BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: frogprince
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 07:45 PM

I think that "identify with" is an extremely broad catch-all, including everyone from staunch church members through those who would look up a Christian clergyman to perform a wedding or funeral, and on down to those who don't consider themselves atheists and who just kinda think that, as to religion, they guess they must be whatever most Americans are.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,Dave's son Andrew
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 07:27 PM

GregF. This is for my dad. I looked up his search history and found several sites he used, but this is the only one I could find that had the 2001 stats.


http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/map_demographics.htm#The%20Big%20Picture

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 07:13 PM

Appreciate it, Dave, but whould still like to know WHOSE stats & just how the poll question was phrased- I sure as hell don't know what "identify with" means in this context.

If you have time at some point.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 06:44 PM

Thanks Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 06:31 PM

GregF, Sorry I failed to respond to your question. Perhaps this will help. Based on 1990 statistics and I checked with 2001 stats and its about 76.5% now; but I cannot find a link to use and i'm in a hurry to go out.....
Christianity 151,225,000 86.2%
Nonreligious 13,116,000 7.5%
Judaism 3,137,000 1.8%
Agnostic 1,186,000 0.7%
Islam 527,000 * 0.5%
Unitarian Universalist 502,000 0.3%
Buddhism 401,000 * 0.4%
Hinduism 227,000 * 0.2%
Native American Religion 47,000 --
Scientologist 45,000

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 06:15 PM

CarolC, Unfortunately you were the victim of an interefering vindictive asshole of the first order. He is a disgrace to his profession. I allowed my children to read The Golden Bough, The Lancashire Witches, and several other books on cults and religions, perhaps he would like to take me to court too...

Yours, Aye. Dave (who would have thrown it out of court first day had he been the judge)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 05:45 PM

He's hardly the only one like that out there, Casual Observer. That's why we need the protections that are provided us by the separation of church and state.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 05:41 PM

Okay, so the lawyer was a first-rate idiot who had no business getting into your business. Just think of it this way - one day he'll be dead, if he isn't already.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 05:34 PM

When I was in 7th grade (1st year of what was then called 'intermediate' school) in Wichita, Kansas, my science teacher, Mr. Williams, whom I greatly respected, informed our class that we were to do the reading in the Christmas pagent. This meant memorizing the passages which included "and it came to pass that in those days there were shepherds, keeping watch..." etc...and the rest of the basic bible story of the birth of Jesus. All very traditional and King James format

At that time, I was still technically a Methodist, and didn't really dispute the theology, but I already wondered why we were taking time from science class to do this. I really doubt that there were any kids in that class who were NOT Christian...(this WAS Wichita!) I do know that as I went on through school and began to look at the issue, this incident loomed larger & larger in my mind. NO ONE was asked if they were Jewish or Pagan, or if they had a problem with participating....we were TOLD.

For many years after, even as I wondered about the basic theology and learned about alternatives, I felt awkward and uncomfortable about not seeming to think the same way as most of my peers and didn't feel I dared even bring up some topics. It wasn't until my senior year in high school that I really discovered Philosophy and that some people actually could explain WHY we didn't all have to believe the same way.

There have been times I wanted to go back and look up Mr. Williams and ask him why it had been done that way.....but I'm sure it's best that I never did.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 05:32 PM

Looks like it, jeffp ;-)

Thanks Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 05:27 PM

My God, Carol...what a misadventure, and what a whoreson to visit it on you!! It shows plainly that the world is full of heros manning the ramparts in acts of heroism of every scale; you should get a medal for rebutting that butthole!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: jeffp
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 05:22 PM

So, you painted yourselves blue together?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 05:15 PM

LOL, acquatinted...

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 05:14 PM

Wesley, they were fundamentalists, but much more moderate ones than that attorney. I had been casually acquatinted with them for a few years prior to being taken to court for home schooling my son. But I harbour no illusions about the reason they helped me to the extent they did. They knew that my case had the potential to set a dangerous precedent for all home schoolers.

Having said that, they were/are lovely people, for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect.

Casual Observer, jeffp is correct. There were no rules in that county at the time that specified who could home school and who could not. It was legal for anyone who wanted to, to home school their children.

Here's a rough timeline of how it happened...

I decided to home school my son.

Within a week or two of starting to home school my son, I got a letter from that attorney telling me that I had better put my son back in school by a certain date (about a week or two later) or he would take me to court.

Shortly after the date passed for his ultimatum, I received a copy of his petition to the judge, along with a date by which I had to file a response.

I submitted my response to the petition myself because I didn't have an attorney at the time.

Shortly after that, the judge decided to take the case.

In the meantime, I had sent letters out to all of the home schooling families in the county, letting them know what was going on, and inviting them to attend the hearings so they could see for themselves.

The father in the home schooling family that was so helpful to me was a tax attorney. He decided to take my case, even though he had no courtroom experience.

There were several hearings held over a period of about nine months.

At the second to last hearing, the attorney who had filed the petition asked me, "What do you know about Wicca?"

My attorney objected, and the judge told the other attorney to explain why he had asked that question.

The other attorney said that he was going to prove that I was engaging in evil practices and he was going to show that this made me unsuitable for home schooling my son.

The judge instructed me to answer the question.

I said that I knew that Wicca was a nature-based religion, somewhat like the religions of the Native Americans, and that was about all I knew about it.

The attorney said, "What about that book you read to your son? The one about the Witches?"

I said, "That book, written by the same man who wrote Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and James and the Giant Peach, is available in childrens libraries and the children's book sections of book stores. It is about a bunch of witches who turn children into mice."

By this point, everybody in the courtroom had their mouths hanging open in disbelief that that attorney had just done what he did.

Anybody who doesn't believe what I have just written can go listen to the tape of the hearing in the Garrett County Courthouse in Oakland, Maryland.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 02:56 PM

Just to keep the record straight, I belong to a Lutheran church in my neighborhood, so I am, at least outwardly, a Christian. But as far as my actual religio-philosophical beliefs are concerned, I am still working that out, and I don't intend to go into it here.

I can definitely see Carol's point. The arrogance of some fundamentalist Christians seems to know no bounds. The following is anecdotal, but within my experience (more than just the following incident), typical:—

Some years ago I was working at Boeing as a production illustrator. My work day was frequently interrupted by a fellow named Ivan who belonged to a hard-charging, socially (politically) active fundamentalist church. Sometimes for hours a day, Ivan would stand beside my drawing table and try to engage me in religious discussions. His motivation was obvious. He was hell-bent on saving my soul (whatever that means).

I was not the only one he hit on, but he seemed to find me particularly fascinating (a challenge, perhaps) because I was able to argue Bible verse for Bible verse with him. I must admit that I took a measure of delight in the many times I was able to call him on verses that he quoted out of context and point out to him that he was misinterpreting them, and then tell him what—in context—they really referred to. He assumed I was an avid Bible scholar (and if so, how come I didn't believe as he did?). I told him (perhaps a mistake) that when I was at the University of Washington, I had taken a course called "The Bible as Literature." This course was taught by Dr. David C. Fowler, the same professor who taught "The Popular Ballad," covering many of the Child ballads.

Now Dr. Fowler made it abundantly clear that we would be reading the Bible as literature—as short stories, novellas, essays (e.g., Paul's Epistles), poetry, etc.. Our religious beliefs were our own, and there would be no class discussion of personal beliefs or interpretations. And he enforced this quite strictly. Whenever a student would wander off into a religious interpretation, as a few frequently tried to do, he firmly steered the discussion back to the literary aspects of what we were discussing. The result was that we were not reading the Bible verse by separate verse, but in long sections, straight through, like a short story or a novel, as written, the whole picture as the authors wanted their stories, essays, and poetry presented.

So when Ivan (or anyone else) starts quoting disconnected verses, I can usually recognize them and recall the context—which, more often than not, yanks the rug out from under the Bible-thumper who's trying to sell me a bill-of-goods.

Okay, how is this an example of fundamentalist Christian arrogance? It was shortly after Ivan learned about the existence of the U. of W.'s "Bible as Literature" course (I should have kept my mouth shut!) that his church, and a coalition of other fundamentalist churches in his area, filed suit against the University of Washington and Dr. Fowler, to have the course removed from the catalog on the basis that a state-funded university was allowing one of their professors to "teach religion."

Of course, if they'd had their druthers, they (one of the same outfits that tries to get selected books yanked from school and public libraries) would have been teaching their particular brand of religion in every grade school, high school, and university in the state. But their primary bitch (unstated, of course) with the university and Dr. Fowler was that those who took the course knew the Bible too well, and their proselytizers such as Ivan were stumped by people who could blow them out of the water by quoting the Bible right back at them!

But it doesn't end there. Eventually Boeing fired Ivan. He wasn't doing his own work, and he was forever interrupting his co-workers and not allowing them to do theirs either. When reprimanded, he replied haughtily that he had "more important work to do. God's work!" They put up with it for months, and then finally canned him.

Then he sued Boeing for firing him because of religious discrimination in the work place.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: jeffp
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 02:26 PM

Not in Maryland.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 02:14 PM

I have an observation, and a question.

Homeschooling regulations vary from state to state. It may be possible that in some states, teaching a child outside of a recognized institution may only be allowed on religious grounds, whatever they may be. Carol, were there any such rules in your state?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 02:04 PM

Fanatacism is an ugly disease whether East or West, and this lawyer was no exception. To think he charged the interested party for his prosecution? What a load of codwallop. I'd hang the bugger, me.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 01:56 PM

See, even though "skeptic"'s questions have all been answered satisfactorily, it's not enough. It's no longer skepticism, just bile.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,skeptic
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 01:47 PM

Were the Xtians home schoolers who came to your aid "fundamentalist"?

(If so, Wesley's bigotry-laden charge is moot)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Wesley S
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 01:37 PM

Carol - I'm glad it was a Christian home schooled family that gave you some help. There are people with religious beliefs that live in the 21st century. We just have to learn to be more vocal so that the fundamentalists don't have their way and take over. Being a person of faith doesn't give you the right to cram it down other peoples throats.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 01:33 PM

Give it a rest, Skeptic. You are being rude. Carol did not lie in this exchange, and if you think it's fair to be taken to court when you're minding your own business, then sure she got a "fair shake." Your skepticism is really just thinly-veiled antagonism. Nothing she said was particularly implausible to me, and I am neither a legal system neophyte nor generally gullible.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 01:31 PM

Testing had nothing to do with it. Nobody in that county had to submit their children to any testing whatever. No home schooling families in that county were held accountable to any standards whatever. That was the rule for everybody. My son was not given any standardized tests, and neither were any of the other home schooling families.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 01:29 PM

Even if that were the case, Carol C's premise was that she could not get a fair hearing in an American court because, at least in part, we have "religious" symbols in our courthouse.

I never said I couldn't get a fair hearing. I said that I had been discriminated against. And I was.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 01:28 PM

ACLU wouldn't touch it because it had originally been a family court issue (the custody battle).

Ironically, it was a Christian home schooling family who provided me with the most help because they, quite rightly, knew that this attorney was creating a dangerous precedent for the other home schooling families in the area.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,skeptic
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 01:27 PM

The ACLU would have loved to be carol's lawyer if it that cut and dried.

yup

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,skeptic
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 01:25 PM

Even if that were the case, Carol C's premise was that she could not get a fair hearing in an American court because, at least in part, we have "religious" symbols in our courthouse.

She was demonstrably misleading and non-sequitor in her arguing. She got a fair hearing (unless, or course she thinks she should have lost but did not).

I have two friends who are small town judges. I'll have to ask them, but I think they would be doubtful of the circumstances as well.

I would have to wonder what made this lawyer, appointed for her son, question the home schooling. In my State, the only thing that brings it into question -- brings a case like hers to court -- is a student failing standardized testing.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 01:24 PM

Wesley, I had to pay the attorney who took me to court for the privelege of being taken to court by him.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 01:23 PM

After all this, it finally comes out that the court ruled in your favor?!

So what? It should never have gone to court in the first place. And the fact that it was is discriminatory. Have you ever been dragged through the courts for months on end with all of the attendant financial and personal costs? To do it to one person, specifically because that person is not a Christian, while not doing it to any of the families who were Christian is discrimination as well as an abuse of power.

And that the lawyer wasn't randomly picking on you for your lack of Xtianity?

Yes he was. He would never have done it had I been a Christian. The fact that I wasn't a Christian was the deciding factor in his decision to take me to court for home schooling, and it was his stated reason for his premise that I shouldn't be allowed to home school my son.

And yet your whole premise is that you can't get a fair shake from our courts because there's a 10 Commandments display somewhere in Alabama? They ruled in your favor!

I did most certainly not get a fair shake. A fair shake would have been not being subjected to the personal and financial costs of being dragged through the courts for months on end, and all of the other bullshit that comes with being taken to court, including the trauma to my son during that whole process. And the 10 commandments being displayed in courts is just one example of the kinds of discrimination that people experience because of fundamentalist Christians. It's a symptom of the mindset that causes discrimination and abuses of power that happen quite often all over this country. Remove any trappings of government favoring one religion over others and it becomes a little less easy for these kinds of things to happen in the first place. And this happened in the state of Maryland.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 01:23 PM

Beware the Bob Jones University trained lawyer.

The ACLU would have loved to be carol's lawyer if it that cut and dried.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Wesley S
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 01:18 PM

Carol can speak for herself - but the point is that the case never should have benn in the courts in the first place. And yes - the lawyer was picking on her due to her choice/nonchoice of religious beliefs. And I'll assume Carol that you wern't reimbursed for your court costs ? You should have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,skeptic
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 01:09 PM

After all this, it finally comes out that the court ruled in your favor?! And that the lawyer wasn't randomly picking on you for your lack of Xtianity? And yet your whole premise is that you can't get a fair shake from our courts because there's a 10 Commandments display somewhere in Alabama? They ruled in your favor!

Hmm, wonder why I'd be skeptical.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 01:01 PM

You underestimate the amount of power the fundamentalist Christians have in some communities, Skeptic. I still don't know why the judge took the case. But my guess is that it had to do with not wanting to lose political capital in the community.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 12:59 PM

I was divorced from my son's father. The attorney who filed the petition had been appointed by the court to represent my son during the custody battle during which I was granted full custody of my son. Two years after the custody battle had been resolved, and after I had been granted full custody by the court, that attorney took it upon himself to petition the court to stop me from home schooling my son.

After nine fairly hellish months for both me and my son, the court ruled against the attorney and ruled that because I had full custody, I had a right to home school my son.

And yes, that attorney had told me many times that had I been a Christian, I would have been treated very differently. He may have been trying to coerce me to become a Christian, but he also completely disaproved of me as a human being because I was not a Christian. During the custody battle, he tried to have my son taken from me because I was not a Christian. He wasn't successful with that agenda either.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,skeptic
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 12:57 PM

So only Xtians were allowed to homeschool in that community? Did they all go to the same church? How did the lawyer find out that you read the "witches" book to your son?

...and, again, a lawyer petitioned the courts to have you desist from homeschooling because you were not a Xtian?

There was no other reason for the petition than the fact that you are not a Christian?

Did the boy's father have nothing to say in the matter?

And, what headaches could fundamentalists cause for the judge? You mean threats of violence?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 12:50 PM

And I have no idea why the court accepted the petition. That one puzzles me to this day. I can only guess that the judge who accepted the petition was just trying to go along to get along, and avoid a lot of headaches from the local fundamentalist Christians at some later date.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,skeptic
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 12:50 PM

So only Xtians were allowed to homeschool in that community? Did they all go to the same church? How did the lawyer find out that you read the "witches" book to your son?

...and, again, a lawyer petitioned the courts to have you desist from homeschooling because you were not a Xtian?

There was no other reason for the petition than the fact that you are not a Christian?

Did the boy's father have nothing to say in the matter?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 12:40 PM

Carol demonstrates my point....certain people feel that IF they are convinced they are 'right', then everyone else must do it, (whatever the 'it' is) their way.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 12:36 PM

Had I been a Christian, he would never have filed the petition. He stated many times that I shouldn't be allowed to home school my son because my spiritual beliefs were unnaceptible to him. I might have been subjected to less discrimination had I been Jewish, but I don't have any way of knowing that for sure. This attorney even accused me in court of being a Witch (because I once read Roald Dahl's children's book "The Witches" to my son). I am not a Witch, but even if I were, my right to be a Witch is protected by the Constitution.

This was in a small, fairly isolated community where everyone knows everyone else's business, and all of the Christians sure as hell know who isn't a Christian.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 12:28 PM

In the link Wolfgang posted, the following appear as quotes from letters received by Salmon P. Chase, to encourage the "...recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins."

"...This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters."

"Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins."

When the recent commotion occurred in Alabama, Justice Roy Moore continuously used the words " I should be allowed to acknowledge Almighty God" in his defense for having sneaked the monument into the courthouse. Built into that is the presupposition that God needs to be acknowleged!
When I was a child, the Pledge of Allegiance did not have the words "under God" in it...this was inserted after lobbying by Christian groups.

These attitudes do not seem to me to be the nice, friendly statements of universal "... just decent common sense" that Bobert suggests. They seem to me to be attempts to make the religious words, attitudes and formulas of one brand of religion seem natural and universal. I suspect that, if Buddhists, Muslims, Gnostics...etc..were to lobby to have some of their ideas and phrases added to various courthouse walls and lawns, we would see some very interesting debates!

Sure, Ron, you do have to be careful how you choose your battles, and what order and with what weapons you fight them, but some things MUST be faced, and this country MUST follow the difficult path of defending the right to practice any recognized religion, while doing nothing to appear to officially favor any of them.

It's too bad that some zealots feel that they must use the old "you're either for us, or you're against us" line, but if they win by bullying and intimidation, they will get the idea that that is an acceptable technique, and we see far too much of that as it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,skeptic
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 12:28 PM

And the basis for his petition was that you were not a Christian?

How did he even know you, or the fact that you are not a Christian?

Why would the courts grant the petition on that basis?

...Nothing more than that you were not a Christian? Really?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 12:24 PM

...and I have the court records to prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 12:23 PM

A fundamentalist Christian attorney who lived in my community petitioned the court to allow him to take me to court to force me to stop home schooling my son. The court granted his petition, and he took me to court in order to try to make me stop home schooling my son.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 12:21 PM

Obviously, Carol, what happened to you is inexcusable. But pushing to take the 10 Commandments out of courthouses is not going to stop that.

I disagree entirely. Not having a mindset that promotes putting them there in the first place might have prevented that from ever happening.

I don't have a problem with God, Martin. Not your concept of God, nor my concept of God/Divinity, either. What I have a problem with is people imposing their concept of God on other people. You should know why doing that is a bad idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,skeptical
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 11:20 AM

I am having trouble simply accepting that any court, without any just cause for inquiry, simply came into a legal homeschooling situation and shut it down.

Around here homeschoolers do not go before the courts to ask permission to homeschool.

I'm having trouble imagining a court asking the religious persuasion of a person brought before it.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 11:06 AM

...76.5% of Americans identify with Christianity...

According to who? and what precisely do the weasel-words "identify with" mean?

Jus' curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: John Hardly
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 11:03 AM

exactly my sentiments, Dave. Well said.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 10:51 AM

I could understand an objection to having a new edifice plastered with religious symbolism, but to erase something decades old is just childish and malevolent provocation, it serves no purpose other than to insult people of good faith. To point out that 76.5% of Americans identify with Christianity is very important, because a militant minority will not acheive their objectives, and may very well hurt their cause by uniting moderates with radicals.
I have no more to say on this matter, but I thank you all for getting me back into some books I havent read in ages ;-)

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 10:33 AM

How about if they post the Code of Hammurabi instead?

My personal impression of some people is that they don't want to be exposed to anything religious because they're afraid they might be tempted to join that religion, whatever it is. If it brings something good into your life - what's the big deal? Do as you please and let others enjoy the right to do the same.

Religious zealots may make a lot of noise now and then, but in the US they're a microcosm of society. It doesn't do to pay them much mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 10:12 AM

I beg to differ, Ron.

I've been watching the tide of creeping "christian" fundamentalism in the U.S. pretty closely for some time, and the way its been unfolding I don't think the Neville Chamberlain approach is going to be terribly effective against the right-wing neo-conservative fundamentalist wacko bloc. The Ten Commandments issue per se is not a different fight but a constituent part of the much larger fight.

Good 'protest songs' tend to reflect the "real world" pretty accurately most of the time, even if a bit hyperbolic. Its good to see that Phil's words still have the power to piss people off. May just get 'em thinking, too.