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

[DngrRuss]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

Whatever.

 

[DngrRuss]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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