BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,katlaughing coming through the backdoor
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:28 PM

BillD - thanks for that excellent post, esp. the part about FROM religion.

Bobertdarlin'...why must there be ANY RELIGIOUS teaching displayed on government buildings, buses, etc.? WHY don't people who bleieve in this stuff LIVE IT and lead by example, NOT try to force upon everyone, esp. perfect strangers? I believe it is because they lived FEAR-based lives and are trying to control everything around them. If I believed Jesus was in a grave, I am sure he'd a been turning over in it for upteen years for all that has been done in his name!

NERD, thank you for your posting, too. Well-said!

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,jeffp
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:30 PM

Guest 11:56, I suspect you'd find there are a lot of Christians like frogprince and me. We just don't get much press - because we don't seek it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:55 PM

Has anyone noticed the cognitive dissonance between not coveting anything of your neighbors, and the notion that you must have only one God because "the Lord is a jealous God"? Surely jealousy involves covetousness of a neighbor god's admiration, creations, or following?

Ah well, religion has never been under any constraints to be consistent in normal terms, dealing as it does with the extraordinary! Sorry for the thread creep!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:05 PM

I don't believe in a "jealous" God. It just doesn't make sense. One of the big problems in organized religion - in my opinion - is that we attempt to recreate God in our image. Not the other way around. Jealousy is a human emotion - not a Godly one. Of course I don't believe in Hell for the same reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:09 PM

Here's the commentary in whole. I know that's counter to the way we're suppose to post, but I just had this sent to me by a friend who knew I'd like it.

by Ian Wrisley - transcribed from: NPR's All Things Considered, March 29, 2005



Later this year, the Supreme Court issues a decision about government displays of the Ten Commandments. Defenders of the displays say that the Commandments are being displayed, not to endorse a religion, but to show their influence on the development of American law. Commentator and minister Ian Wrisley says neither argument makes him comfortable.



            Dorothy Sayers said that, it was a great mistake to present Christianity as something "charming" or popular. Maybe that's my problem with this whole Ten Commandments controversy. People who want the Commandments on government property are forced to argue that the Commandments belong there, precisely because they are not religious.

            They talk about the Commandments as a cultural, legal, historical document. This kind of thing might keep "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, but only as an impotent artifact of history, not the Lord of history. It's a hollow victory. When the government adopts religious symbolism, it ought to scare the bejeebers out of people. Why? Because governments can't be trusted with metaphysics - that's why. When I was in the 8th grade, our principal said the Lord's Prayer over the loudspeaker every day. In his mind, it was just another way to control unruly adolescents. Communion with God lost out.

            When governments use religious symbols, they're NOT giving legitimacy to religion, they're using religion to prop up their own legitimacy. What's most confusing to me is that the people clamoring for religious symbols on government property are my fellow evangelicals.   It was, after all, the Baptists that needed Thomas Jefferson's assurance that the government would keep out of religion. His response to them gives us that great phrase, "...a wall of separation between church and state."

            The Baptists and the rest of us were protected from the encroaching hand of government. Two hundred years later, the evangelicals are asking the government to encroach! "Blasphemy", is a word we evangelicals don't use much anymore. It means to make secular, that which is sacred. Posting the Ten Commandments on government property is a case study in blasphemy. As a Christian, I find the commandments too sacred to be possessed by any government. If anything, the faithful belong to the Commandments, but that's another conversation...

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,Bill D
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:12 PM

"Does the wholesale theft of votes come under that heading?"

Yeah...to me it does... but they are usually smart enough to avoid leaving direct proof lying around. Intimidation and such are fair game, though. Boy if we could PROVE something about Diebold voting machines, that would blow the lid off!

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,Don Firth (through the cat flap)
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:13 PM

For what it's worth, I think Jesus had something fairly specific to say about public displays of religion:

Matthew 6:—

"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling with many words, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

". . . No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."

And he says quite a bit more. I think one of the points he was trying to make was that your religious beliefs are a personal thing. Making a big show of it or trying to cram it down someone else's throat is a lousy way to go.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:58 PM

Animal Farm?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:58 PM

A WALL of SEPARATION between Church and State. What an immortal, powerful, clear, simple, and complete idea.

Maybe the Republicans should read up on Jefferson. They might like some of his ideas enough to stop trampling them.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:03 PM

CENSORSHIP ON MUDCAT LIVES

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Charmion
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:05 PM

I think the point he was making was that pride is a shockingly dangerous sin that corrupts absolutely.

It's only too easy for the religiously observant to get proud of their godliness. Therefore, public religious exercises (including public monuments) should be avoided to remove the temptation of other people admiring one's godliness.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:09 PM

Piers, if there are Marxists here fine. But they shouldn't be entitled to any benefits of living in this country.

Is that what you do? condemn the country but sponge off of it anyway? Wouldn't put it past you.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Charmion
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:29 PM

The whole point of democracy is that, as long as they pay their taxes and obey the law, citizens (including the Marxist ones) are entitled to all the benefits their country has to offer.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:04 PM

That's right. and freedom of speech allows me to tell them to go to hell and show them no respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:23 PM

Many of the benefits of living in this country are socialist in nature. Roads, public schools, the military (to whatever extent one can consider the military a benifit), fire and police departments, public libraries, the public airwaves upon wich our television and radio signals travel, the space program, highway rest stops, national, state, county, and municipal parks... these are all socialist institutions (or commodities used in a socialist manner).

And the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist (although he didn't put in the "one nation under God" bit).

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:14 PM

John Hardly:

Thank you for the full text. It captured the principles involved in a nutshell IMHO.

Robo

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:57 PM

Sure, CarolC

That's complete and total bullshit.

And because of the military, we have a country for you to sponge off of.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 10:56 PM

It's not bullshit, Martin. It's reality. Socialism is collective ownership, and collective administration. All of the things I have mentioned fit that description.

And the Pledge of Allegiance was, indeed, written by a self-described "Christian Socialist" by the name of Francis Bellamy:

The Pledge of Allegiance
A Short History

(Google search, "Francis Bellamy" + socialist


"Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.

The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.

In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]

Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there."

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 10:58 PM

for you to sponge off of

And this is a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 11:02 PM

Wellm Kat, it ain't got one thing to do with the dreaded RELIGION thing but just common sense. The "10 Commandments" aren't anyhting but just good ol' common sense....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 11:06 PM

Bobert, sorry to disagree. Thou shalt have no gods before me, and the commandment about honoring the sabbath are not just common sense. They are specific to certain religions and have no bearing of any kind on people who don't belong to those religions, and are not in any way related to having common sense or not having common sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 11:11 PM

In addition, if they are common sense, they do not require the weight and bias of a subset of religions to enforce or even encourage them. Why not put up posters with truisms on them from philosophers or poets ? Why something that is so inextricably linked to so small a segment of the world's religious legacies? It is like insisting on teaching only from philosophical texts by German thinkers, or left-handed writers.

Why not quotes from the Koran, the Tao-te-Ching, or the Upanishads, then? Why be so bloody narrow minded about our public spaces when we pretend to stand for a new standard of freedom for all men (the generic sense, not the gendered sense). This is not supposed to be a nation of Christians, it is supposed to be a nation of human beings of ANY religion. What part of the word ANY don't you understand?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CStrong
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 11:16 PM

CarolC
Don't confuse Martin with long sentences. And he doesn't care if the accusation he hurls is true or not. When our responses start confusing him, he usually drops out of the thread.

My non-religious take: second commandment (or if you're a Unitarian, "suggestion") says it all. And if you can't muster the love, respect is probably enough.

Jeez, we even have to love Martin. Well, as the Buddhists advise, "strive."

The Buddhist stopped at a hot dog stand and said, "Make me one with everything."

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 11:24 PM

Then he paid for it with a ten and the guy pocketed it. "Hey!" says the Buddhist, "Where's my change??!!!!" "Change only comes from within, man." he was told.

:)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 11:28 PM

I remember reading this when I was a junior in high school...for some reason, it has always stuck with me:


"With the old Deities hath it long since come to an end:--and verily, a good joyful Deity-end had they!

They did not "begloom" themselves to death--that do people fabricate! On the contrary, they--LAUGHED themselves to death once on a time!

That took place when the unGodliest utterance came from a God himself--the utterance: "There is but one God! Thou shalt have no other Gods before me!"--

--An old grim-beard of a God, a jealous one, forgot himself in such wise:--

And all the Gods then laughed, and shook upon their thrones, and exclaimed:
"Is it not just divinity that there are Gods, but no God?"



from "Also Sprach Zarathustra
                ...Fredrich Nietzsche (this is an English translation, I don't know exactly how it might read in German...I remember it differently, but that was 50 years ago)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Piers
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 01:45 AM

Good one Gibson, you resort to insinuation and insult because you've got no arguments against socialism/communism except the irrational prejudices of patriotism/nationalism/religion/racism that the rich spew over us to keep us from seeing the exploitative workings of the capitalist economy.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 02:08 AM

You are only the servant/caretaker for future generations.

You memeroy will remain clean clear and vivid on the plains of North Dakota - just as those from 1499 are honored and revered today.

BULL SHIT!~!!!!!!!!

Moses was the only big man with 10 (and his were from GOD)/////

Your ten will never play - there is no reason to "buy in."

Sincerely,

Gargoyle

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 08:06 AM

sounds like they've been passing the bong around but we're still a few messages short of attainingy koombayah

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: RichM
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:25 AM

"bleep] (for antisocial behavior)"


This is your best comment, Martin Gibbers.
I like this new bleep thing!

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,Ian Wrisley
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 02:26 PM

Robomatic:

Would you like an actual transcript of my commentary?

Ian Wrisley

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 03:54 PM

Guest 'Ian Wrisley'

Sure

Robomatic

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Once Famous
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 05:17 PM

that's right Piers. I resort to patriotism and you resort to just being a socialist maggot. socialism is dead in this country, thank God.

but don't worry, Piers, Ho che Minh would have loved you.

Most socialists have been known to be Jew haters. doesn't surpirse me. why debate with someone who I would obviously hate like yourself. It's just not worth my time.

Ever consider buying a one way ticket to China, Piers? there's a lot of little chinese guys making .50 an hour and wearing gray T shirts that you can join in having some rice out of a paper cup with. They are your socialist brothers you know.

I am so glad that you are such a silent voice in America.

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

Piers - You can't win with Martin. He's the master of hate here at the Mudcat.

We just can't figure out of he's a right-handed Master Hater or a left-handed Master Hater.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Nerd
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 11:31 PM

"Most socialists have been known to be Jew haters."

Most of the ones I know are Jews...

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: robomatic
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:02 AM

We should make a distinction between Socialists, who can be good people, usually Democrats (only better organized), and have sensational picnics with volleyball.

Distinct from Communists, who have a sense of humor not much different from Nazis, dress without flair, have a penchant for taking over countries and shooting vast quantities of people over rather abstract issues and think that denial IS a river in Egypt.

Many Jews have been Socialists to this day. Some Jews have been Communists despite great anti-Semitism within Communist governments. Jews are not typically allowed to be Nazis unless they are just 'dying' to join.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: John P
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 09:49 AM

What most people don't seem to realize about Martin Gibson and his ilk is that they are engaged in an attempt to overthrow the Constitution of the United States. All of his cries of being a patriot are a ruse to distract us from the fact that he is really an anti-American traitor.

Yes, Martin. Treason. You.

I'll turn your own argument back on you: if you don't like living in a free country, go live in Iran or Israel or some other theocratic state. But stop trying to ruin my country.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,John Hardly
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 10:15 AM

As I mentioned a few times early in this thread, I am not for he display of the Ten Commandments in government buildings -- except as they may be part of a whole "history of western law" kind of display.

But this hyperventilating as if the sky is falling is overlooking one important detail...

...all these cases of the Ten Commandments on display in governmental buildings revolve around their removal from government buildings. These are not new cases of people insisting on putting up new displays -- these are cases brought by those opposing existing displays.

This distinction is important because, even though it still may be a worthy goal to remove the displays -- it may be a step in greater liberty -- all the liberties we currently enjoy exist despite these displays.

If the displays were actually robbing us of religious liberty as we claim, we would already done be robbed. We're not.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 11:35 AM

HUNH???

Whaddaya expect? Somebody with a mask and a gun?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Piers
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 12:01 PM

Robomatic, 'We should make a distinction between Socialists . . . [and] Communists'. What cobblers! The words are interchangeable (social/common ownership being the same thing). Whatever some people may say that socialism/communism is. It means social/common ownership, which obviously means social/communal control and free access to goods and services - you can't buy what you already own.

The bureaucratic class who controlled the means of producing and distributing wealth in the so-called socialist/communist countries have a vested interest in calling their version of capitalism socialism/communism. Just as the private class who control the means of producing and distributing wealth today have a vested interest in calling those versions of capitalism, socialism/communism.

Those who think that religion and socialism/communism are compatible are misguided, it shows no understanding of the origins of religion and divisive social role of religion. How can you believe that we can change and control our own world if you believe we are controlled by another?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: John Hardly
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 12:36 PM

All the talk of going to hell in a handbasket is ironically failing to notice that we are not currently in hell though the handbasket we're in has only changed in the direction favored by those who most seem to be complaining about the direction in which they fear it is going (relative to those who have posted to this thread).

Ailing Man: Doc, will I be able to play piano after this?

Doc: Sure. Don't see why not.

Ailing Man: GREAT! I've always wished I could play the piano.

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.

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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