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

[rmcrobertson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Tgace]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

For reference, two related threads here:

Christmas vs. "Christmas"

Has it come to this?

 

[kenpo tiger]

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]

"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]

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]

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.