Judge Removed

[Jay Bell]

Why should your desire not pray supercede mine?

What a silly question. There are no laws against prayer in schools....I've heard this fluff spread more then thin butter. There are laws against forced, structured prayer in school....as there should be.

One more thought, Please understand those of the 'Judeo' heritage of the 'Judeo-Christian' heritage some of claim as the founding of our country, were subject to over 600 commandments.

True...and today's Orthordox still learn and follow them.

Look, it's simple. The government cannot force me to worship. It cannot tell me to be religious, nor can it even suggest it. It cannot push one religion over another, or no religion. Moore was using the power of his office to push his religion. It was an unconstitutional exercise of the power of the government and was rightly removed. There is no reasonable interpretation of our system of government that would allow what he did.

Cheers!

 

[ABN]

Originally posted by Jay Bell
John Adams --

“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...”

Thomas Jefferson --

“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.”

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was apart of the common law." Feb. 10, 1814

The commandments should have never been there in the first place. This *is* symbolic of a union of Church and State. To me, it has nothing to do with left-wingedness...I'm conservative.

Jay, you have quoted two of the founding fathers. It also appears that you have quoted at least Jefferson (who was an avowed deist) in the context of personal correspondence. What of the others? What of Charles Carroll of Carrolton and Charles Carroll Barrister of Maryland? both were practicing Catholics. Washington's religious beliefs were well known and documented.

Your quote of Jefferson's:
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was apart of the common law." Feb. 10, 1814

First my question is do you mean "A part" as in belonging to or "apart" meaning separated from? As quoted it reads that "Christianity neither is nor ever was apart" that is never separated from government.

However, if we take it as I think you meant for us to (a part: distinct from) that is literally true, the Christian religion is not a part of the government. There is no Minister of religion and the Head of state is not the head of the American National Church. Remember much of the humanist thought and philosophy that influenced the founding fathers (Hume, Locke, et. al) was in reaction to the nationalist churches they despised such as the church of England, and the abuse of religion by European Monarchs who claimed the divine right of kings and used it as a means of oppression. However, denying the influence of Judeo Christian values on the creation of our culture and society is an entirely different matter especially considering how many of the original immigrants to this country came here seeking religious tolerance and freedom.

You said "The commandments should have never been there in the first place. This *is* symbolic of a union of Church and State."
No it is not. No more than Cicero's quote in the Supreme Court in D.C. or in the old Bailey in London is symbolic of a union between the state and Roman paganism, or quotes from the Obelsik of the code of Hammurabi in other courthouses are symbolic of a union between the state and the worship of the gods of ancient Babylon. the 10 Commandments are what they are. A part of history that, regardless of what religion they sprang from, were an attempt to create a society that respected and protected the individuals who were a part of it.


Regards,

andy

 

[Jay Bell]

Sorry for the confusion...it should have been "a part".

I'm not at all saying that the Founding Father's faith should be questioned. It is well documented that the majority of the FFs were God fearing people. What they had *serious* issues with was organized religion and the "fairy tales" (as they put it) of the Bible.

the 10 Commandments are what they are. A part of history that, regardless of what religion they sprang from, were an attempt to create a society that respected and protected the individuals who were a part of it.

Yes...I agree. They are what they are. A part of the bible that........

 

[ABN]

Originally posted by qizmoduis

RE: separation of church and state.

This is the way the Jefferson described the doctrine laid out in the First Amendment. He wrote the amendment, he wrote it's description. I would think he would understand what he was talking about.

RE: freedom of religion, not freedom from religion

Bollocks! You can't seriously suggest that you can have one without the other.

his mission was to become a martyr

Yes Jefferson did write it, but not without the editing and input of the other members of the Constitutional Convention. IIRC, he also had an ammendment in the original draft that abolished slavery. However he was forced to delete it. The document was definitely not a one man effort.

and regarding the bollocks, comment. Yes I seriously did suggest that you can have one without the other. Explain to me why it is impossible.

re: his mission of martyrdom, I do agree with you there. His announcement next week should be interesting.


regards,


andy

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The Supreme Court refused to hear this case, rather letting the lower Federal court handle the matter. To do so on their part would have been at best awkward. The Ten Commandments is engraved in their chambers. But then so to is the Code of Hammurabi, and the Magna Carta.

The Founding Fathers were well aware of the abuses of governments influenced by the church. They were superbly educated products of "The Enlightenment" and knew of the Inquisition, the horrors of our own land's persecution of "witches" in Salem, and the awful destruction wrought by Catholics against Protestants, and Protestants against Catholics since the dawn of the Reformation.

Further, they knew of the pogroms against Jews in Europe during the Middle Ages and later.

Did they mean for us to be a secular country? No. Did they mean for us to have a secular government? I suspect so, given their knowledge of the dysfunctional marriage of church and state in world history.

The Constitution is a secular instrument. It contains no reference to God, nor does it contain the word "Christianity".

For more information, I can suggest an engaging and thought provoking book titled: The Godless Constitution, by Isaac Kramnick and Laurence Moore.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/104-0046922-0634370?v=glance&s=books



An online resource with one side of the argument is located at:

http://www.infidels.org/library/index.shtml


A secular government as envisioned by The Founders gives protection for all faiths. It does not provide them license to impose their thoughts on others or to intimidate them with a perceived bias towards a certain religious perspective.



Regards,

Steve Scott

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
The Supreme Court refused to hear this case, rather letting the lower Federal court handle the matter. To do so on their part would have been at best awkward. The Ten Commandments is engraved in their chambers. But then so to is the Code of Hammurabi, and the Magna Carta.
. . .
Regards,

Steve Scott

Good Points Steve.

Yet, I think the reason for these being listed were that the USA and British laws were based upon the codifications that existed previously, and many were religious, and some were not. I am sure they would have the five pillars of Islam, if there had been more influence into our culture in those early days or by one of the founding fathers.

This was my point, would the judge in question have allowed teh representation of other religions? The failure of the Judge was to fall back to Religion. If he quoted them has historical laws that other cultures have lived by, he would have had a much higher chance of bieng allowed to remain on the bench. And given that this same said Judge might or might not be running for a political office. What better way to get your name known nation wide then with some free publicity, on his personal beliefs. This is a good way for those who would support him to find about him.

:asian:

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Rich,

I seriously doubt that the judge, or his supporters, would have tolerated other religious perspectives displayed at the courthouse.

Rather then have this tension, I would think it best to avoid it all together. One goes to church for religious instruction, not to a school or to the courthouse. Nor do we go to church to dissolve a marriage. Each institution has its function and job description neatly defined.

There is the impression, and concern, among many Americans (some of them devout) that there is a movement towards Christianizing the government. The opposite perspective is that secularists are trying to push back the rights of Christians on every front and put their right to worship at risk.

I understand how each side can come to their respective beliefs on this matter...they both have some evidence to support it. Given the inertia of politics, however, I don't see either side having their way nor having their fears realized. They hold each other in check as well, and this may not be such a bad thing after all.

Regards,

Steve

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
Rich,

I seriously doubt that the judge, or his supporters, would have tolerated other religious perspectives displayed at the courthouse.

Steve,

I agree.

Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
Rather then have this tension, I would think it best to avoid it all together. One goes to church for religious instruction, not to a school or to the courthouse. Nor do we go to church to dissolve a marriage. Each institution has its function and job description neatly defined.

Actually, if you are Catholic you need to get teh church to officially annul your first marriage before you can get married again in church. And if you are Jewish, there is an event called the 'NOD'. The ex-husband has to grant his permission for his ex-wife to get remarried, or grant her a NOD. If the Ex-Husband is not willing to grant the NOD I beleive the ex-wife may petition for one anyways through the church. (* I am not Jewish and may not have this completely right. And for that I apologize. This is the little I know. So, if others wish to correct me then GREAT, I can learn more. *)

So, yes, the legal and monies issues are resolved in court. Yet there are some of still have to follow up in a Church or reigious setting.


Best Regards
:asian:

 

[Jay Bell]

Hey Rich,

That's pretty accurate. The woman must get a proper religious divorce under Jewish law. This is a special document called a "get"....it is written by the husband and must be given to her properly. After the 'get' is given, she is permitted to marry anyone.

The husband, generally speaking, does not have a say of whom she can marry in the future.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Good points on the Jewish and Catholic perspectives. If one were to complete those processes, though, they'd still have to go through the legal documentation of the divorce, resolve custody issues, child support, and the like. That, as Rich indicated, was the purpose of my analogy.

A Catholic, or Jew, can get a legally binding divorce in this country without the permission of their respective church/synagogue. There is an attendant penalty for it, of course. Excommunication in case of the Catholic, I assume. As for the Jew, I don't know.

As far as I know, the law doesn't require validation from a religious organization for the termination of the marriage. I wonder if that was true in the 19th century?

Regards,

Steve Scott

 

[rmcrobertson]

Nice discussion, guys: thanks.

Just to follow up something articulated in the last few posts, well, personally speaking I have this problem with all the Christians who claim that their rights are being taken away because they can't sneak a 6-ton rock into a courthouse in the midddle of the night: the activist types make it very clear that they have no interest whatsoever in religious tolerance.

Appaarently some--Pat Robertson's old organization among others--have been teaching that the thing to do is get your religion in there by any means necessary. One of the strategies that they've come up with is to insist that Manger scenes, plaques of the 10 Commandments, etc., are just "historical representations," that don't have anything to do with religion or their beliefs. Apparently there's a case in NYC now (grossly misrepresented on right-wing talk shows out here in SoCal) in which a judge has blocked such a scene on exactly these grounds...

Similarly, there's the argument that we have to teach Biblical creationism in biology class, because it's just as good a scientific theory as Darwin's...

I have to laugh when I read/hear that the Pilgrims came to this country for religious tolerance and freedom, being from Rhode Island--which only exists because of the Pilgrims' absolute intolerance. Look up Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams...

The Pilgrims were members of a religious nut-cult, largely prosecuted for their political activism back in England. Judging by the revolution of the 1640s, the English government had a pretty strong point...

It's absolutely true that our FFs were, some of them, religious. It's quite true that Christian ideas (not just religious: one of the dangerous ideas going around now is that "Christianity," and "religion," are synonyms) helped shape the Revolution, and so forth. But we're way past that now...I mean, Free Masonry and a lot of much wackier ideas were involved in the founding of this country too, and I don't see the Swedenborgians militating to stick up Emmanuel Swedenborg's pictures all over the damn place...

 

[hardheadjarhead]

If I may flip over now, I'll point out that restrictions against religious expression can go to unacceptable extremes (in my view) in church/state issues.

Case in point: An Orthodox Jew teaching in the public schools isn't allowed to wear a yarmulke, the traditional headress worn out of respect of Levitical laws. This is unreasonable.

Another: At my wife's school (she's a Spanish teacher) each teacher was to pose for a picture with his/her favorite book or magazine. The pictures were then posted outside the classroom as a part of a literacy campaign designed to motivate the children to read. A great idea...but one of the teachers wanted to pose with the Bible. This wasn't allowed.*

There are other instances of abuse of this nature. If we look hard enough, however, we can find examples where the separation was not inforced, and to the detriment of the students. Some years ago a child was harrassed by his classmates and teachers because he was a proclaimed atheist.

Regards,

Steve

*Makes one wonder...had she posed with The Divine Comedy or Paradise Lost...would they have caught the connection with Christianity? Likely not.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Again, I agree. I see this in colleges all the time: the State makes some pretty-reasonable decision, a court makes a pretty-reasonable judgment, and local administrators and their lawyers exaggerate the hell out of everything for fear that somebody, somewhere, might just sue them.

One example would be setting prerequisites for college classes. All the State of California says is that you can't keep doing what used to be done all the time, and set pre-requisites at whim, or in a discriminatory fashion. (Yes, schools really did this.) The requirements have simply to be clear, fair, equitable and justifiable. So I've had five conversations in the past three months, with people who claim the State says you can't set pre-requisites any more...

I guarantee that the school you're talking about got some pretty-reasonable memo, and some admin type went nuts. Unless, given that it was a yarmulke, the motive was truly ugly. But I'd thought that the case law was very clear about NOT interfering with personal religious expressions...

 

[donald]

I too applaud the judge's inner strength. It took an awful lot of guts to stand his ground as he did. I hope he lands on his feet.

:asian:

 

[Nightingale]

The courts have consistently held that people have the right to pray.

However, they have also consistently held that your right to pray ends where my right not to listen to you begins.

This is why led prayer is not allowed in schools. Students may pray all they want. They may have prayer circles at lunch. They may hand out tracts as long as they aren't interfering with instruction (and as long as the school doesn't have a ban on flyers in general). They may meet after school as a club.

They may not:
Lead prayer during instruction time.
Lead prayer to students who are not voluntarily involved in such an activity.
Lead prayer over a PA system at student events such as games and dances.

Hate to break it to you folks, but the United States of America is NOT a Christian nation. Neither is it a Muslim nation, a Jewish nation, a Rastafarian nation, or a nation of any other religion.

The first ammendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The first part of that means that the government cannot appear to support any one religion over any other religion. This is where our judge friend got himself into trouble. By placing the monument there, he made it clear that christian values had a place in his courthouse, where according to our constitution, THEY DO NOT. In his capacity as judge, he should show no bias towards or against any religion. Bias is clearly shown here.

The second part of that says that its okay for the judge to freely exercise his religion... however, his freedom to exercise his beliefs cannot negatively impact other's abilities to freely exercise theirs.

To all of you who support the judge and his monument, I ask this question...

If the monument was to a faith other than your own, would you feel differently?

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Nightingale
To all of you who support the judge and his monument, I ask this question...

If the monument was to a faith other than your own, would you feel differently?

Good Question
:asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Um...yeah. Does anybody out there think for one minute that this judge and his supporters have the slightest interest in religious freedom for anybody other than themselves?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

An angry, but interesting perspective....

Stacked Decalogue

by Katha Pollitt


The 5,300-pound hunk of granite carved with the Ten Commandments has been rolled out of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's Montgomery courtroom to gather moss in an unspecified back room. According to a Gallup poll, 77 percent of Americans think the rock should have been allowed to remain; many are hopping mad at Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, only yesterday the darling of the religious right and the object of an ongoing Senate filibuster against his nomination to an appellate court, because Pryor reluctantly agreed to do his job and enforce a federal court order to have the monument removed. As New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof loves to remind his readers, Americans are big believers--the virgin birth (83 percent), creationism (48 percent), the devil (68 percent). Forty-seven percent think the Antichrist is on earth right now. How many of these devotees, though, have actually read the Ten Commandments lately?

There's a reason the laws inscribed on those stone tablets are often represented by Roman numerals or squiggles. As a vague wave in the direction of law and order, the Decalogue pops up in thousands of public places, including the Supreme Court building, where Moses shares a frieze with Hammurabi and Justinian. Spelled out in all their ancient splendor, though, the commandments are a decidedly odd set of directives to be looming, physically or spiritually, over an American courtroom.

Consider Commandment One: God identifies himself as God--as if you didn't know! Who else crashes about with thunder and lightning? He reminds the Jews that he brought them out of Egypt and orders that "thou shalt have no other gods before me." What does that mean, exactly? No other gods, period, or no other gods come first? No other gods because they don't exist, or no other gods because they are minor and inferior and God doesn't like them? His need for constant reassurance is one of God's more perplexing characteristics. If you had created the universe and everything in it down to the seven-day week, would you care if people believed in you? Wouldn't it be enough that you knew you existed? Why can't God give anonymously? So what if people give Baal or Ishtar the credit?

In any case, God's status anxiety has precious little to do with the civil and criminal codes of the state of Alabama, where worshiping Baal and Ishtar is legal. Commandments Two, Three and Four continue God's preoccupation with himself. No graven images, indeed, no "likeness" of anything in nature, to which he holds the copyright; no taking his name in vain; no work on the Sabbath. Representational art and sculpture, swearing a blue streak and working on Saturday (or, in Alabama, Sunday) are all legal; nor does the law require that we honor our fathers and mothers as enjoined in the Fifth Commandment, despite God's barely veiled threat of death and/or exile if we sass them.

Adultery is legal (well, actually, not in Alabama), as is coveting your neighbor's house, wife, servants, livestock--or husband, a possibility God seems either not to have considered or not to have minded. In fact, the only activities banned by the Ten Commandments that are also crimes under American law are murder, theft and perjury. But those are illegal (I'm guessing) under just about every civil and religious code. Even Baal and Ishtar presumably took a dim view of them.

What sets the Ten Commandments apart is not content but style: that gloomy, vengeful, obsessive, insecure authorial voice, alternately vulnerable (he confesses he's "jealous") and dissociated (he talks about himself in the third person, like an American celebrity). As elsewhere in the Bible, God looks constantly over his shoulder at the competition, threatens to visit the sins of the father on generations yet unborn, raves against those who hate him. He is equally disturbed by killing and cursing, and is incredibly possessive (I made that tree! no copying!). Granted we all know people like this, but would you want them presiding over your trial?

When you consider that God could have commanded anything he wanted--anything!--the Ten have got to rank as one of the great missed moral opportunities of all time. How different history would have been had he clearly and unmistakably forbidden war, tyranny, taking over other people's countries, slavery, exploitation of workers, cruelty to children, wife-beating, stoning, treating women--or anyone--as chattel or inferior beings. It's not as if God had nothing more to say. The minute he's through with the Decalogue, he gives Moses a long list of legal minutiae that are even less edifying: what happens if you buy a Hebrew slave and give him a wife who has children (he goes free after six years, but you keep the rest of the family); what should happen if a man sells his daughter as a "maidservant" and her master decides he doesn't fancy her after all (he can give her to his son). God enjoins us to kill witches, Sabbath violators, disrespectful children, and people who have sex with animals, but not masters who beat their slaves to death, especially if the death takes place a day or two after the beating, because the slave is the master's "money." No wonder the good white Christians of Alabama believed the Bible permitted slavery! It does!

After several chapters in this vein, with much tedious discussion of oxen and more inveighing against other gods and their benighted followers, God finally settles down to the subject closest to his heart: the precise mode in which he would like to be worshiped. He drones on for pages and pages about the tabernacle, the ark and the ephod, like a demented Bronze Age interior decorator--golden candlesticks, mind you, and ten linen curtains twenty-eight cubits long and four cubits wide, and loops around the edges, and eleven goat-hair curtains, maybe a little wider, and loops around their edges too. He specifies down to the last beryl the ostentatious get-up he wants his priests to wear and what animals they should sacrifice and when, and which parts of the burnt offering he likes best (the fat around the tail and liver--well, that's everyone's favorite, isn't it?); he even gives recipes for incense and priestly perfume.

Has anyone checked out Judge Moore's aftershave?





Steve

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I hate to post back to back (and the thread is losing steam)...but I thought this quote was perhaps one of the best I've found expressing the feeling of some who don't share the sentiments of the judge in this case.


I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do.

~D. Dale Gulledge

Here...I've found yet another:

It is the position of some theists that their right to freedom OF religion is abridged when they are not allowed to violate the rationalists' right to freedom FROM religion.

~James T. Green



Regards,


Steve

 

[Rich Parsons]

Hi everyone,

My Name is Rich Parsons, and I the self elected president of the Immoral Minority. I heard that teh Moral Majority had over A few million people people as members, so therefore I took it upon my self to claim and vote myself this lofty title back in the late 70's. I represent all the rest of the population of the earth. All 6,000,000,000+ (* That is 6 billion plus *). Yet for this discussion we will assume that the population of arouns 292,000,000+ people in the US. (* Please see: US Population Calculator for my estimates *). Now with simple mathematics wether it be that new math or not, gives us 292,000,000 minus the 5,000,000 = 287,000,000. (* I rounded up rom 4.5 million to 5 million *)

or 5 Million divided by 292 million is 0.0171 or about 1.71 percent of the population.

The reason I mention all these numbers, is that the above quoted article mentions percentages of Americans, and of those polled. Did the poll target those on the Moral Majority list? They did not ask me, nor any of those I know about this type of sybject.

So, if it is 77% of the 292 Million is 224.84 Million people. Wow not that many people voted in the last election. Nor did that many agree of those who did vote. This is why I find the data subject.


Now on to the real important issues. Anyone can vote or claim themselves any title they wish within the Immoral Minority. Just avoid titles used by others already including the 'Self Elected President'.

I hear Emperor and Grand Pobah and other such lofty titles are still available.

Now back to your discussion
:asian: