BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:07 PM

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
Albert Einstein

;-) Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:12 PM

They will, now that you've told them the symbols are Pagan in origin, Dave. That's all it takes. (Just try to put a Pentagram up in one of the courthouses that is a part of the controversy... Judge Moore's courthouse in Alabama, for instance, and watch the fur fly).

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:13 PM

My last was in response to this from Dave...

Again, not one Christian is calling for their removal from public view, strange isnt it?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:27 PM

LOL I hope not CarolC but you are probably right I should not have posted it eh? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:43 PM

Damn i lorst me cookie again ;-) The above was me ;-)
Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 09:22 PM

I grew up in a fundamentalist family. They took the Bible 'literally', except when they did not.

A week or so ago I had a run-in with a middle-aged man who came up to me on the sidewalk where I was waitng for a taxi.

After small talk about the rainbow on the hillside, he said, Do you believe in Jesus?

I said, Well, I'm not sure. I believe there was a teacher named Jesus who lived on the earth, yes. But I'm actually more of a Deist. I get the impression that Jesus himself was a Deist.

He said, Jesus said I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. When we pray, we have to speak in the name of Jesus, not in the name of God.

I said, Yes, and you know, that's odd. In the only example of prayer that Jesus gave us, he didn't.

He said, You're prideful. You are going to Hell.

I said, And you are rude and annoying. You may go now.

He yelled back, You are going to Hell.

I took a step toward him, feeling like bonking him with my bag of books. He skedaddled.

I wasn't necessarily proud of how I reacted. But I am glad that I may have given him something to think about. Or at least, to pray about. *G*

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 09:42 PM

Well done, Ebbie!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 09:48 PM

hahhah Actually, it was kind of fun, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 12:13 AM

and you think we have problems?

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 12:59 AM

Carol:

That in worshipping God we avoid worshipping humans.

I disagree with the idea that this one fits the criteria of a secular point. For one thing, there may be religions that involve worshiping people. But also, using myself as an example, I don't have a concept of "worship" in my spiritual belief system. That word has no meaning to me. Same with any attempt to define divinity. According to my own spiritual beliefs, to define divinity is to limit it. And in my belief system, divinity is not something that can be limited. Worshipping something requires some degree of definition of what is being worshipped. Also, according to the what I believe, to worship something is to create a separation between the self and the thing being worshipped. In my spiritual beliefs, there is no separation between the self and divinity. So the use of the word "worship" violates my spiritual beliefs.

Carol: I understand your point, however in positing the idea of a God that is 'NOT' you or I and thus enables us to be equal we create the secular world.

Even if the rest of your paragraph is meant tongue not in cheek I think you are going to an interesting semantic place to come up with a verb that violates your beliefs. It is not necessarily unconstitutional for someone to feel violated in their own mind so long as you are not violated in the common law. For instance, I genuinely abhor the existence, concept, and use of licorice, but that doesn't mean I won't see it at the candy stand and i can't legally remove it because it deeply offends me.
(I hope you don't think of this as a run-around).

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 11:57 AM

Carol: I understand your point, however in positing the idea of a God that is 'NOT' you or I and thus enables us to be equal we create the secular world.

I don't find that I can agree with this. If we posit an idea of a God that is equally present in all of us, we can still have equality. But neither premise can really be considered secular.

Even if the rest of your paragraph is meant tongue not in cheek I think you are going to an interesting semantic place to come up with a verb that violates your beliefs.

Not really. I didn't come up with it. It's been there all along, and it's not uncommon for me to find myself being questioned by people about whom or what I worship. A bit tricky to do if I don't have a concept of "worship" in my spiritual beliefs.

It is not necessarily unconstitutional for someone to feel violated in their own mind so long as you are not violated in the common law. For instance, I genuinely abhor the existence, concept, and use of licorice, but that doesn't mean I won't see it at the candy stand and i can't legally remove it because it deeply offends me.
(I hope you don't think of this as a run-around).

The idea, or even the knowlege that some people do practice "worship" doesn't offend me. Nor does finding the symbols of their "worship" in the world around me cause me to feel offended or violated.

But if I am asked (as I was by that attorney), whom or what I worship, and then I am judged and discriminated against because my answer is that I don't have a concept of "worship" in my spiritual beliefs, that is a violation of my constitutional rights. If the commandment to worship one god is posted in the courthouses, and if someone is trying to get equal justice under the law in those courthouses, it becomes much easier for people to do what that attorney did and discriminate against those who do not comply with the commandments.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: John P
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 01:35 PM

Robomatic,
You said:
. . . in positing the idea of a God that is 'NOT' you or I and thus enables us to be equal we create the secular world.

A statement like indicates that you need a trip to the dictionary and a basic course in logic. You are reaching way to far to try to support something that is not rationally able to be supported: the idea that posting scriptures on the courthouse wall doesn't mean that the government doesn't support and establish that religion.

Why not just have a secular government? Why try to pretend we are getting there through something as blatantly non-secular as the statements, "I Am the Lord thy God." and "You shall have no other Gods before me."

Why isn't it good enough for you to practice your religion at home and in your church and why, being an American, don't you want to leave the courthouse walls alone??

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 02:01 PM

Hiram Percy Maxim said of his French Hugenot
ancestors:

"They came to worship according to the dictates of
their conscience and to prevent others from doing the
same."

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 11:46 PM

GUEST: LOL
John P: You are not wrong, but consider: "They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" I know that sounds like God saying "fiat mundi secularus" but hey... if it works...
Carol: My comments were not in reference to your relation of going to court against the Christain attorney, they were only related to explaining that the Ten Commandments IMHO have some beneficial secular qualities.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 12:40 AM

Robomatic:

The premise of our republic is that educate individuals CAN be trusted to think through their own ethics questions without dogma.

Why distrust individuals empowered with information?

Why might we need dogma on the walls of buildings to guide us? Whatever is wrong with being guided by character, a sense of justice, a code of conduct, moral sensitivity or the letter and spirit of the law?

Those guides, I expect, will see you through far more than any dogma.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 06:10 AM

Bill--

The unfairness of having to sit in a courtroom where there is a religious plaque which makes you uncomfortable is way down the scale of discrimination and harm. (Ask any black person).

I think we will never reach agreement on the 10 Commandments point. All I ask is that we keep the debate here and do not try to push to remove the 10 Commandments "in the real world", since that campaign will unavoidably have the effect I cited earlier.

To quote one of your favorite groups of folksingers, the Rolling Stones: "You can't always get what you want."

The Democrats were smeared last year as being unpatriotic and against religion.

Haven't we learned anything from 2004?




Carol--

I'm sorry for your treatment at the hands of that idiot bigoted fundamentalist, who not only cannot be seen as typical of people of faith, but also has no claim to even be called a lawyer. (Even watching "Perry Mason" you would learn a lawyer is not supposed to ask a question in court unless he knows the answer. That fool had no idea how you would answer the question about the book.)

You really should be reimbursed court costs--can't a legal aid society help?

However, in your post of 8 Oct 2005 10:06, you're stretching. Does not compute. That sort of reasoning is why I am not a Democrat. Though for damn sure no Bushite either.

I don't think the posting of the 10 Commandments will be determined to favor one religion over another by the Supreme Court. Avoiding that was the goal of the First Amendment, as I said earlier--primarily to avoid the Church of England situation, with its particularly noxious Test Act, etc. The point never was to expunge religion from public life.

As for favoring "the monotheistic religions over others", no Supreme Court, especially not this one--one of the few times I agree with them-- is going to bend over backwards for the benefit of Wiccans and other polytheists, to remove all traces of the US Judeo-Christian tradition from public life.

Good luck even removing "under God" from the Pledge, even though that's a recent addition. And please don't try to do it until we have a more reasonable regime than the current one.

You are not only bashing your head against a brick wall, but you have also disturbed a very large hornets' nest on the wall.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 07:26 AM

That's kids what I have tried to say all along, Bill, but got my posts all Boberdized...

Yeah, I don't think that the Supreme Court is going to have SWAT teams converge on every public building riding it of either the 10 Commandments or other scriptural writings...

I have seen the so-called Christain Right up close in my life time in chueches that split down the middle and I've seen two fine men fired as pastors. One got speaking out against the Vietnsam Way. The other for standing up for the rights of homosexuals...

So, I think it is well past time to fight back and especially by those who are Christian but detest the the hypocrisy of the Christian Right and their bully tactics. One way to do that is to open up our public institutions to all the various religions and find those overlapping areas that teach love and kindness... This will not only corner the CR but will have a positive impact on the spiritual development of everyone...

Hey, I don't care if one decides to be a Pagen 'er and athiest 'er whatever just as long as they at least have some opportunity to do the engage in the spiritual exercise to arrive at these beliefs...

(Of course, I would be more pleased if they choose Jesus but...)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: John Hardly
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 08:35 AM

"Whatever is wrong with being guided by character, a sense of justice, a code of conduct, moral sensitivity or the letter and spirit of the law?"

a sticky subject, indeed.

Tough to find the balance between making sure that government does not establish (or favor) a specific religion (unless one religion is expressly denying the rights of another) without both implying the falseness (couched in the language of empiricism) of all religion and the disenfranchisment of the religious from the public discourse.

And yet, historically there has been little "moral sensitivity" without a religious basis -- even if those practicing "moral sensitivity" are no longer religious but merely raised by the religious or influenced by a pervasive culture of religions.

And "the letter and spirit of the law" is what we're all "fighting" for. The secularists want to shape the letter and spirit of the law as much as the religious do (and have).

And they have. The secularist philosophy is winning the day -- all public policy is still moving in that direction (which is the point I've made all along about these 10 commandment displays -- they are being defeated).

Every law in our country that has ONLY religious foundation is being soundly thrashed and defeated no matter how loudly the religious might protest. The aforementioned displays, abortion on demand, restricitions on homosexuality. Only those laws that share both religious and pragmatic (the coin of the secular realm) basis are not in play.

In this democracy we all (so far) get to hash this out. But it's not enough, as currently fought, for the secularists to have their say in our democracy. No, they wish to make sure that the religious do not have their say. And they are couching this wish in language that is MaCarthy-like in its paranoia

If I were to make a guess I'd say that one strong reason the secularist so wishes to remove these decades (centuries) old displays is that it is harder for the secularist to maintain the arguement of the harm of religion while still acknowledging our history of having been developed while fully steeped in religion and religious people.

Furthermore, that "steeping" resulted in a pretty damn good constitution as well as an arguably pretty sound government and governmental mission. These public displays that hint of our history and the role that the religious played in it are a constant public reminder that those of judeo-christian philosophical extraction are not the demons that the secularists need to make us out to be in order to disenfanchise the current crop of religious.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 08:35 AM

Amos You Wrote:

The premise of our republic is that educate individuals CAN be trusted to think through their own ethics questions without dogma.

Why distrust individuals empowered with information?

Why might we need dogma on the walls of buildings to guide us? Whatever is wrong with being guided by character, a sense of justice, a code of conduct, moral sensitivity or the letter and spirit of the law?

Those guides, I expect, will see you through far more than any dogma.

There is ALWAYS dogma. For example: "The premise of our republic is that educate(d) individuals CAN be trusted to think through their own ethics questions without dogma."


"Why distrust individuals empowered with information?" it is not a matter of distrust, although distrust exists among pretty much all individuals empowered with information. If you look around the planet you will see there is plenty of information. Information is so plentiful as to be without extrinsic value these days. More important is to have a 'core' assembly point for our multicultural society to respect. A set of values we agree on. This I think is at the heart of a great deal of what we might term "Fundamentalist angst". The Fundamentalists among others are afraid that with the loss of the divine origin of our social and moral compass, our concepts AND our civilization will decay from the root. The secularly driven have done nothing but augment those fears. I think it is the 'other' main reason 'W' got elected.

I am suggesting that the ten commandments is a very useful moral 'Rosetta Stone' It enables us to say "I go my way, you go your way, but I know you're teaching your kids to: Refrain from murder, refrain from stealing, respect your elders, etc.

Without the Ten Commandments, we are left with the law. And a bright man once wrote: "The law is an ass!" Having a simple set of principles we all UNDERSTAND and think well on, is quite useful.

If we pull back a bit and look at the overall view of the situation, I think we see that the 'secular' side looks on the situation as an unwanted intrusion, and the 'religious' side looks on the situation as salvaging a remnant.

Thanks to all of you on this thread I think I'm learning more about the underlying issues involved under the rather simple title heading.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: robomatic
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 10:54 AM

Apologies, the previous post was mine. I dropped my cookie and had to pick it up off the floor.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 11:53 AM

I'm sorry for your treatment at the hands of that idiot bigoted fundamentalist, who not only cannot be seen as typical of people of faith, but also has no claim to even be called a lawyer. (Even watching "Perry Mason" you would learn a lawyer is not supposed to ask a question in court unless he knows the answer. That fool had no idea how you would answer the question about the book.)

But the problem is that it wasn't just that one attorney (whom, I agree, shouldn't be an attorney... so why is he?). It was a whole cultural mindset of the area in which I lived. The attorney, the Judge who accepted the case, the various people in the community who sided with the attorney who took me to court. The Christian right has a very firm grip on the whole cultural and political climate of that area. Even the few Jews who live there are keep a very low profile about their religion. It is not a freedom of expression or freedom to practice their own religion issue when the religious right expects to be able to have power over other people in their midst, rather than just being good Christians with regard to their own behavior.

who not only cannot be seen as typical of people of faith

You say "people of faith" as though you think Christians are the only people whose spiritual beliefs qualify as "faith".

I agree that there are as many kinds of Christians as there are Christians. My husband is of the sort who prefer to mind their own business and to give other peope the benefit of the doubt (what I would tend to see as a genuinely "Christian" attitude). Christians like my husband are not the problem. It's the Christians who believe they have a divinely ordained right to meddle in the lives of others who are the problem. There really isn't anything you can tell me about these kinds of fundamentalists that I don't already know. And I must say, that attorney really is very typical of a significant percentage of fundamentalists. My own mother was a fundamentalist, and some other members of my family are as well. At my mother's funeral, the pastor spent at least fifteen minutes beating us over the head with exortations to join his church or burn in hell. And he was a Presbytarian minister. That's utterly dispicable behavior, in my opinion. And I told him so after the funeral. He looked a bit puzzled at first, and then he just made it clear that he didn't really care because, as far as he was concerned, he was right and I was wrong.

However, in your post of 8 Oct 2005 10:06, you're stretching. Does not compute. That sort of reasoning is why I am not a Democrat. Though for damn sure no Bushite either.

I assume you mean 8, April, and not October, Ron. It may not compute for you, but then you don't seem to understand the problem. And I wouldn't really expect you to. I would have to say, based on what I have seen in your posts to this thread, you appear to be a part of the problem. And I am not a Democrat, either.

You really should be reimbursed court costs--can't a legal aid society help?

No, they would not help. But it was more than ten years ago. I have moved on with my life, and chalked the whole thing up to experience. I do not expect to ever be reimbursed for any of it.

I don't think the posting of the 10 Commandments will be determined to favor one religion over another by the Supreme Court.

We shall see.

Avoiding that was the goal of the First Amendment, as I said earlier--primarily to avoid the Church of England situation, with its particularly noxious Test Act, etc. The point never was to expunge religion from public life.

Well, now that I understand (from what I have learned from Dave) that Pagans are well represented in the symbolism and in the philosophy of the legal system in the US, I guess maybe you're right about that. But we'll have to stop calling the foundation of our society and form of government "Judeo-Christian", because it is quite clearly just as much Pagan as it is Judeo-Christian

You are not only bashing your head against a brick wall, but you have also disturbed a very large hornets' nest on the wall.

Sometimes you have to get the hornets out of the nest before you can knock it down. And I'm quite used to bashing my head against brick walls. If I weren't ever willing to make the attempt, brick wall or no brick wall, I never would have won either the custody battle, or the home schooling battle. Both of them were lost causes. But I let my "faith" carry me through and, in the end, my faith did not let me down.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 12:01 PM

Carol--

So anybody who doesn't agree wholeheartedly with you is "part of the problem". Very revealing.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 12:16 PM

So anybody who doesn't agree wholeheartedly with you is "part of the problem". Very revealing.

Anybody Ron? As far as I can see, you're the only person in this thread about whom I have made such a statement. I find it much more revealing that you would be so dishonest as to suggest that just because I have said that you are a part of the problem, that means I have said that everyone who disagrees with me is a part of the problem. How does that commandment go... the one about not bearing false witness? Looks like maybe you need to spend some time brushing up on your commandments.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 01:18 PM

It's just very interesting that sympathizing with you, agreeing your treatment by that so-called attorney was abominable, suggesting that the local legal aid society should have been able to help, is all not enough for you.

There should be room for moderates in this discussion. But moderation doesn't seem to be a big part of your world view.

If the US is polarized between the Jerry Falwells and the absolutist secularists such as you seem so far to be, it's no wonder there's so much bad feeling.

The main problem as I see it is that the Neanderthal Right is very well organized and funded. The rest of us therefore should try to find a middle ground we can defend and not squabble so much among ourselves. The problem with your quixotic quest to expunge religion from public life is that it unites the opposition without any benefit to your side. You show every sign of playing into the hands of the demogogues (again).

I'm sure Doug R, Larry K etc. are applauding you every step of the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 01:37 PM

It's just very interesting that sympathizing with you, agreeing your treatment by that so-called attorney was abominable, suggesting that the local legal aid society should have been able to help, is all not enough for you.

How about just accepting that Christianity is one religion among many, with the same, but no more rights in this country than any other religion? That would suit me much more than sympathizing with me about what a lousy lawyer that attorney was.

There should be room for moderates in this discussion. But moderation doesn't seem to be a big part of your world view.

Not according to your definition of moderate, which seems to be whatever you decide it is. I happen to think that what I said in my first response in this post is an excellent example of moderation.

If the US is polarized between the Jerry Falwells and the absolutist secularists such as you seem so far to be, it's no wonder there's so much bad feeling.

I am not a secularist in my own spiritual life. But don't let the truth get in the way of your agenda. It's the public sphere that I maintain is secular, and the Constitution of the United States provides the basis for my stance in this regard.

The main problem as I see it is that the Neanderthal Right is very well organized and funded. The rest of us therefore should try to find a middle ground we can defend and not squabble so much among ourselves. The problem with your quixotic quest to expunge religion from public life is that it unites the opposition without any benefit to your side. You show every sign of playing into the hands of the demogogues (again).

You keep pulling accusations against me out of your little magician's hat that really don't have anything at all to do with me or what I have said or done or what I am saying or doing. I don't know where you are getting these ideas, but they really are quite fantastic. Which "quixotic quest" are you referring to?

I'm sure Doug R, Larry K etc. are applauding you every step of the way.

I think they can speak for themselves. In fact, I'm sure they can.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 03:09 PM

"way down the scale of discrimination and harm."

yep, Ron...I agree. As you have noticed, I am not out doing a Carrie Nation number on wall plaques. But "down the scale" is not OFF the scale. Wrong is wrong, even if it is not "clear and present danger".

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 03:12 PM

(have you read the "Destruction of Justice" thread yet? I hope you see how these issues are connected....)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 03:59 PM

(have you read the "Destruction of Justice" thread yet? I hope you see how these issues are connected....)

Good point, Bill. What people like Mr. Davies are calling a "backlash", people like you and I tend to see more as a "ratchet job".

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 10:07 PM

Goddammit CarolC ... I wish you would stop making sense.

I spent a good two hours digesting the contents of this thread when I only meant to give it a look-see. I could've been practicing my instrument instead.

Are there lawyers or jurists in the legal system who can defend an opinion with fervent tenacity and righteousness as well as CarolC? asks this GUEST rhetorically. Damned too few, sorry to say.

Keep on keepin' on.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: robomatic
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 11:12 PM

Yeah, I rarely agree with CarolC, but if she ain't a lawyer, it shows she's got some principles, howsomever deep they buried be!











(with apologies to the many fine members of the legal profession currently using mudcat)

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 12:21 PM

Let us not forget to change the names of the days of the week, named after old Pagan gods.

Wednesday (Odin's day): how can you expect a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a secularist expect to use such names loaden with of one particular religion's sybols and gods.
Friday (Freia's day), Thursday (Thor's day), Saturday...

Same right of course for the names of some months: Januarius (heavens beware) is unacceptable as the name of a month for all followers of other (or no) cults. September, October, November, December are truly PC-names. All other months should be named the same way.

Not to forget the stars: Why should we keep Orion (a Greek half god) as the name for one star set. That's as wrong as keeping Cassiopeia. Pleiades, however, is a good name, and can be kept.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 12:56 PM

(Wolfgang..my college German professor was explaining the days of the week and the history of the names in German....but when he came to Samstag, he quipped, "I'm not sure about this....I don't know of any Teutonic gods named Sam.")

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: robomatic
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 06:50 PM

Wolfgang:

Thank you for the alert.....posted....Delay without delay.....working on a bill to change names of days of the week to....Oneday, Twosday, Threesday, Foursday, Fivesday, Sixday.....
currently disagreement on whether names should be cardinal or ordinal.

... Will advise media when determination made which one is the Sabbath. Blood may flow!

Yours in Christ
L'Chaim
Salaam Aleikum

Rib

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 06:51 PM

So mote it be...

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 06:56 PM

I had a Grade 10 student today ask if he could do a novel project on Orwell's "1984". I replied that not only was his timing right on, but he might notice some similarities to current world affairs. We shall see.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 10:46 PM

OK, Carol-

My main point is that for many reasons having nothing to do with this issue, I would like to not have another 4 years of a dangerous demogogue as "leader" of the US. ( There are plenty of other candidates for the role of demogogue after Bush.)

As I've said several times, in 2004 the Democrats were smeared as unpatriotic and against religion. The more you and others push to have the 10 Commandments removed from courtrooms, "under God" taken from the Pledge, "In God We Trust" removed from coins, etc. the more likely that gambit will work again. It worked like a charm last time. It makes no difference that you're not a Democrat.

As long as you keep your views here and don't push "in the real world", fine. But if you do push, the Right will use that approach.   And it works, especially in the South (which you no doubt know since you live there) as well as the southwest, and mountain states--i.e. where the US population expansion is happening.

There were even a lot of Hispanics who voted for Bush last time. It turns out a lot of them, (the fastest growing population segment in the US by far,) responded to the "values" approach Bush made, whether or not they realized it was a code-word.

Opposition to Bush and successor reactionaries will ignore this at their peril.

Your interpretation of the Constitution is also in dispute, as I and others have noted earlier. There's no point in carrying out a "quote war" of "founding fathers", though I and others certainly could.

I think you also know exactly what I mean in citing Doug R and Larry K. They are in a distinct minority on Mudcat, but in the real world it's different.

Reality must be dealt with, not denied.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 04:37 AM

Hi, Ron.

In the real world you're right. But what has to be remembered by all is that Bush's margin of victory was slim. The Dems have GOT to field a candidate who espouses family values within the framework of peace and concern for the poor of the US. Bush has three years to step on his crank. The Dems have three years to STOP stepping on theirs.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 06:33 AM

Samstag: the etymologists don't agree. A minority thinks it comes from Saturn's day (like in English), the majority think it comes from dies sabbati and is short for Sabbat Day.

The Northern German say Sonnabend, that is Sunday Eve.

Robo, thanks for the effort, but I must seriously (grin) protest Twosdays, for that is too near to the old word and may violate some feelings. Sevensday also is unacceptable because it prefers one group, the Seventh day adventists.

So up to the next protest it should be Onesdays, Threesday, Foursday, Fivesday, Sixsday, Eigthday, Ninethday.

On second thought, Three alludes to the Christian trinity, One alludes to the Muslim and Jewish idea of God...

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: John Hardly
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 06:41 AM

That smacks of numerology. Give me...

Grapesday, Orangesday, Applesday, Plumsday, Peachesday, Bananasday, and Kiwisday.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: robomatic
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 07:41 AM

We talk a lot, but when you look into the facts of history, you will find that someone else had the idea first, and took it a lot further.


The French Revolutionary Calendar

Robo "Diderot"

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 11:16 AM

All well and good everyone. But if we are going to acknowledge the Pagan origins of our day names and our judical symbolism, we need to stop calling the US a "Judeo/Christian" nation, because it quite clearly is not. And that's fine with me, because it takes some of the wind out of the sails of the religious right when they try to support their positions by saying that, after all, this nation is founded upon Judeo/Christian principles.

But I bet if we were to do that, the Christian right (particularly in the South, as Ron has mentioned) would be the first to make the moves that some of you have been, rather glibly, suggesting, to have the names and symbolism changed.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: John P
Date: 13 Apr 05 - 11:01 AM

I'm not getting how the names of days and months compare to having scriptures from one religion posted on the courthouse walls. Oh, it's a joke. OK, then.

Ron, in the "real world" as you so quaintly put it, the theocrats are taking over the country. Have you noticed that Tom DeLay is still very powerful? As soon as the Commandments on the Walls became a big deal for the fundies, it became a big deal for everyone who believes in freedom.

Actually, before all this became big news, I didn't know such a there were courthouses officially devoted to Christianity. I wouldn't have thought such a thing would be possible in America. I am horrified. Get the scriptures off the walls, and get them off NOW. Maybe it's not a big enough deal for you to make it worth fighting about, but it is for me and for lots of other people.

Why are you so quick, in the name of pragmatism, to let them get away with trying to take over the country? That's what has killed the Democrats for me -- trying to act like Republicans, trying to be pragmatic in the name of winning.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Apr 05 - 10:26 PM

John--

Perhaps you prefer losing. Some of us don't. Some of us are tired of Bush and not looking forward to the next reactionary demogogue.

Your mileage may vary.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 05:12 AM

I'm not getting how the names of days and months compare to having scriptures from one religion posted on the courthouse walls. Oh, it's a joke. (John P.)

You're not getting it? The gods from one religion are used to designate periods of time or stars in English. How awful must that be to use these names for all those not being followers of those religions. Shouldn't they be eliminated as well from the language? You think that's a joke? I think so too, but I also think some of the arguments I have read here are a joke. The examples only exaggerates a tiny bit the argumentation of some.

I also happen to think that the ten commandments should not be displayed in courtrooms etc, but some arguments for that I did consider so silly that I have tried to show how silly they sound to me by a little exaggeration.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: John P
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 07:54 AM

Wolfgang, comparing apples to oranges is not a matter of exaggeration to make a point. It's comparing two different things and trying to make them seem similar. The fact that the English language uses words based on mythology is not comparable to our government officially establishing a religion by placing its scripture on the walls of buildings to which we go to get supposedly impartial judgements. So, yeah, the joke is OK. The serious point you are trying to make with it is off the mark.

There are also not a whole lot of people -- not even the neo-pagans -- who still worship the old Greek, Roman, and Norse gods. So those names are not really associated with a religion. They are just relics of history.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 09:24 AM

The fact that the English language uses words based on mythology is not comparable to our government officially establishing a religion by placing its scripture on the walls of buildings

I completely agree with that, John. My exaggeration was not directed to the idea to keep the buildings free of a display of the ten commandements but to some arguments in support of that idea I have read.

[On the other hand (tongue in cheek), I could as well disagree with that sentence, for are the ten commandements not also just words based on mythology?]

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: John P
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 09:52 AM

. . . for are the ten commandements not also just words based on mythology?
Well, of course. I just didn't want to be the first to say so . . .

JP

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 12:57 PM

Cartoon....Moses, coming down from the mountain top, reporting to his people..."Well, I have some good news and some bad news. I did get him down to 10 commandments.....but the one about adultry stays."

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: GUEST,pinion
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 03:12 AM

Martin Gibson's comment here demonstrates exactly why the government should not display religious sentiments. Without stopping for breath he states that this is "ONE NATION under God" except for people he doesn't like. This is typical of the religious people of this country and an intolerable stance for the government to endorse.

Subject: RE: BS: Ten Commandments on Public Property?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 09:46 AM

I'm afraid that repeating that US law is not Judeo Christian in origin is simply not true. Modern statistics show that Christianity is still the predominant religion of the USA. The vast majority of the people involved in constructing the Constitution were influenced heavily by the Christian religion, constantly repeating otherwise is flying in the face of fact.

"The country's first two presidents, George Washington and John Adams,
were firm believers in the importance of religion for republican government." --official Library of Congress statement

"...both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate
for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity."--official Library of Congress statement