this, otherwise it will appear as the court having a bias to a specific religion.

 If that is intentional it is a problem, if it is unintentional it should be remedied so as not to appear biased.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 11, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Try and convert them to Wicca when they come to the door, have some books on Witchcraft handy that you can try and give them.




Or--if you call yourself an atheist or agnostic (and I'm not saying you do, using as I am the global "you")--you could try actually telling them you're an atheist or agnostic.  

The former, "atheist," is so roundly treated as an obscenity that it might serve some to actually use it from time to time.  It could help dispel the myth that atheists are corrupt and evil degenerates.  Some of us are honest and good degenerates.

"Agnostic" is almost a euphemism, preferred to "atheist" because of the less-harsh connotations it brings.  

Those that actually openly profess atheism/agnosticism are few in number due to the attached stigma.  About fifteen percent of Americans fall into that category.  Yet to hear some Christians tell it, atheists/agnostics are a terrible majority that are constantly pressing an assault on the right of Christians to worship or speak openly about their religion.  One would think we were one step away from feeding them to the lions...even though they've managed to take control of a political party that now controls the House, the Senate, the Executive branch, and the judiciary.



Regards,



Steve


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 11, 2005)

elder999 said:
			
		

> _Lighten up, Francis._No where in *my* post did I suggest that you did. I'll add, though, that I prayed in school the entire time I attended, at least to say a blessing over my lunch, and-while it was a long time ago, and it's hard to imagine anyone who noticed taking offense-_no one ever knew. _


 I didn't say that you specifically made such a suggestion.  I can only speak for myself and my feelings, unless I am quoting others.  The personal pronoun only indicated that I have not made such a suggestion, others may have.

 I also prayed in school.  Noone knew.  Noone was offended.  If I had prayed openly, I also don't think that anyone would have been offended, and if they were- tough.  Be offended.  As long as I am not disrupting class and I _do not represent the state and tell others to pray_, then there should be no issue.

 One of my favorite teachers was my 5th grade teacher- Mrs. Wilson.  Before lunch everyday, she would have us bow our heads and say grace before going to the lunch room.  I was just a kid, and I loved that woman as my teacher and a role model.  I never felt offended because I was living in the Bible Belt at the time and thought that this was sort of normal.  I also never mentioned it to my parents.  I wasn't trying to hide it, it just didn't occur to me.

 Now as an adult, I understand that what she had nothing but good intentions- as I said, she was one of the sweetest ladies I have ever known- but it was wrong.  She was a Baptist, I was (at the time) Catholic.  Prayer and traditions are different and it was not her place to require us to do things her way.  

 Did it make me a bad person?  Did it harm me?  Of course not.  But that should not be the argument to endorse one faith over another.  "Well, it didn't hurt you- so it's ok."

 The 10 Commandments, or any other religous icon or tradition, falls into the same catagory.  Just because it does not harm me for it to hang on a state wall or sit on the state lawn does not make it right.  If I donated Ba'Hai laws or Budhist icons to the courthouse for display, I am sure that I would be shot down.  

 Government and the business of government _should be secular._  Government is an entity onto itself.  Let it run it's own business without the interference of the masses.


----------



## DngrRuss (Jul 11, 2005)

BTW, I did convince a bunch of Jahova's Witnesses that I worshipped the devil and practiced black magic...
 they never came knocking on my door again- even though they hit my neighborhood about once a month.

 hehhehheh.....


----------



## aplonis (Jan 19, 2006)

Tgace said:
			
		

> We still place our hands on bibles when taking the oath in this country.....


 
That is equally as non-sequitur as holding up the right hand when making that oath. Doing so is to show the court that the moon of our thumb has not been branded with letter to signify conviction of a past crime.

Anyone even half conversant with the works of James Madison, author of the US Constitution, would not be disposed to think that he meant any show of preference, however small, for one religious point of view over another. Same again for Jefferson, Franklin, Paine and Adams. And Washington himself publicly refused to participate in communion through all his life.

These are historical facts which anyone may verify at their public library if they so choose.

On the other hand, if they care to display the Ten Commandments together with the Eightfold Path and all of the similar credos of ethical living, then it is not showing preference of one faith above others. 

This is important because at its most basic, Government is men with guns who take your money. If any disagree with this, let them whithold their taxes and count the days until men with guns show up at their doorstep. Men with guns should not decide religious affairs. Ethical argument and moral example alone should suffice.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 19, 2006)

_


			
				Tgace said:
			
		


			We still place our hands on bibles when taking the oath in this country.....
		
Click to expand...

_ 
_We* also have the option not to......*_


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 19, 2006)

aplonis said:
			
		

> On the other hand, if they care to display the Ten Commandments together with the Eightfold Path and all of the similar credos of ethical living, then it is not showing preference of one faith above others.


 
Personally, I think it'd be pretty damn hilarious if they displayed "Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged" in front of a state courthouse. 

Laterz.


----------



## Drac (Jan 19, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Personally, I think it'd be pretty damn hilarious if they displayed "Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged" in front of a state courthouse.
> 
> Laterz.


 
Now THAT's funny...


----------



## KenpoEMT (Jan 19, 2006)

aplonis said:
			
		

> This is important because at its most basic, Government is men with guns who take your money. If any disagree with this, let them whithold their taxes and count the days until men with guns show up at their doorstep. *Men with guns should not decide religious affairs*. Ethical argument and moral example alone should suffice.


A most simple and elegant point.


----------



## Kane (Jan 19, 2006)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I would agree that no government employee ought to be deprived of their right to religious expression in the form of wearing a yarmulke, a crucifix, a star of David, a veil, or a pentagram...provided the item was within the rules of decorum as prescribed by the job.
> 
> An example of a violation of rules of decorum...a city clerk wears a t-shirt that has a gory/graphic representation of the crucifixion (a la "The Passion of the Christ") or is printed with acidulous Hellfire and Brimstone admonitions towards repentance. That goes beyond the limits of religious observance and enters into the realm of evangelism...and rather tasteless evangelism at that.
> 
> ...



  You do have a good point and I agree that put the 10 commandments on public buildings is not something we should do. If we do this for Christians then we would probably have to do the same for Muslims, Jews, ect. Not only does it promote a particular religion in a secular country, it would definitely cost tax money for this. And if we do this for Christians then we would probably have to do the same for Muslims, Jews, ect.

However, what's done is done. I personally don't want to spend tax money on taking out a decoration. It really doesn't make too much difference, just as long as the courts call it a decoration and nothing more.


----------



## Marginal (Jan 19, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> _We* also have the option not to......*_


 
One Judge drew some heat not too long ago for saying "They can swear on a ham sandwich for all I care as long as they swear."


----------



## Josh (Jan 30, 2006)

Jesus Christ said that there will come a time in History where EVERYTHING dealing with Him, God, God's Law, the Ten Commandments, Christians, etc... will be Hated.

We're There Now.


----------



## dobermann (Jan 30, 2006)

dont they have justitia, the roman goddes of justice?


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 30, 2006)

Josh said:
			
		

> Jesus Christ said that there will come a time in History where EVERYTHING dealing with Him, God, God's Law, the Ten Commandments, Christians, etc... will be Hated.
> 
> We're There Now.


 
Oh, Please!


----------



## Josh (Jan 30, 2006)

That's right Michael.


You're denying it only makes me Believe it Even More.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 30, 2006)

Well, Josh, if you ever want to join us in the 'Reality Based Community', you will notice the hundreds of millions of dollars raised by Christian ministries every year. 

Please reconcile that amount of fundraising to support the idea of Jesus Christ being equivalent to EVERYTHING is hated? 


Oh, and by the way, did you know the '10 Commandments' belong to the Jews, first?


----------



## tradrockrat (Jan 30, 2006)

Josh said:
			
		

> That's right Michael.
> 
> 
> You're denying it only makes me Believe it Even More.



Well, isn't this a little silly?  

I mean, yes, the fundamentalist muslims hate everything about christianity, but the Born-Agains seem pretty damn happy about it.  Now, most people seem to fall somewhere in between.  So really, your statement is pretty pointless cause you can refer to the haters and I can refer to the lovers.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 31, 2006)

Josh said:
			
		

> You're denying it only makes me Believe it Even More.



This is a frightening form of logic.


----------



## Blindside (Jan 31, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> This is a frightening form of logic.


 
Tain't no logic in Faith.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 31, 2006)

Josh said:
			
		

> You're denying it only makes me Believe it Even More.


 
Well, now. That just says it all, doesn't it??

Laterz.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 31, 2006)

Josh said:
			
		

> Are ya'll Offended?
> Don't you realize what ya'll are doing is EXACTLY what i said about in my earlier post?
> Ya'll think the Idea that there is a God is a bad thing. The Bible says we Everyone already has a knowledge of God but choose to do evil anyway.
> Everything Jesus said is coming true, if you wanna know what i'm talking about, PM me.


 
No, I am not offended. I just think that your opinions are not very carefully thought out. 

How are we doing exactly what you said. I hold no animosity to Jesus (or Joshua ben Joseph). He is an excellent teacher. 

If you want to talk about his actions and teaching being hated ... I suggest you look back about 1900 years. When believers had their faith tested, not by knuckleheads with computers, but by gladiator and beast in the Coliseum. 

Josh, trust me, I know what you are talking about. And I have used my evolutionary developed brain to reason my way past the ideological belief structure you propose. 

Thanks, but no thanks. 

If you draw strength and support from your fellowship in a church, good for you.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 31, 2006)

Josh said:
			
		

> Are ya'll Offended?
> 
> 
> Don't you realize what ya'll are doing is EXACTLY what i said about in my earlier post?
> ...


 
I'm not bothered by it, neither is Michael. Given that we are on the opposite sides of just about every other issue, that's saying something. How does that fit in with your theory?


----------



## Marginal (Jan 31, 2006)

Josh said:
			
		

> Don't you realize what ya'll are doing is EXACTLY what i said about in my earlier post?


 
Nobody else is feigning victimhood.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 31, 2006)

Josh said:
			
		

> Are ya'll Offended?
> 
> 
> Don't you realize what ya'll are doing is EXACTLY what i said about in my earlier post?
> ...



You have mentioned a few times "What Jesus Said" or "What is in the Bible". Can you quote books and passages please. I would like to refresh myself on these words.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Feb 1, 2006)

Ok, I haven't read this thread from the beginning but here is my .02 on posting the 10 Commandments...aside from the religious basis, what is offensive about stating that it's wrong to kill, steal, lie, etc. ? The crime rate and offenses against our fellow man are rampant. Should it be a big deal to post that these things are wrong and against the law in a building which upholds the law?


----------



## Ray (Feb 1, 2006)

Josh said:
			
		

> Are ya'll Offended?
> 
> Don't you realize what ya'll are doing is EXACTLY what i said about in my earlier post?
> 
> ...


I also believe in God and that Jesus will return.  But I don't expect tax money to be used to advertise my beliefs nor the beliefs of those who believe differently.


----------



## ed-swckf (Feb 1, 2006)

Josh said:
			
		

> Jesus Christ said that there will come a time in History where EVERYTHING dealing with Him, God, God's Law, the Ten Commandments, Christians, etc... will be Hated.
> 
> We're There Now.


 
Hardly breaking news there, Since day one people have disputed god's law etc.  

I mean its pretty obvious if you are extremely outspoken or lean strongly in one direction that there will be an amount of people in an opposing direction.  Even if you sit firmly on the fence not leaning one way or the other you can be hated, doesn't seem like much more than common sense jesus employed there.


----------



## ed-swckf (Feb 1, 2006)

Josh said:
			
		

> Are ya'll Offended?
> 
> 
> Don't you realize what ya'll are doing is EXACTLY what i said about in my earlier post?
> ...


 
I guess it depends on your definition of God, personally i put no weight in the christian idea of God.

As for the 10 commandments, well you have to look at exactly where the structure of your government sits with ideas of christianity and faith and how that ties in with the governing structure.  

I feel that your government should seperate church and state or make more effort to embrace and support other belief/non-belief systems.  I think to seperate it would be the safer bet, of course i understand the idea that they are there to resemble the history of the government, that can't change.


----------



## jdinca (Feb 1, 2006)

Josh said:
			
		

> Here's Jesus telling His discples about the end of the world
> 
> Matthew 24:4-15
> 
> ...


I think the problem Josh is that your not looking any farther back than the last few years. Everything that was mentioned in that passage has been going on for, oh, a couple of thousand years. What about WWI and WWII? The Crusades? What about polio, smallpox and the Black Plague? Earthquakes? Hmm, SF in 1906, Alaska in the '60s. How many devastating earthquakes have occurred in the Middle East and Asia over the centuries? Do you think this was the first tsunami in history to kill a large number of people? Our country was founded by Puritans because the Church of England was corrupt. That was a little over 400 years ago. When fuedal lords ruled on high and oppressed their subjects, do you think that they could have been considered wicked? Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun?

I commend you for your dedication to your beliefs. But before you go any farther down the road you appear to be going down, I think you need to step back and take a look at a bigger snapshot of history than the last 5-10 years. Give youself a chance to grow and gain a little more life experience before you make proclamations such as the ones you've made here. You'll be the better for it.


----------



## Lisa (Feb 1, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> My question(s) for you would be this;
> 
> What is the First of the 10 Commandments in your faith?
> 
> ...



I think I know where you are going with this, michael...maybe 

Until a time comes where all religious "commandments" (and I use that word only as a general term) are accepted in public display, especially in a government setting, the display of the christian ten commandements could be seen as biased towards one said religious institution.  Please correct me if I am wrong. 

I have learned a lot from this thread.  Sat back quietly lurking and reading. For instance, I did not know that you had the option not to be sworn in on a bible.  

I agree with hardheadjarheads perspective that the "all or nothing" approach has some appeal.  I just wonder if I will ever see the day where church and state are truly separated.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 1, 2006)

Sil Lum TigerLady said:
			
		

> Ok, I haven't read this thread from the beginning but here is my .02 on posting the 10 Commandments...aside from the religious basis, what is offensive about stating that it's wrong to kill, steal, lie, etc. ? The crime rate and offenses against our fellow man are rampant. Should it be a big deal to post that these things are wrong and against the law in a building which upholds the law?


 
Post Columbine, a few Republican lawmakers tried to install the ten commandments in public schools. It was stricken down, and they didn't bother trying to replace those with secularized versions, like "No killing other students please."

The whole point is to play to the fundie base.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 1, 2006)

Lisa said:
			
		

> I think I know where you are going with this, michael...maybe
> 
> Until a time comes where all religious "commandments" (and I use that word only as a general term) are accepted in public display, especially in a government setting, the display of the christian ten commandements could be seen as biased towards one said religious institution. Please correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> ...


 
Just a couple of thoughts ... I had entered a more extensive reply, but, my wireless card hiccupped. 

1 - I had mentioned earlier that I think Joshua ben Joseph (Jesus) is an excellent teacher. One of his lessons that I like particularly is: 


			
				Matthew 6:6 said:
			
		

> But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.


This seems a clear instruction to keep your religious activities private.

2 - One version of the First Commandment is this:


			
				The All Mighty said:
			
		

> I am the Lord Your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.


The speaker of this Commandment is the god of the Jews, sometimes named Jehovah, sometimes name Yahweh. The Christian version of this commandment does not reference Egypt or Slavery. The speaker of the Christian version of this commandment is spoken by the Father God of the 'Trinity', which, as I understand it, is almost heretical to the Jews. Alternatively, in Islam, which is also an Abrahamic religion, the speaker can only be Allah.
If these religions can not agree on the exact wording of the First Commandment, nor on how to address the speaker, it would seem there will be greater problems than if the scripture should be publically displayed. Greater Problems as in, oh, let's say The Crusades.

This commandment certainly seems anachonistic, don't you think. 


The 18th Century (already enough of a Christian reference in my mind), is referred to as 'The Enlightenment'. I try to keep this in mind when recalling how the United States was originally formed; including the idea of separation of Church and State.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 2, 2006)

Lisa said:
			
		

> I agree with hardheadjarheads perspective that the "all or nothing" approach has some appeal. I just wonder if I will ever see the day where church and state are truly separated.



Well, that will always be difficult when there are people like Josh in positions of political power. Despite this, I have faith (hah, a pun!) that it is a goal that can be achieved one day.

That being said, I always find individuals like Josh curious in their apparent inability to distinguish between Separation of Church and State and a supposed 'attack' on their religion. It inceasingly seems clear that such individuals interpret the two concept to be one and the same (meaning, they will only be satisifed with some form of quasi-theocracy in America).

As a psychology student, I'd be interested in regards to the origins of such obvious cognitive biases.

Laterz.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2006)

terryl965 said:
			
		

> This thread is just to funny.
> Michaeledwald you ask why it was insulting to me, to tell you the truth it is just a gut thing with me, I know you are not trying to be dis-respectful it just was to me and I wish I could tell you why just can't.
> 
> So for now it is a lost case for me keep on going sir.
> Terry


 
Terry, I am certainly not trying to insult anyone. I do find it, shall we say, interesting, that if you gather the faithful from different religions and put them into a locked room, they would be unable to come to a concensus as to what the "Ten Commandments" actually say; each faith has its own version. In fact, there are two different versions of the 'Ten Commandments' in Exodus (as I understand it - Exodus 20 & Exodus 34).

So, we argue about an idea, "The Ten Commandments", with even defining on the actual idea.

That we as a society would desire to inscribe our Justice System with the words; "I am the Lord your God . . . " sounds an awful lot like an Iranian Theocracy. It amazes me that people are first unable to see that parallel, or that they would want to change to that.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 5, 2006)

MODERATOR NOTE:

The off-topic discussion on Christianity has been moved here.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
Sr. Moderator


----------

