BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 07:33 AM

US treasury's history of 'In God we trust'

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 07:26 AM

It's only esrablishing religion if the scriptures are all from one particular relgion...

I have suggested that if scriptures from various relgions that instruct us all to be more caring and loving toward one another, including some of the 10 Commandments which are universal, would be a good thing. I don't see where doing that *establishes* a relgion or makes folks bullies???

I pointed out earlier that there a lot of just decent common sense in many scripture, be them from the Bible, the Koran or whatever. And here we are all trying to live in an increasingly hostile world allowing the Christain Right to pit Chrstains and Jews against thos of Islamic Faith... We'd sure better start finding ways the bridge the gap and I think it can be done but not so long as we're instructing our governemnt to heep people in the dark... Hey, I want to be able to walk into a school or court room and learn not only what Christains have to offer mankind but other relgions as well...

And this from a Christain...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: John P
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 06:37 AM

Founding fathers blah blah blah, Judeo-Christian society blah blah blah, doesn't hurt anything blah blah blah, good rules to live by blah blah blah, just don't look blah blah blah, other things to be worried about blah blah blah.

It's all a bunch of crap, folks. Putting scripture on the courthouse walls is establishing a religion. Anyone who can't see that is being willfully obtuse. It's wildly discriminatory against those who aren't part of that religion. It's ethically odorous. It flies in the face of instructions given in another part of the same scripture. It's a bunch of people in the majority forcing the rest of us to smell their butts. Stop it now. Please be good people, not bullies.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 11:12 PM

Greg--

Sorry, Greg, there is a difference between protest song and the real world. And if you want to play into the hands of the demogogues, be my guest. But if you're tired of being "governed" by right-wing Neanderthals, you have to learn to pick your fights. And, I submit, this one is not worth fighting. People who burn with a passion to remove the 10 Commandments from courtrooms are in a distinct minority in the real world (as opposed to the Mudcat world) and will wind up squandering their talents and energies which are sorely needed on other issues.

And, as I said, the Doug R's and Larry K's will cheer you on.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:55 PM

Some say they've passed their darkest hour
Those moderates are back in power.
Oh, they listen close with open ears
They'll help us out in a couple a hundred years.
But DON'T PUSH 'EM!,whatever you do...
Or else you'll get those extremists back in!

.....Phil Ochs

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:50 PM

Ah yes, Carol C. but you didn't admit that you had a problem with God, so I wasn't really disappointed and you didn't let me down.

OK, you can back peddle now.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:42 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.

And, I repeat, what happened in 2004 should be a warning. The Democrats can not afford to be type-cast as anti-religion. The right wing demogogues know how great that approach works, and will be only too happy to use it again---and you would be handing them some wonderful ammunition.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:32 PM

My crime was having the audacity to home school my son while not being a Christian. And this in an area where home schooling was not only legal, it was being done by quite a few Christian families in the area. I was taken to court and subjected to having my civil rights violated for nine months at a cost of thousands of dollars to me and a hell of a lot of trauma for my son.

Camel's nose in the tent my ass. That whole damn camel is standing right in the middle of the tent and it's shitting on the Constitution of the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:27 PM

10 Commandments in courthouses--231 posts? And from reading some of them, the US must be in imminent danger of becoming a theocracy.

This is a non-issue. I suppose you want the 10 Commandments out of all courthouses because of the "camel's nose in the tent" syndrome.

Based on the vehemence of opposition here, and elsewhere, the danger of Anglicanism or any other brand of religion being established as the state religion is highly overrated. As you know, the danger of a state religion, which had been experienced under the Church of England, was the fear addressed by the 1st Amendment. Not likely now.


There is, however, a danger that if you push too hard for purging the 10 Commandments from all courtrooms, you will , as pressure groups did last year, alienate moderates, energize the "true believers" on the other side, and hand the 2008 election to the next right-wing demogogue.

"When will they ever learn?"

Doug R. Larry K, et al. will of course be grateful.

If all you want to do is vent, then fine. But please keep it here.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:05 PM

I read a sad and stupid narrative yesterday by an intelligent young woman who stopped at a roadside cafe for some food to go, in Texas. While she was waiting for her order two beefy tall young belt-and-boot boys sauntered up and started asking her questions about her beliefs, and challenged her for wearing the Prince of Darkness on her t-shirt. She was wearing a tshirt advertising Linux, with the little horned possum critter on it. They asked her politely and just slightly threateningly to leave the cafe and barely let her get and pay for her food. They didn't want no truck with them Satanist city slickers.

I swan!!!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: frogprince
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 08:51 PM

I wonder a little if some people here are reacting, not to what has actually been said on the thread, but to what they hear because they remember the rhetoric of Madalyn Murray O'Hair and her circle; I maintained some repect for O'Hair's stance, until I heard her personally holding forth on radio; she made it plain she didn't want anyone to have the right to express religious faith anywhere she might encounter it. I still respect her position on more-or-less mandatory school prayer, etc., but she could also be one "piece of work".
Incidentally, we have a small pagan group in the area who put a sign on their place of worship; our local state representative was quoted in the county paper as promising to get them out of the neighborhood. (He's pro "marriage protection act", anti the teaching of evolution, the whole stereotypical ball of wax.)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:53 PM

as the Deist's seem to have kept very private on the issue

Not at all surprising considering how much persecution people who aren't Christians are subjected to by some of the ones who are. When I am in an area that is mostly inhabited by fundamentalist Christians, I don't talk about my spiritual beliefs either. That's one of the reasons I am so adamant about the separation of church and state. I would like to be able to feel more free to express my spiritual beliefs openly. Last time I did that in a mostly fundamentalist Christian area, I was persecuted mercilessly. And as I said before, it happened in the courts.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:40 PM

How many of the signatures were from Deist's? According to a survey in Virginia in the 1700's 78% of the population were Christian. James Madison was certainly influence by Christianity, as was Jefferson, wether they may be Deist's or not is debatable, as the Deist's seem to have kept very private on the issue

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:39 PM

It is disgusting that those who venture in to lawmaking are so cavlier about trampling the precedents described above.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:19 PM

I, personally, don't "have a problem seeing stuff religious and with people with faith", and I am not offended.

Sorry to dissappoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:17 PM

Casual Observer, in relation to the United States of America 'In God We Trust' is not a time-honored legal sentiment. It dates from the Eisenhower administration in response to the Un-American Activities Commission when many Americans were afraid of appearing or being judged to be Communistic or un-American in some fashion. It was not a shining moment in our history.

If the 'founding fathers' had added the slogan to our beginnings I would feel differently about it. In actual fact, it was 1954, nearly 200 years later.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:12 PM

Don't like God?

have a problem with seeing stuff religious and with people with faith?

Don't worry. I am really glad you are offended.

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

Thanks for posting that link, Dave. That's what I've been pointing out all along. As the Ten Commandments are a form the "revealed word of God," they are expressly rejected by deists like Adams and Jefferson.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 05:41 PM

Casual Observer, my understanding is that the Supreme Court is right now considering two cases that involve ten commandments displays in court houses. From what I have read, they will probably make a ruling on it in June. There are some important standards for adjudicating establishment clause cases, and I guess that will be what the Supreme Court will be looking at when making their determinations. These standards involve, among other things, the question of whether or not the presence of religious diplays in government buildings will have the effect of promoting any particular religion or religions.

This page has links to some of the cases that have established the standards that courts are currently using to make these determinations:

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/eclauidx.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 05:00 PM

Well, as a matter of fact, yes!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 04:28 PM

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

How is posting a religious something-or-other on government/public property defined as Congress making a law? It seems to me that individual state constitutions would have to be consulted as well.

Next I suppose you'll be wanting them to remove "In God We Trust" from the money.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 04:23 PM

Interesting link, Dave. It certainly looks like Deists can't be considered Christians.

Deism is concerned with those truths which humans can discover through a process of reasoning, independent of any claimed divine revelation through scripture or prophets. Most Deists believe that God does not interfere with the world or create miracles.

So that rules out the ten commandments from the perspective of those "founding fathers" who considered themselves Deists.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 03:35 PM

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Deism

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,jeffp
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 03:35 PM

Wolfgang:

ROTFL

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 03:33 PM

Now the serious post: proselytizing

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 03:28 PM

"How was prosthelytizing today?" asks his wife the salesman when he comes home.
"Not bad. Two legs, a left hand and a nose".

Wolfgang (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 03:00 PM

what is so hard for you people to understand? america is not a "christian" nation. it is a nation that forbids its gov't to establish a state religion. it (in principle) accepts all religions. so if we don't have a state religion, that means either NO icons of religion on public, tax-funded property or an assortment of religious symbology from many different religions to accomodate all views.
personally, i like the "no religious symbols" option. keep your religion in your church, your heart, your home, your family, talk about it with interested friends but keep it OUT of public buildings. but if you insist that the 10 commandments must be displayed then you should fight equally hard to display quotes from the koran and other alternative texts or else you're just a prosthelytizing (sp?) christan jerk trying to force your beliefs on me. and i don't like it!

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 02:31 PM

Debate with facts and stop being personal. This is some food for thoughts and comments.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=70

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 01:53 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Kim C
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 06:00 PM

I'm secure enough in my own beliefs not to feel threatened by whatever displays people want to make in public, whether they be Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Mormon, whatever. I have more important things to concern myself with, and I think the state probably does too.

I have never, ever in my life, been offended by anyone's display of faith, although I have found some displays a little silly. But being offended by someone else's religion is just beyond my understanding, not to mention a total waste of my time.


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

I have to admit that I am more than a little bit annoyed by your mischaracterization of the reasoning that many of us have for not wanting the ten commandments to be posted in government buildings, Kim C.

If we were offended by public displays of other people's religions, we would be calling for the removal of all religious symbolism from the outside of churches, synagogues, and mosques. We would be waging a campaign to remove all crosses and Stars of David from cemetaries. We would be out removing the little crosses that people plant by the side of the road to commemorate the deaths of loved ones in traffic accidents. I don't see anybody here in this thread calling for these things.

To suggest that it has anything whatever to do with being offended by seeing public displays of other people's religions is a complete mischaracterization of what people in this thread are saying, and also of what really matters to those of us who are arguing against religious symbolism in government buildings.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 01:50 PM

Y'know what? I don't care. They can post whatever they want. Just because it's in public doesn't mean anyone has to read it.

Let's consider those 10 Commandments just for a second. Don't most world religions abide by most of those same tenets? Don't most human beings of decent character, whether they're religious or not, abide by most of those same tenets? Think about it. Even if you don't agree with "thou shalt have no other gods before me," how in the world can you argue with no killing, no stealing, no messing around with your neighbor's spouse? Those are things that cause trouble for people, regardless of religion, or lack of it.

Anyhow, like I said, I don't care. I'm secure enough in my own beliefs not to feel threatened by whatever displays people want to make in public, whether they be Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Mormon, whatever. I have more important things to concern myself with, and I think the state probably does too.

I have never, ever in my life, been offended by anyone's display of faith, although I have found some displays a little silly. But being offended by someone else's religion is just beyond my understanding, not to mention a total waste of my time. (Kim C)

It's not the stating your opinion part that I have a problem with Kim C, it's you telling us what our opinions are that I particularly dislike. And yes, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from doing that in the future. (Carol)

Wolfgang (puzzled)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 01:41 PM

That's odd, Mary. I thought that was your MO. What a coincidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 01:33 PM

It's not the stating your opinion part that I have a problem with Kim C, it's you telling us what our opinions are that I particularly dislike. And yes, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from doing that in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,Mary in Kentucky
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 12:37 PM

Don't worry Kim, it's just your turn "in the barrel." ;-) (It's her MO)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Kim C
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:47 AM

Just stating my opinion, Carol, like everyone else. I apologize if you found it needless or redundant. Since posting my opinion is apparently needless and redundant, I reckon I'll save myself the trouble in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 08:57 AM

"the religious connotations that were inherently part of their belief system"

Or not, Since those of 'em who were not Deists were of the athiest or agnostic persuasion, e.g. Partick Henry, of the famous "Forbid it Almighty God!!" speach. Just because they made literary references to a God doesn't mean they were "believers".

& dito Nerd re: circularity, so Adios.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:29 AM

But Dave has completely ignored MY point, which was that many of the founding fathers were not only "not Christians in the modern sense" but not Christians at all. They were Deists, and had rejected this sort of revelation. To them, "revelation" was the ability of a person with his or her own senses to see the evidence of God, screw commandments and prophecies and holy writ. So yes, they had religious beliefs, but those beliefs often did not include the ten commandments.

This argument goes in circles anyway. People aren't really listening, they just want to have their way. As CarolC says, the constitution and the Supreme Court have consistently favored the side that would keep religious displays off of government property.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 10:57 PM

Greg, I did not ignore that influence, but you conveniently ignore the religious connotations that were inherently part of their belief system.

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 10:21 PM

Fair enuf, Dave, but if you've read 'em, and read the writings of the "founding fathers"[ugh!] that reference 'em, how is it you manage to miss and/or completely ignore the Rationalist basis and foundation in favor of your religious extrapolation?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 08:00 PM

Danged!

I'm 201...

Makes me made nuff to kill...

Jus funnin'...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 07:58 PM

Thou shalt not kill...

200...

Bobert

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

11. You shall not emulate Flamenco ted and swoop on 00 posts.

hows that for number 11? lighten up people!

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

There's little doubt that the philosophers(ies) of the day were influencing the religious beliefs of the day. Also just as unlikely that one can read the writings of those involved in the founding of our country and the structuring of its government and conclude that these were a bunch of atheists.

Sure, you can take isolated writings (like Franklin's f'rinstance) and conclude that at least some of them were not Christians by a modern day definition.

...neither were that rationalists by a modern day definition (meaning that they did not accept the modern notion that rational thought would lead to naturalism -- rather, they thought that rational thought, and a unified world view would lead to spiritual enlightenment -- a "religious" outcome).

I'm coming away from this discussion pleasantly heartened.

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

I have to admit that I am more than a little bit annoyed by your mischaracterization of the reasoning that many of us have for not wanting the ten commandments to be posted in government buildings, Kim C.

If we were offended by public displays of other people's religions, we would be calling for the removal of all religious symbolism from the outside of churches, synagogues, and mosques. We would be waging a campaign to remove all crosses and Stars of David from cemetaries. We would be out removing the little crosses that people plant by the side of the road to commemorate the deaths of loved ones in traffic accidents. I don't see anybody here in this thread calling for these things.

To suggest that it has anything whatever to do with being offended by seeing public displays of other people's religions is a complete mischaracterization of what people in this thread are saying, and also of what really matters to those of us who are arguing against religious symbolism in government buildings.

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

The UN was on top of the problem that the US used as its justification for the invasion (WMD). And that has been proven, it's not just an opinion. However, the fact that a large percentage of people in the US believed that Saddam had anything whatever to do with 9/11 (which he did not), is proof, not only of the fact that we are capable of being misled on a massive scale, but also that this has, in fact, been done. So there really is nothing separating the people of the US from tyranny.

And Kim C, I am not offended by public displays of other people's religions. As long as the displays are not mandated or sponsored by the government or any government officials in (or on) government buildings. I am offended by discrimination, and by anything that weakens and/or violates the Constitution of the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 06:53 PM

Well I think we could benefit from his wisdom :)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 06:52 PM

Carole, The mistake made was in not displacing Saddam the firat time; and in waiting for that corrupt, innefectual organization the UN to solve the problem. But that is another topic for a thread :)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 06:37 PM

Nice quote, Dave. (The one from Tenzin Gyatso.) I take it you are suggesting we replace the ten commandments in our courthouses with that quote, then? Might be worth a try.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,brucie
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 06:33 PM

Sorry. The above post was by me.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 06:32 PM

Polytheism - Modern World
Polytheism still represents much of the world today. Except for the monotheistic (belief in one God) religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, most of the world's religions are overwhelmingly polytheistic. Polytheism characterizes the beliefs of Hinduism, Mahayana Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism and Shintoism in the East, and also contemporary tribal religions in Africa and the Americas. These religions are widely practiced throughout the world and remain very popular in their ancestral areas.

Quote from this link . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 06:29 PM

Greg F. You might disagree with me, but do not presume to think that I have not already read those works; that displays arrogance and intolerance on your part not mine. As for me being "way off the mark" I know many better educated people who hold similar opinions as mine, and therefore I consider myself fortunate to be in such good company mate; and you are entitled to your opinion.

Love for others and respect for their rights and dignity, no matter who or what they are: ultimately these are all we need. So long as we practise these in our daily lives, then no matter if we are learned or unlearned, whether we believe in Buddha or God, or follow some other religion or none at all, as long as we have compassion for others and conduct ourselves with restraint out of a sense of responsibility, there is no doubt we will be happy' - Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama.