BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 12:52 PM

Well, in one respect all organized religion is charlatan in its nature, or at least a serious compromise.

And as always, the justification offered is "necessity", the all-time favorite whinge of dictators, controllers, autocrats, facists, and other low-lifes through the centuries.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 01:15 PM

ok, heric *smile*...just wasn't sure whether you were elaborating or restating or 'missing' my point...It do get complicated like this!

(and of course, if you agree with me, it is a GOOD thing..*grin*)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 01:24 PM

On his monument, did anyone specifically notice Commandment #2? How does Chief Justice Moore square that command with his stone 'image'?

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :

Image \Im"age\, n. [F., fr. L. imago, imaginis, from the root of
    imitari to imitate. See Imitate, and cf. Imagine.]
    1. An imitation, representation, or similitude of any person,
       thing, or act, sculptured, drawn, painted, or otherwise
       made perceptible to the sight; a visible presentation; a
       copy; a likeness; an effigy; a picture; a semblance.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 01:39 PM

It do especially when we're mucking about in troller threads such as this one. I do think the motivations of a character like this Moore guy are truly fascinating.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 01:47 PM

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

That says to me, that the government can't make any laws about religion, and they can't stop anyone from practicing whatever religion they choose, wherever they choose to practice it. It doesn't say that all vestiges of any religion should be removed from all public buildings.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 02:46 PM

The judiciary, though, is a part of the state. The state that shall make no laws regarding religion. That includes de facto creation of law through judicial decision-making, ie what is often referred to nowadays as "judicial activism". The sort of judicial activisim Moore is engaging in is a tactic being used by the radical right to do an end run around the constitution's first amendment, and the legislative branches of government.

People need to be very clear about this. The ultimate goal of this group of dangerous lunatics, is to have their narrow, fundamentalist Southern Baptist sect operating de facto as a state religion. They are not willing to tolerate ANY other religions, and say so all the time. They are not willing to tolerate Buddhists, Muslims, Jews (even though they keep invoking the Judeo word), Catholics, or anyone else's religion, in THEIR legal interpretations. That too, is what makes them so dangerous.

These people are subverting religion, the law, and the secular democratic traditions the country was actually founded on.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 03:54 PM

Here's one of history's experiments with state religion. Generally not a great benefit.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 05:10 PM

Southern Baptists don't own the Ten Commandments.

I stillcan't se how any of this has anything to do with establishing a state religion.

All sounds like two bunches of fundamentalists squaring up to each other.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 05:42 PM

McG: The meaning of the phrase has evolved to mean a prohibition on state-sponsored promotion of any religion. (Or, at least, promoting anything less than all religions - But even then some atheists will bring suit, b/c then they've been excluded.)

If state (taxpayer) funds are involved, directly or indirectly, for something such as maintenance of a religious whatever, there's trouble.

For example, if a government entity leases land to the Boy Scouts, and Boy Scouts espouse religious viewpoints, then the lease must be at fair market value. (The Boy Scouts can try to be non-denominational, and even try to present evidence of Jewish and Muslim members, but that's not good enough to prevent suit by atheists.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 06:35 PM

It is not a case of establishing a religion; the body of law that has accrued since the First Amendment on this point has built up a strong tradition against the state favoring any one religion. Since not all religions use the word God or even the concept, it is generally considered outside the pale for any governmental agent to promote any aspect of God in an official capacity. And rightly so, too -- if anything in the universe is truly a private affair it is the individual's standing before God, and vice-versa.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,Frankham
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 06:59 PM

We have a political problem here and not a religious one. The moral authority is being used to service a political end. What else is new? It's the history of religion. The question as to what the Founding Fathers would say about the way the law is being handled in Alabama is quite clear. They would be appalled.

I think the Statement is ambiguous but not incorrect. It's subject of course to interpretation. This is the nature of laws in general.
They need to be updated to fit present times and they must be tested in court to determine their validity.

I think one way to handle it would be to insist on the Code of Hanarabi from early Indian culture to be placed alongside of the Commandments since many scholars agree that this was the basis for the Commandments historically. This would give the proponents of the Commandments a little necessary education.

Frank Hamilton








"Separation of Church and State," as many point out, is an ambiguous and incorrect statement of the constitutional proscription against the state sponsored establishment of religion. Question whether a belief in revealed law by a judge is State sponsored establishment of religion. You can argue it both ways. But the essence of the argument reaches fundamental principals. No one is going to scream their way into winning that argument.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 07:06 PM

It should be noted that the Southern Baptists (and I am not one) is a religious body with a specific belief structure. I have no idea if Justice Moore is, or claims to be, a Southern Baptist. There are a lot of very conservative, or fundamentalist (if you prefer) Christian sects in the deep South. This is the official policy statement of the denomination on the issue of separation of church and state:
We stand for a free church in a free state. Neither one should control the affairs of the other. We support the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, with its "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses.

We do, of course, acknowledge the legitimate interplay of these two spheres. For example, it is appropriate for the state to enact and enforce fire codes for the church nurseries. It is also appropriate for ministers to offer prayer at civic functions. Neither the Constitution nor Baptist tradition would build a wall of separation against such practices as these. Their website is here.

There are nut cases to be found in any organized religion, including atheism, but it is often useful to find out what the actual position of the body is before beginning to throw stones.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 07:15 PM

"it is generally considered outside the pale for any governmental agent to promote any aspect of God in an official capacity."

So how come it seems the acting President of the US can't make any kind of public statement without mentioning God? I'd have thought that was a more serious breach of this "principle" than any carved bit of stone.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 07:23 PM

Because he is a git.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 07:35 PM

Art brooks...Thats not good enough ..What about all the gits who voted for him..Recently,I heard Alister Cooke interviewing some American college students about foriegn policy.I was appalled to hear most of them reply that they didnt know much about it but they were "sure their leaders would never do anything wrong".
Why are so many Americans so politicaly naive.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: GUEST,Deacon Blues
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 08:21 PM

I do think Moore is raising a legitimate point when he says that we invoke the Christian god all the time in government sponsored events, buildings, and rituals. He is correct to draw attention to the hypocrisy of those in the US who say on the one hand, we must have separation of church of state, and on the other, we must invoke the Christian god in all of our important rituals and ceremonies (ie swearing in and oath taking).

It is hypocritical, and the practice should be ended. In this day and age, when there are so many religions, denominations and sects of religions, agnostics, atheists, and people who profess to worship in non-traditional ways (ie New Age pagans, wiccans, etc) we shouldn't be invoking the Christian god in any of our government documents, rituals and ceremonies, etc. The time has long since passed when we should cleanse all levels of government of ANY vestiges of religion, period. The invocation of the Christian god is something our secular nation shouldn't do anymore.

Now, if Justice Moore would care to assist in elminating the hypocrisy by cleansing all levels of government within the US and it's territories, in order to be literal minded about all this, I'm right beside him on it!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 08:24 PM

It is not political naivete -- it is naievete about life and what humans are really like. This comes from inexperience, up to a certain age -- you don't handle enough reality as a child to be able to make very good judgements. After a certain age, around 18 perhaps, the same disability is attributable to television.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: Amergin
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 08:32 PM

cause in the schools kids are taught the leaders are infallible...

the thing with washington and the cherry tree is taught as fact...it is taught as fact that lincoln only went to war to free the slaves... and that the confederates were all slave owning traitors....and that communism and socialism is evil...
\
the true history of the us is rarely taught...the labour fights...the free speech fights...all swept under the rug....

Subject: RE: BS: 'Christian' Loonies Lose It in Montgomery
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 03 - 01:54 PM

Being a git - though I'd say twit is closer to the truth - might be a reason for Bush doing it, but it doesn't explain why it doesn't get him into trouble, if the law really is that clear-cut on all this.

Looked at from outside it really does seem that, leaving aside places like Saudi Arabia, there can't be a country in the world which has a more established national religion than the USA, in real and effective terms.