BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 05:48 PM

Are you addressing me, Dave?

I don't have a vehement dislike of Christianity. My husband is a Christian. He thinks I am one of the most Christian people he knows. And I am not a secular humanist. I am a very spiritual person.

But I know what it's like to have a religious majority controling the way things are done and how people are treated, and it's unconsitutional for the US government to participate in such things.

It is not anti-Christian to suggest that what Christians believe to be absolute truth is not necessarily absolute truth. It's just facing reality. My spiritual beliefs would probably make you, as a Christian, very uncomfortable. And I will not ever attempt to impose those beliefs on you. But neither do you have a right to try to impose your beliefs on me. And telling me that I must accept your idea about what is and is not divine law is an imposition of your religion upon me.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 05:42 PM

Why post them at all, Bobert? I would be much more impressed, and pleased, if they would post the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That makes far more sense to me.

And how are they going to select which other religions to represent? No matter how carefully they try, they will not be able to avoid leaving someone out, because there are just too many kinds of religious and spiritual beliefs in the world to be able to accomodate them all.

Why don't you just post your ten commandments in your church, where they belong, and work towards having words in our government buildings that promote what this country is really supposed to be all about... freedom and democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 05:39 PM

I am a Christian but I am not arguing with your interpretations, having a strong belief in basic right and wrong. I do on the other hand find your vehement dislike of Christianity disturbing. The basis of these laws give non Christians and Christians their moral code. We have used them to establish law just like we used the Hippocratic Oath to found our medical code of ethics. The law is not forcing you to change your humanistic values, merely applying a moral code to follow. The majority of the Founding fathers were influenced by Judeo Christian morals. The likes of John Adams et al were influenced by them regardless of religious bias. I deduce from your beliefs that the use of any icon is wrong; therefore using your logic we should demolish the Statue of Liberty and the blindfold, sword and scales of justice?

Yours, Aye. Dave (the perplexed mariner)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 05:35 PM

Thanks, Mary! I should have tried that.

If I've read it once, I've read it 100 times -- the "strict constuctionists" can't possibly know what was in the minds of the founding fathers -- can't possibly divine the intent of the Adams, Jeffersons, etc.

...and yet, here we have proof positive (not opinion) from one I would assume not a "strict constructionist" of exactly what would (and I quote) "horrify" Adams. LOL!

What's more, while Dave (the ancient mariner) quotes the actual words of Adams, Don corrects them! LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 05:34 PM

Okay, CarolC. Make you a deal. How about posting the *six* Commandmentds that you find are more universal along with scrptures fro other religions that are also universally accepted?

Deal?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 05:27 PM

John Adams also said 'You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.'

Precisely so. The ten commandments are religious artifacts that are a part of the religions of some human beings. They do not carry any greater weight or credibility than any other set of religious beliefs or laws in this country. So in that respect, even though some people consider the ten commandments to be divine laws, they are not inherently so. For many people of many religions, they are just another set of human laws that are promoted under the name of some religions as being divine.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 05:03 PM

In his inagurual Adams was assuring people that he would not discriminate against them because they were Christians. Nowhere does he either say "I am a Christian" or "this is a Christian country." He just says "I respect the religion of people who call themselves Christians, and if that helps to make me politically acceptable, then I am happy to serve."

Adams was a bit unusual, in that he called himself Christian in the sense that it was often used at the time: "civilized and moral." But he did not believe, for example, in the divinity of Christ, making him not quite what modern Christians would call "Christian."

More quotes from Adams about Church and State, the bible, etc.:

"Checks and Ballances...are our only Security, for the progress of Mind, as well as the Security of Body. Every Species of these Christians would persecute Deists, as soon as either Sect would persecute another, if it had unchecked and unballanced Power. Nay, the Deists would persecute Christians, and Atheists would persecute Deists, with as unrelenting Cruelty, as any Christians would persecute them or one another."

letter to Thomas Jefferson, 25 June 1813


"We have now, it seems a National Bible Society, to propagate King James's Bible, through all Nations. Would it not be better, to apply these pious Subscriptions, to purify Christendom from the Corruptions of Christianity; than to propagate those Corruptions in europe Asia, Africa and America!"

letter to Thomas Jefferson, 4 November 1816

He was not big on dogma or on bible-quotes, and the Ten Commandments on Government space would horrify him.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 04:40 PM

John Adams also said 'You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.'

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 04:38 PM

"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion."

That quote from Adams could also read, "Nothing is more dreaded than religion meddling with the national government," which is exactly what's happening right now. If the meddlers are successful, then the next step will be what Adams dreaded.

That little coup was accomplished in Rome in the forth century, when the emperor Constantine converted to Christianity. That lent religious dogma the force of secular power, and visa versa. Constantine stated, "Dogma is what I say it is." The State and the approved religion became one, and any lack of faith (the approved faith) became treason. The history of the next many centuries is full of the abuses and atrocities that this brought about.

Humanity has been through this lesson before, but it seems that humanity is comprised of a lot of slow learners.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 04:05 PM

Well, as someone who has lived almost all of my life in this country, and as someone who expects to live at least some portion of the rest of my life in this country (and all of the rest of my life as a citizen of this country), I would have to say that from my perspective, posting the ten commandments in public buildings is a gross violation of the initial foundation stones. And the Constitution of the United States backs me up on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 03:44 PM

CarolC I regret that you have been subjected to discrimination in the courts. One can never be complacent enough to trust that there will not be abuses in and of the system, but I do believe there are few places on earth that you can obtain a better justice system than the USA. Having said that there are fewer and fewer examples of justice prevailing in current interpretations of laws, both international and domestic. Striving to improve them we should not forget the initial foundation stones.

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 03:26 PM

This is cut from John Adams innaugural speech.

I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service, can enable me in any degree to comply with your wishes, it shall be my strenuous endeavor that this sagacious injunction of the two Houses shall not be without effect.

With this great example before me, with the sense and spirit, the faith and honor, the duty and interest, of the same American people pledged to support the Constitution of the United States, I entertain no doubt of its continuance in all its energy, and my mind is prepared without hesitation to lay myself under the most solemn obligations to support it to the utmost of my power.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 03:15 PM

CarolC, Correct me if i'm wrong, but the Christian religion is not being forced on anyone by displaying the Ten Commandments.

You are wrong about that. I, myself, have experienced discrimination in the courts here in the US because I am not a Christian. I would probably have been treated better than I was had I at least been Jewish (although this particular court would have preferred Christian), but anything else was not acceptible.

The mere display of a pre Christian fundamental basics of law, is not trying to say we should be Jewish either. The foundations of US law are as much based on Judeo Christian values as any other. The Ten Commandments are a fundamental basis for modern law. The Iroquois League had as much to do with the foundation of the US Constitution, and as such the law respects their belief system too.

Regardless of how the law was developed, for the courts to display the ten commandments causes a blurring of the line between church and state. And as I said in the beginning of this post, I have been subjected to the kind of discrimination that can happen when the courts (or the government) endorse some religions over others.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 03:09 PM

Nice post, Dave (your 03 Apr 05 - 02:54 PM post). I agree. I can get pretty emotional when discussing the Constitution because it, and the Bill of Rights, are what make this nation possible. Without those, we are not a nation... we are just a landmass with a lot of people on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 03:05 PM

CarolC, Correct me if i'm wrong, but the Christian religion is not being forced on anyone by displaying the Ten Commandments. The mere display of a pre Christian fundamental basics of law, is not trying to say we should be Jewish either. The foundations of US law are as much based on Judeo Christian values as any other. The Ten Commandments are a fundamental basis for modern law. The Iroquois League had as much to do with the foundation of the US Constitution, and as such the law respects their belief system too.

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 03:03 PM

Using John Adams to support putting the Ten Commandments on public property is another howler, Dave.

John Adams was a Deist.

The primary tenet of Deism was a rejection of "revealed religion," faith based on the pronounced revelations of God to followers.

The Ten Commandments is a specific example of revelation, hence the very thing Adams and his fellow Deists REJECTED about Christianity!

John Adams was also a staunch supporter of religious freedom and of separation of church and state. His specific position was:

"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling
with religion."

Like many other Founders, Adams goes much further in his private letters. Despite public statements on the value of religion and morality, many of the Founders (including Adams and Jefferson) were not Christians. John Adams writes to fellow Deist Thomas Jefferson:

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

Jefferson's unorthodox views on religion, as well as his distaste for Christianity, were well-known even in his own day, and he was often scorned by clergy as an "atheist". In his private letters, he writes to Dr. Woods:

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

The positions of the "Founding Fathers" are pretty clear, and only by distorting their words or taking things out of context can anyone make it appear as though they ever would have supported such displays.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 02:54 PM

I enjoy reading these discussions. I personally believe that the US Constitution is a very remarkable document, and the best example of what a constitution should be. It stands as a shining example of the best in human endeavours to obtain rational and decent government.

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 02:47 PM

moral and religious people and is inadequate for the government of any other kind

Even if we accept this on its face value, the Constitution says that the US government is not allowed to tell anyone which religion people are supposed to embrace.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 02:45 PM

Let me amend my pervious statement. The amendments at best would be understood as articles 8 through 17.

"Pursuant to Article 5" refers to the fact that it is under article 5 that one amends the constitution, not that the amendments themselves are pursuant to article 5.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 02:41 PM

"The Constitution of the United States was designed for a moral and religious people and is inadequate for the government of any other kind." - John Adams

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 02:37 PM

Sorry, Father John

It may be absolute and utter nonsense, but it has generally been the Supreme Court's understanding that there is a separation of Church and State. Just because you say "period" does not make you an authority. Most people who ARE authorities believe that there IS a constitutional separation of Church and State.

You also make some howlers. In excoriating people for not reading our government documents, you make it obvious that you have not read them yourself. To wit:

"The US Bill of Rights, the first ten articles of the Constitution, is a listing of the rights of all people granted by their Creator"


You just made this up. It's nowhere in the Bill of Rights. Nor is the bill of rights intended to express "the rights of all people," since

1) it pertains only to the Constitution of the United States, and therefore to Americans

2) it somehow did not pertain to Black people for many years.

Also, The US Bill of Rights is NOT the first ten "Articles" of the Constitution. The Constitution has seven articles, each of which is broken down into several sections. It is followed by ten "amendments," so called in the document itself--although they are also called

"ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution."

So at best one could consider them articles 5B through 5K.

The statement that rights are endowed to all people by a creator comes from the Declaration of Independence. (Remember that one, Father?) The rights in question are simply "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Those are the ONLY rights specifically said to be endowed by a creator.

Two things mitigate this in terms of its effect on the US law.

1) The reference to a creator was not in Jefferson's original draft, nor in the draft prepared later by John Adams. It is, in fact, something of a historical mystery how the word "creator" got into the declaration, but it IS in the version copied out by Jefferson and signed by the states. Probably someone on the "Committee of five" felt it would be easier to get the whole group to agree if the word was in there. So its status in terms of the intentions of the "founding fathers" is in serious question.

2) (More importantly) The Declaration of Independence, interestingly, is not a law. It predates both the constitution and the United States itself. The Supreme Court has repeatedly found that no legal decision may turn primarily on the Declaration of Independence. No legal decision by the court has ever been made on the authority of the Declaration.

What this means is that

1) The Declaration may be used as a general guide to understanding the intentions of the Constitution, but law comes from the Constitution, not the Declaration.

But

2) The idea of the "creator," because it is a late and poorly-understood addition to the Declaration, does not add much to our understanding of the intentions of the constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 02:35 PM

John, do a Google image search for:

"supreme court" building moses


lots of pics

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 02:23 PM

I think I may have just contradicted myself. Let me try to put it more effectively (with any luck)...

Nobody is saying that religion is bad. Nobody is saying that we have to hide the fact that religion exists. But what we are saying, is that the Constition says that the government cannot endorse any particular religions. To have one set of beliefs on display in government buildings in an endorsement of particular religions. To have any set of beliefs on display in government buildings is unconstitutional because it is not possible to include beliefs from every single set of beliefs that exist. So to have any beliefs on display does discriminate against someone.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 02:12 PM

To construe that to mean that government should ban all references to religion, especially the Christian faith, and all religious expressions from all "public" places, schools, and the courts, is absolute and utter nonsense.

All references to religion is not what is being contested. The problem is that the courts (and other public places) are endorsing one set of religious beliefs over all others. That is most certainly against the Constitution.

By the way, the US Bill of Rights, the first ten articles of the Constitution, is a listing of the rights of all people granted by their Creator

"Their" creator being the operative word here. Your belief about who, or what, created you may be a very different thing than my belief about who or what created me.

But I don't think you have anything to worry about, Dave, (tam), since the Constitution of the United States does not apply to Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 01:47 PM

Church and State

One of the most tiresome piece of rhetoric floating around these days is the notion of a "constitutional separation of church and state." Anyone can read the Constitution, but in this age of interactive media and TV I suppose that very few people read much of anything. If one reads the Constitution it will be discovered that the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or interfering with the free exercise thereof." That puts it very clearly that the federal government cannot pass a law stating that a particular denomination or belief is the established or official religion of the United States nor interfere with its citizens practice of their faith. To construe that to mean that government should ban all references to religion, especially the Christian faith, and all religious expressions from all "public" places, schools, and the courts, is absolute and utter nonsense. The notion of a total "separation" between the two was, by the way, the sole thought of Thomas Jefferson in some of his writings. Whether Jefferson's idea was right or wrong is of no matter. There is no constitutional separation of church and state. Period. Read the Constitution yourself.

Maybe if our elected representatives in congress tried reading the Constitution too, with specific emphasis on the Bill of Rights, it might help to prevent the encroachment on all of our basic liberties that has been underway for some time now.

"To those who cite the First Amendment as reason for excluding
God from more and more of our institutions everyday; I say The
First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the
people of this country from religious values; it was written to
protect religious values from government tyranny." -- Ronald Reagan

Conversely, I do not believe that politics or "political correctness" has any place in the Church--despite the political activism demonstrated by many denominations and churches. What I believe is proper role between the "church" and "state" is that the "church" serves as the conscience of the state by keeping religious principles in the minds of the people and by promoting a moral and upright government. With Judeo-Christian principles pretty much having been thrown out the window by the current governments of the world it seems that they no longer respond to their "conscience." In fact they seem to try to pressure the "church" into parroting the "party line" as was done to many churches in Nazi Germany and which would then lead to a corruption of faith. The church must be ever vigilant against this. No wonder they don't want religion and religious thought to interfere with their doings.

By the way, the US Bill of Rights, the first ten articles of the Constitution, is a listing of the rights of all people granted by their Creator, and not privileges granted by the state to be modified or limited at the whim of some government bureaucrat. They are properly called "Articles" rather than "Amendments" since the are inalienable rights and can not be repealed or diminished by government fiat. Read them. You will be surprised.

Father John Schaefer

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 01:41 PM

As I said above bobert, the ten commandments contain specific instructions to:

Rest one day out of seven
Not say God's name outside of worship
Not worship before images or idols
Not have more than one God.

Hindus are not supposed to follow these rules. Following these rules would make them bad Hindus.

THAT is why some people find them offensive. This is not so hard to understand, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 01:40 PM

Sorry, Dave, but "morality" don't equal "religion".

All you have to do is look at Tom DeLay.

Nor, for that matter, does athieism equate with immorality.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 01:31 PM

"To educate a person in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society." -- Theodore Roosevelt

"[The Ten Commandments] are the charter and guide of human liberty, for there can be no liberty without the law." -- Cecil B. DeMille

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 01:30 PM

I've often heard it said that there is religious reference in the artwork that appears above the Supreme Court. I've done a brief search and can't find any pictures. I do like this guy's take on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 12:12 PM

Oops. This part of my last post:

I am curious as to which particular commandment would you find offensive?

Was from Bobert, and should have appeared in italics.

John Hardly, why don't we display the code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta in our courthouses, then?

And if we were to post our founding fathers' spiritual beliefs in our courthouses, the religious right in this country would have fits. Some of the beliefs of the founding fathers are considered "satanic" by many members of today's religious right.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 12:03 PM

I am curious as to which particular commandment would you find offensive?

Bobert, I've already told you three or four times. I find the ones that tell people that tell people whom to worship (and how many of them) and when, offensive.

The "no other gods before me" one. And the "honor the sabbath and keep it holy" one. These are not common sense... they are just practices that are specific to some religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), and have absolutely nothing whatever to do with the rest of the religions in the world. You are aware that those three relgions are not the only religions in the world, aren't you?

Yer both missing the point here.

Its inappropriate (and as determined by the courts, illegal) to display ANY religious materials of whatever variety, denomination, cult, what-have-you on/in public property as this constitutes an endorsement.

I'm not missing the point, Greg. That is my point. I'm just trying to show Bobert what the shoe would feel like on the other foot.

That's your opinion, Carol. In fact, it is customary in this country for just about all of us to obtain our beliefs that way.

It's not my opinion, robomatic. It's the law of the land. People can force you to pay lip service to certain beliefs while you are growing up, but nobody can force you to believe anything. Especially not the government.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 11:47 AM

I would agree with you, Greg.....actually, I do agree with the idea of your comment. What I still think is extenuating about the notion of banning ALL displays that may be construed as religious is that it is awfully hard to divorce a nation from its history. And it is entirely possible for images to be both religious and secular.

For instance, in the context of the history of law it would be "unscientific" (if, in fact, anthropology, archaeology, and sociology are "science") to dismiss the Ten Commandment's role in the development of western law -- just as it would be equally unscientific to dismiss the code of Hammurabi, the Magna Carta, or other significant documents.

That means that a if the demand to not have "religious" displays cannot make such objective judgements as to aknowledge such history, then I guess it would lead to either a total ban on art in government buildings, or a representation of a false history.

I don't think that the acknowledgement of our history is the same thing as endorsing the faith of (the majority of) our founding fathers.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: robomatic
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 09:49 AM

You are perfectly entitled to your beliefs, robomatic. But you are not entitled to force your beliefs on anyone else. At least not in the United States, you're not.

That's your opinion, Carol. In fact, it is customary in this country for just about all of us to obtain our beliefs that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 09:00 AM

Yer both missing the point here.

Its inappropriate (and as determined by the courts, illegal) to display ANY religious materials of whatever variety, denomination, cult, what-have-you on/in public property as this constitutes an endorsement.

Its not a case of "equal time" making it right.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 08:19 AM

Well, this one certainly can not be won or lost... I am curious as to which particular commandment would you find offensive? I can't think of one that wouldn't also be found in Koran is one shape of form. All religions tend to bring out the goodness of man. And like I have been saying, if other sctiptures from other religions were also on display, I think mankind, just maybe, would make a greater effort in acting with more love and kindness.

I am not advocating chuch rule here but trying to find some middle ground where the *universal goodness of various religions* could be made more accessible to the population an the whole.

Like I said, and you may have said, this one is a toughie because there is a fine line...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 12:13 AM

There's nothing wrong with them, Bobert, for you and anyone else who embraces them as a part of their religious/spiritual beliefs. For everyone else, some of them are edicts that amount to discrimination when combined with government in a country like the US.

How about if I start telling you that what I believe is just plain common sense and I put commandments in your courthouses that tell you that you shalt believe in reincarnation, and also that you shalt worship me because I am a tiny spark of divinity. Or maybe that you shalt put offerings of food out for my friends' golden statue of the god Pan. You might not want that one in your government buildings. The commandments that I have a problem with have no more basis in common sense than what I have just given here as examples.

You don't have to like the separation of church and state, but that's what is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States. So tough luck.

You are perfectly entitled to your beliefs, robomatic. But you are not entitled to force your beliefs on anyone else. At least not in the United States, you're not.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: robomatic
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 09:53 PM

I like to keep things simple:

Why is there 'a' God?

Because it ain't YOU (and it ain't me)

Why is there just ONE God?

Because one is enough!

(I'm sure you folks are aware of the apocryphal story of young Abram and his father Terah the idol maker, right?)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 09:35 PM

I have to go with CarolC on this one. Why is keeping a Sabbath Day holy common sense? Why is worshipping without the use of images or idols common sense? Why is having only one God common sense? Why is not saying the name of your god common sense? Right there, that is four of the Ten that are simply specific practices of certain religions, not moral precepts at all, let alone common sense ones. In other religions, you can say the names of gods, worship before pictures or statues of them, have several gods of equal importance, and not have a seven-day cycle.   

Then we have things like "Honor your father and mother." Okay, but what if they're mass murderers? How then do I honor them? How does "common sense" help un interpret this very vague commandment? So that's a fifth one that is impenetrable to mere common sense.

The other half...maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 09:31 PM

But I *said* that some relgions have more than a single "higher power". It doesn't change the spirit of the Ten Commandments, which I feel are universal....

You shall have no other God*s* before Me doesn't imply a single higher power...

Hey, I'm not arguing how amny angles can dance on the end of a pin here...

All I am saying is that there is nothing inherently wrong with the Ten Commandments, for Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddists, Muslims 'er whatevers...

And I have also said (once again) that scriptures from other Holy books, from other relgions, that preach love and the goodness of man, should be on display where ever the Ten Commandments are dispalyed...

I just don't see the argument here...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 09:15 PM

Thou shalt have no other Gods before me... Hey, if one takes that to mean a belief in Christainity then that's the way the see it but it doesn't have to mean Christainity...

It only applies to the monotheistic religions. Many religions have more than one diety, and so according to the ten commandments, those religions are in violation of the commandment about worshipping only one God. So while it's not specifically Christian in nature, it does discriminate against all of the polytheistic religions, of which there are many, with many millions of adherents.

One thing that all religions have in common is a "higher power". Okay, some folks believe in many "higher powers"... Could it not be argued that in *any* religion that its members would at least submit to the "higher power" of that religion?

They might submit to higher powers, but they are inviolation of the commandment to only worship one God.

Yeah, just because the "Ten Commandemnts" comes from a book of the Judio/Christain faith, they are universal enough to cover other religions...

No they're not. They discriminate against all religions except for the monotheistic religions that honor the sabbath.

And my biggest complaint about your post is your suggestion that the ten commandments are only common sense. Some of them are, and some of them have nothing whatever to do with common sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:04 PM

CarolC,

Well, not exactly...

Thou shalt have no other Gods before me... Hey, if one takes that to mean a belief in Christainity then that's the way the see it but it doesn't have to mean Christainity...

Think about it.

One thing that all religions have in common is a "higher power". Okay, some folks believe in many "higher powers"... Could it not be argued that in *any* religion that its members would at least submit to the "higher power" of that religion?

Yeah, just because the "Ten Commandemnts" comes from a book of the Judio/Christain faith, they are universal enough to cover other religions...

I have said that I think that pieces of other religions should also be on display that teach the same lesson thou perhaps using different words that are written in different holy books...

I think I'll stick with that position...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:57 PM

Oops. In my above post, the sentence

"The fact that a few of the lawsuits aimed at getting rid of the lawsuits ALSO succeed is not evidence that we're moving away from religious oppression, much as you would like to think so."

Should read

"The fact that a few of the lawsuits aimed at getting rid of the DISPLAYS ALSO succeed is not evidence that we're moving away from religious oppression, much as you would like to think so."

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:54 PM

Don't be a fool, John Hardly. The tubes were installed by doctors following orders from within both the executive hierarchy and the judicial system. Those orders were repeatedly found to have been unconstitutional (and therefore illegal) by later courts. Just as a cop who follows a right-wing nutcase's orders is not necessarily a right-wing nutcase himself, so a doctor following a court order is not necessarily in agreement with the court.

While the attempts to keep Sciavo alive were at first motivated only by the parents' litigation, as you have seen over the last few weeks, it had been made into a political issue, for precisely the reason I stated: it forced the left to advocate killing this woman. (Unless you actually think Tom DeLay gives a damn about her, which would make you pretty naive, I think.)

And as to the Ten Commandments issue, it's true that the display is no longer in the courthouse. But there is still a movement to replace it, and the case is in fact going before the Supreme Court. Not because it naturally would do so, but because there is a significant MOVEMENT expending a great deal of effort and money to get the ten commandments displayed on Public property.

Your claim that "nobody is suing to get more Ten Commandments displays erected in government buildings." is true but it is meaningless. No-one has to "sue" to get a display on public property; in fact, that is almost never the way this would get done. It would get done by a campagin followed by a vote in the legislature. And these campaigns and votes in the legislature are in fact happening all over the country.

The reason SUITS are used to REMOVE the displays is that the essential argument is that the displays are unconstitutional. You establish that in the courts, not in the legislature. A suit could not be used to PUT a display on public property unless you were arguing that it were illegal NOT to have it, which everyone knows is not the case with the ten commandments.

So your statement about suing is irrelevant. The fact is there are significant campaigns all over the place aimed at putting religious displays on public property, and they often succeed. The fact that a few of the lawsuits aimed at getting rid of the lawsuits ALSO succeed is not evidence that we're moving away from religious oppression, much as you would like to think so.

This from Salon.com, coincidentally posted there today:

"Since 2003, the movement to display the Ten Commandments on government property has spread faster than SARS on an Asian chicken farm. One Indiana county cleverly displayed the Decalogue as a historical document alongside other such documents, and on March 29 of this year the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld its right to do so. The day before, the Mississippi Senate had voted to display the Ten Commandments in all public buildings.

The Moore case has been taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court. "

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: robomatic
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:11 PM

I don't belong to an organized religion.

I'm Jewish.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 03:42 PM

I am not an atheist. Like most people in this world, I believe in a divine creator (or creators), and to that extent I am religious.

To use an analogy, I see God (Gods) as the manufacturer of this universe.

This, to me, makes organised religions, the various wholesalers who sell on the product to priests (imams, rabbis, monks etc.), who then retail it to us. Each level modifies the product, and sets conditions of sale and prices, which benefit that level of the organisation.

So the product is handled by men, in such a way that those men may gain control of the largest proportion of the population possible.

The end result is that there is little resemblance between the original product, and what we receive.

Having been indoctrinated in the Christian faith, I try to do what I believe Christ would really have wanted. I live my faith without reference to priests, doctrine, or dogma.

I believe every person on this earth has the right, and perhaps the duty, to do the same in whatever form he/she believes to be right. Even atheists can, and do, live a useful and moral life, benefitting the community, and harming no-one, and may be more acceptable to God than some religious fanatics who will kill to impose their faith on others.

Organised religion has been corrupting the message for thousands of years, so I deal directly with my concept of God, and he always answers my prayers, tho' he doesn't always say yes.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: John Hardly
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 01:56 PM

Judge Moore is no longer Judge Moore. The display is no longer in the courthouse.

The feeding tubes were were installed illegally? By the doctors? You mean she was treated by right-wing zealot doctors? Wow. The conspiracy runs deep. :^)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 01:46 PM

By the way, the Schiavo case was an example of the same tactic: do something illegal to make the Left look bad (force-feed a woman against her own and her guardian's wishes, which forces the Left to advocate killing her). But in that one it looks as if the Right Wingers overestimated the popularity of their position; most people in the US supported the husband.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 01:44 PM

Oh, I get it.

The reason there are no lawsuits, as you say, to get displays put up is that individual judges, ironically, don't bother with the legality. They simply put displays up illegally, and force others to sue to have them removed.

This is a common tactic on the right these days: do something illegal but relatively popular. This forces the Left to openly take an unpopular position just to prevent the law from changing based on your precedent.

But even so, you are wrong. There are periodic lawsuits to get public monuments of the Ten Commandments restored, too. The most famous one was the stone monument in Alabama a couple of years ago; I believe the case is still on appeal.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: John Hardly
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 01:14 PM

What I'm saying is that this seems to be unwarranted alarm because nobody is suing to get more Ten Commandments displays erected in government buildings. The actions are the opposite -- the displays are already in existance and have been, in many cases, for decades if not centuries.

That means that we would only expect (should nothing be done henceforth) the level of religious oppression from which we might already suffer from the existance of these displays.

These suits (over the displays) do not demonstrate a move toward greater religious oppression (if, indeed, we have ever had religious oppression). These suits are exactly opposite of that -- they are a sign of moving away from these displays.

The only ones who should, therefore, be fearful of the direction that these lawsuits is moving us is those to whom these displays represent religious freedom -- the side currently losing all the suits.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 12:53 PM

Hmm, I just tried to post here but the computer ate it.

John Hardly's last two posts are ridiculous. If a man shoots someone in Alabama, it does not change my life much. We would be sad, but we wouldn't say the country has gone to hell in a handbasket. If, however, the courts ruled that from now on, anyone could shoot anyone else, the country will have gone to hell in a handbasket. The rulings of the courts drastically affect the way we live our lives. For people who feel strongly about religious freedom, but who live in Maine, what goes on in Texas might be noteworthy, but not immediately alarming. The moment a Federal court makes a ruling, it becomes alarming.

So, John, just because our religious freedoms have not yet been taken away because a few crackpots in Kentucky and Texas, doesn't mean it can't be overnight by a few crackpots on First Street in Washington, DC.