Something to bash on

[TheDragoon]

It is downright amazing how much some folks crave that 15 minutes of fame, isn't it?

I think it is more like 15 minutes of flame. :P

[kandrathe]

How dare anyone take Seperation of Church and State seriously!

Or, dare to find out that there is no such guarantee of a "Seperation" in the Constitution, or Bill of Rights.

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

To me means Congress will not declare a national religion, or declare that any particular religion or sect for that matter is illegal to practice. It does not mean we should scrub all religiousity from the public landscape.

And so the claim from the governmental side is always, "We're not really endorsing the religion; we don't really care about the religious teaching of the Ten Commandments. Their primary purpose, in effect, is secular." And some religious folks are comfortable supporting that position. But others say, "Look, what you're doing is systematically attempting to de-sacralize a sacred text. You're taking the religious and sacred meaning out of it, at least for litigation purposes, and offering these transparently phony secular explanations." And the principle – the secular explanation of choice for the Ten Commandments – is that these are important: the American law or the law of Western civilization or the Western legal tradition is based on, derived from, the Ten Commandments. These are the foundations of American law.-- Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

To me it is senseless to try to deny the judeo-christian religious context that forms the backbone of Western juris prudence. Can we recognize it publically, or must we go back and try to excise it in an attempt to rewrite our history? Are you really disturbed by the phrase "In God We Trust" on US Currency, or that the US Congress has a chaplain and begins each day in prayer?

Similiar to going around making sure all athletic teams names (that have been in place for decades) do not offend anyone (e.g. Kansas City Chiefs, Cleveland Indians).

[SwissMercenary]

To me it is senseless to try to deny the judeo-christian religious context that forms the backbone of Western juris prudence. Can we recognize it publically, or must we go back and try to excise it in an attempt to rewrite our history?

Aristotle formed the backbone for much of the thinking in the past two millenia, and a bit. Doesn't mean that we have to jump when he claps his hands. (Metaphorically speaking, of course).

Rewrite history? If you are referring to that as history, then I'd daresay that the plaque in question belongs in a museum, rather then a court of law.

[kandrathe]

Aristotle formed the backbone for much of the thinking in the past two millenia, and a bit. Doesn't mean that we have to jump when he claps his hands. (Metaphorically speaking, of course).

Rewrite history? If you are referring to that as history, then I'd daresay that the plaque in question belongs in a museum, rather then a court of law.

If someone were proposing it for a new display or a facing on a new building I could see why people would question it in these days of "PC". But, the same kind of reasoning caused fig leafs to be painted over nudes during puritanical times, and defacement of anything catholic during the reformation. It seems like intolerance to me.

Ten Commandments: Different state, different judge, different time
Warren Wolfe, Star Tribune Published August 30, 2003

ALEXANDRIA, MINN. -- Retired Judge E. J. Ruegemer is 101 now, his eyesight failing, his hearing impaired, his walk halting. But he remembers with absolute clarity the juvenile delinquent whose ignorance of right and wrong spurred the judge to start a movement in 1946 to place thousands of monuments and plaques with the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, schools and parks across the nation. For decades, his campaign, aided by the Fraternal Order of Eagles and a Hollywood film mogul, won Ruegemer praise and respect. "Now, they're being removed in so many places. It saddens me because it does society good to have reminders of right and wrong in public places. But I don't take it personally," he said this week while sitting in his recliner in the adult foster care home where he's lived since October. "You could say this big mess in Alabama, where the judge refused to obey a federal court order to remove the Ten Commandments, you could say that all started with that 16-year-old St. Cloud boy," Ruegemer said.

He remembers the boy well, a troubled youth who at that time had stolen a car and struck and injured a priest who was walking past. "They wanted to send him to the boys' reformatory in Red Wing, but I wasn't so sure," said Ruegemer, then 44, who had become interested in underlying causes of crime years earlier while working at the St. Cloud Reformatory. He ordered a presentence investigation and discovered that the boy came from a broken family, had no friends and had failed in school because he had vision and hearing problems. Ruegemer sentenced the boy to learn and live by the Ten Commandments. "He asked me what the Ten Commandments were," the judge recalled. Ruegemer had the boy get instruction on the Ten Commandments from his mother's pastor. And he got him a job at a St. Cloud store. "I remember his name, but I'm not telling, said Ruegemer, who was a probate and juvenile judge in St. Cloud from 1940 until 1947, then a district judge until retiring in 1967. "He'd be about 73 now, if he's still alive, and I don't want to embarrass him," he said. "But I think he did OK after that. I got a Christmas card from him once."

'A different time'
Shortly after issuing the unusual sentence, Ruegemer got to thinking. He already was involved with the Eagles as chairman of its National Youth Guidance Commission, so he asked the group for help printing copies of the Ten Commandments to post in courtrooms and schools. "They wanted to know which version to use. Well I got a priest and a rabbi and the Ministerial Association to agree on one," he said. "Remember, it was a different time then. Everybody thought this was a good idea, a way to help build morality and character. I still think it's a good idea. People haven't changed much, but the times have changed."

The Eagles sold more than 10,000 of the printed replicas, $2.25 each, and the requests started coming in from around the country. That's when Cecil B. DeMille heard about the campaign. He had just finished making the 1956 movie, "The Ten Commandments," and was looking for a way to publicize it. "He told me he thought we ought to make a more permanent monument, maybe in bronze," Ruegemer said. "I suggested Minnesota granite, and we had a deal." Around the country, local Eagles donated more than 4,000 granite monuments, and DeMille dispatched Ten Commandments stars Charlton Heston , Yul Brynner and Martha Scott for many of the dedications.

Unnecessary fight
Although legally blind, Ruegemer uses a magnifier to enlarge his daily newspaper on a TV screen so he can follow the latest battle over the display of the Ten Commandments, this one in the rotunda of a courthouse in Montgomery, Ala. On Wednesday, workers pried loose the 5,300-pound monument that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore had installed. It has been locked in a storage room. A federal judge ruled last year that it violated the Constitution's ban against government promotion of religion. Moore refused to comply with the order to move it, was overruled by his eight colleagues on the court and was suspended on ethics charges. He has vowed to appeal. "You know, that big fight down there didn't have to happen," Ruegemer said. "There was another way to solve that, but I don't think anybody down there even looked for a way out."

Alabama might have learned from officials in Grand Junction, Colo., he said. They created a Cornerstones of Law and Order plaza and added replicas of the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, Plymouth Compact, preamble to the Constitution and parts of the Bill of Rights. "I think the Ten Commandments should be on display where people, especially children can see it," said Ruegemer, whose concern for youths led him to start Big Brothers in St. Cloud soon after he launched the Ten Commandments project. "Yes, it's a religious document, but also a historic document that is the basis for a lot of our laws."

In Alabama, the judge who defied a federal court order "had his heart in the right place, but his head was not," Ruegemer said. "You obey the law. You obey rulings of superior courts whether you agree or not." Still, if that 16-year-old boy were before him again, "I'd do exactly the same thing. I'd sentence him to learn and live by the Ten Commandments. The difference is, now I might have been reversed on appeal."

Warren Wolfe is at wolfe@startribune.com .

2 and 1/2 tons of granite is hardly a plaque.

[--Pete]

Hi,

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

To me means Congress will not declare a national religion . . .

But the so called ten commandments are essentially religious and based on Judeo-Christian mythology. Thus, embracing them as some form of our cultural basis is in effect making the Judeo-Christian ethos our official state religion, barring the other religions of the world. And that is unconstitutional.

Are you really disturbed by the phrase "In God We Trust" on US Currency, or that the US Congress has a chaplain and begins each day in prayer?

Yes and yes. Sometime ago I wrote an analysis of why "In God We Trust" is strictly a Christian concept. Among other points is the multiplicity of gods in many religions, the lack of a personal relationship with god in many religions, and the complete absence of god as a distinct entity in others. Again, this phrase is an offense to any non Christian American.

Similiar to going around making sure all athletic teams names (that have been in place for decades) do not offend anyone (e.g. Kansas City Chiefs, Cleveland Indians).

Not at all. Except after football games in England, I don't think many people have been persecuted or martyred over athletic events. And one can ignore the idiocy of professional and amateur sports. But when state supported religion raises its ugly head, ignoring it can get one killed. So, comparing the 'PC' of sports team names to the horror of state sanctioned religion is like comparing a paper cut to the effect of the guillotine.

The only way for all to have freedom of religion is for the state to practice freedom from religion. Anything else is tyranny. Jefferson was wiser than the hack who wrote the First Amendment and saw that a wall was indeed needed. He realized, unlike his contemporaries and the present day Americans, that 'freedom of religion' means more than the parochial foolishness of picking one Christian cult to fight for.

--Pete

EDIT: Changed 'judo' to 'Judeo' (teach me to accept the spell checkers suggestions without looking at them carefully). Also capitalized 'Judeo' and 'Christian' -- though I don't subscribe to them, that is no reason not to respect them.

[kandrathe]

A humourous related anecdote; this last Easter our city government made employees take down Easter Bunny decorations from their offices. Since, you know, on the third day, the Easter Bunny came and gave all the Apostles jellybeans and chocolate eggs.

Thus, embracing them as some form of our cultural basis is in effect making the judo-cristian ethos our official state religion, barring the other religions of the world. And that is unconstitutional.

I would say not unconstitutional, but perhaps unfair to citizens who do not espouse a Judeo-Christian worldview. As long as the government does not require you to "believe" in them, or as in the case in the article I cited "be required to memorize them as a punishment" I wouldn't think the government has stepped into the "establishment" area. As we've discussed on numerous occasions, I believe the government can be (perhaps unwisely and boorishly) unfair to a minority and long as they do not violate their rights as described in the bill of rights or Acts such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I don't think they should be unfair, but also I think it is frivolous to scarify monuments and public buildings of things people might find offensive.

Yes and yes. Sometime ago I wrote an analysis of why "In God We Trust" is strictly a christian concept. Among other points is the multiplicity of gods in many religions, the lack of a personal relationship with god in many religions, and the complete absence of god as a distinct entity in others. Again, this phrase is an offense to any non christian American.

These acts performed by the federal government are more problematic than posting the Ten Commandments outside an Alabama courthouse, unless the State of Alabama also adopted language in its state constitution with an establishment of religion clause. They have not, so the Federal government forcing them to remove their religious monument is in fact a violation of the "free exercise" portion of that clause.

Regarding sport teams... My reference was more in the idea of taking modern offense with things historical that were done by people who are probably dead. Not that the two were comparable in a human "rights" context. As I've traveled around the world I find it extremely sad when I see beautiful historical architecture marred by modern zealots who became offended with the past, such as with the Taliban blowing up the Bamyan Buddhas.

The only way for all to have freedom of religion is for the state to practice freedom from religion. Anything else is tyranny.

I would be fine with the government not promoting religion, while not also interfering with it's exercise. Too often the "separation" clause is used to prohibit any religious activity done in public institutions. As far as phrases on money and Congress praying... I think that is more of a political sword no politician is going to throw themselves upon.

I would ask you to re-read the context in which Jefferson wrote about a "wall of separation".

So what did Jefferson mean when he used the "wall" metaphor? Jefferson undoubtedly meant that the First Amendment prohibited the federal Congress from enacting any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. As the chief executive of the federal government, the President's duty was to carry out the directives of Congress. If Congress had no authority in matters of religion, then neither did the President. Religion was clearly within the jurisdiction of the church and states. As a state legislator, Jefferson saw no problem with proclaiming days of thanksgiving and prayer, and even on one occasion prescribed a penalty to the clergy for failure to abide by these state proclamations. Jefferson believed that the Constitution created a limited government and that the states retained the authority over matters of religion not only through the First Amendment but also through the Tenth Amendment. (18) The federal government had absolutely no jurisdiction over religion, as that matter was left where the Constitution found it, namely with the individual churches and the several states.The Myth Behind "Separation of Church and State"

In that case, as President of the United States, he felt that the establishment clause prevented him in a federal sense to declare a national day of prayer. His objection had more to do with the federal government telling the states what to do.

Jefferson used the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" as a means of expressing his republican view that the federal or general government should not interfere with religious matters among the several states. In its proper context, the phrase represents a clear expression of state autonomy.ibid.

[Taem]

Ten Commandments: Different state, different judge, different time
Warren Wolfe, Star Tribune Published August 30, 2003

ALEXANDRIA, MINN. -- Retired Judge E. J. Ruegemer is 101 now, his eyesight failing, his hearing impaired, his walk halting. But he remembers with absolute clarity the juvenile delinquent whose ignorance of right and wrong spurred the judge to start a movement in 1946 to place thousands of monuments and plaques with the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, schools and parks across the nation. For decades, his campaign, aided by the Fraternal Order of Eagles and a Hollywood film mogul, won Ruegemer praise and respect. "Now, they're being removed in so many places. It saddens me because it does society good to have reminders of right and wrong in public places. But I don't take it personally," he said this week while sitting in his recliner in the adult foster care home where he's lived since October. "You could say this big mess in Alabama, where the judge refused to obey a federal court order to remove the Ten Commandments, you could say that all started with that 16-year-old St. Cloud boy," Ruegemer said.

He remembers the boy well, a troubled youth who at that time had stolen a car and struck and injured a priest who was walking past. "They wanted to send him to the boys' reformatory in Red Wing, but I wasn't so sure," said Ruegemer, then 44, who had become interested in underlying causes of crime years earlier while working at the St. Cloud Reformatory. He ordered a presentence investigation and discovered that the boy came from a broken family, had no friends and had failed in school because he had vision and hearing problems. Ruegemer sentenced the boy to learn and live by the Ten Commandments. "He asked me what the Ten Commandments were," the judge recalled. Ruegemer had the boy get instruction on the Ten Commandments from his mother's pastor. And he got him a job at a St. Cloud store. "I remember his name, but I'm not telling, said Ruegemer, who was a probate and juvenile judge in St. Cloud from 1940 until 1947, then a district judge until retiring in 1967. "He'd be about 73 now, if he's still alive, and I don't want to embarrass him," he said. "But I think he did OK after that. I got a Christmas card from him once."

'A different time'
Shortly after issuing the unusual sentence, Ruegemer got to thinking. He already was involved with the Eagles as chairman of its National Youth Guidance Commission, so he asked the group for help printing copies of the Ten Commandments to post in courtrooms and schools. "They wanted to know which version to use. Well I got a priest and a rabbi and the Ministerial Association to agree on one," he said. "Remember, it was a different time then. Everybody thought this was a good idea, a way to help build morality and character. I still think it's a good idea. People haven't changed much, but the times have changed."

The Eagles sold more than 10,000 of the printed replicas, $2.25 each, and the requests started coming in from around the country. That's when Cecil B. DeMille heard about the campaign. He had just finished making the 1956 movie, "The Ten Commandments," and was looking for a way to publicize it. "He told me he thought we ought to make a more permanent monument, maybe in bronze," Ruegemer said. "I suggested Minnesota granite, and we had a deal." Around the country, local Eagles donated more than 4,000 granite monuments, and DeMille dispatched Ten Commandments stars Charlton Heston , Yul Brynner and Martha Scott for many of the dedications.

Unnecessary fight
Although legally blind, Ruegemer uses a magnifier to enlarge his daily newspaper on a TV screen so he can follow the latest battle over the display of the Ten Commandments, this one in the rotunda of a courthouse in Montgomery, Ala. On Wednesday, workers pried loose the 5,300-pound monument that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore had installed. It has been locked in a storage room. A federal judge ruled last year that it violated the Constitution's ban against government promotion of religion. Moore refused to comply with the order to move it, was overruled by his eight colleagues on the court and was suspended on ethics charges. He has vowed to appeal. "You know, that big fight down there didn't have to happen," Ruegemer said. "There was another way to solve that, but I don't think anybody down there even looked for a way out."

Alabama might have learned from officials in Grand Junction, Colo., he said. They created a Cornerstones of Law and Order plaza and added replicas of the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, Plymouth Compact, preamble to the Constitution and parts of the Bill of Rights. "I think the Ten Commandments should be on display where people, especially children can see it," said Ruegemer, whose concern for youths led him to start Big Brothers in St. Cloud soon after he launched the Ten Commandments project. "Yes, it's a religious document, but also a historic document that is the basis for a lot of our laws."

In Alabama, the judge who defied a federal court order "had his heart in the right place, but his head was not," Ruegemer said. "You obey the law. You obey rulings of superior courts whether you agree or not." Still, if that 16-year-old boy were before him again, "I'd do exactly the same thing. I'd sentence him to learn and live by the Ten Commandments. The difference is, now I might have been reversed on appeal."

Warren Wolfe is at wolfe@startribune.com .

All the reason we need to teach our children MORALITY in school starting at an early age. As Pete said, church and state are separate, but who the hell has the responsibility of teaching the children right from wrong if the parents aren't (i.e. single parent working two jobs just to support family; wardens of the state; plain poor parents)? For some strange reason in this conversation and every other one, I get the distinct impression that everyone assume an adult (someone over the age of 18) automatically knows "right" from "wrong", but if they were never taught it, I surmise they will have constructed their own moral compass of right and wrong based on their experiences in life. Hey, if robbing that liquor store saved Joe Blow from starvation, it must have been the right thing, right? The thing with the 10-commandments is that they have [some] great moral principles that generally should be followed by everyone, but because they are steeped in religion, they are generally ignored and not allowed to be taught in our public school systems. I would personally like it if children started receiving lessons in morality and jurisprudence in relation to themselves, and how their actions affect others. Maybe some kids would be impervious to any teachings no matter how intensive, but at least there would be some who grew up changed for the better. Personally, I don't think the 10-commmandments should have ever been taken down because they can teach us all a valuable lesson regardless of what god we worship, and that is more powerful than hurting someone opinion of church and state.

I hope this all makes sense. I'm so tired I'm just going to post it and re-read it tomorrow to see if I rambled or was coherent.

[Occhidiangela]

How dare anyone take Seperation of Church and State seriously!

Dear Quark:

Please read the words of the First Ammendment. The language encompasses a structural tension. Freedom of religion and freedom from mandatory legislation of a single style of religion. The Establishment Clause cases have taken that and morphed it somewhat in a precedent piled on precedent method like unto how a message changes in the old "whisper from person to person" exercise. It was manifested subtly different cases, and has mutated from "Congress shall not establish a national religion (sect)" (Per the Vatican, Caliphate, Czar, King Henry, HRE) into "you must remove a founding cultural feature of America, Christian religion" from all things public. What is necessary for the First Amendment to work is NOT "a final solution" favoring secularists, nor a Theocracy, but the continued tension and dialogue, and the search for balance between freedom of religion, and freedom from mandatory religion. Those seeking some "perfect" solution in this element of human social interaction should share the blunt with the rest of us. It has devolved into a vicious polemic.

Warm Regards

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
But the so called ten commandments are essentially religious and based on judo-christian mythology. Thus, embracing them as some form of our cultural basis is in effect making the judo-cristian ethos our official state religion, barring the other religions of the world. And that is unconstitutional. --Pete

One could also argue that posting the Ten Commandments "in effect" makes Judaism our official state religion when using your argument. That is no more correct than your assertion.

That "plaque" (like the varied, multi denominational depictions on the facade at the Supreme Court) is a symbol of a significant element of the complex lineage of our sets of laws. Do you argue that because Murder is unlawful, we are thus violating the establishment clause by those legislative acts? It relates to "the Ten Commandments." (Or is it eleven??? ) What the heck, Pete, let's strike down laws against thievery, seeing as how we can't have any "Judeo Christian" laws or we'll bar other religions. (Yes, hyperbole is involved here.)

The old Biblical laws are a part, not the sum total, as you have noted many times before, of our cultural baseline. Your leap to "it bars other religion" is incorrect, as the First Amendment language sets forth the structure of a coexistence of many forms of worship, and no official religion has been enacted by legislation. Nor does that tribute to a part of our legacy bar other religions or Faiths, either in fact or in intent.

This piece of your argument, "the in effect," ignores the root principle that has sustained, and that a plaque on a wall cannot change: the varied forms of worship within the Christian camp, (which I'd argue was the original thought behind the First Amendment "establishment clause") and the variety of non-Christian sects who are not discriminated against by an example of an element of old Hebraic law hanging on a public building.

The fact that some wags insist that a Sharia like return to old Hebraic and Biblical laws of the Old Testament, pursuant an Evangelical / Armageddon / Dispensationalist agenda, is quite another matter, and one of some concern to me.

Occhi

[LemmingofGlory]

All the reason we need to teach our children MORALITY in school starting at an early age. As Pete said, church and state are separate, but who the hell has the responsibility of teaching the children right from wrong if the parents aren't (i.e. single parent working two jobs just to support family; wardens of the state; plain poor parents)? For some strange reason in this conversation and every other one, I get the distinct impression that everyone assume an adult (someone over the age of 18) automatically knows "right" from "wrong", but if they were never taught it, I surmise they will have constructed their own moral compass of right and wrong based on their experiences in life.

In order to teach "right from wrong" you have to define what that is. Just saying "Kids need to know right from wrong" might get a round of applause, but that's only because it's so utterly vague that nobody will ever disagree with it. Is the problem that kids actually don't know that something they do will get them in trouble, or is it that they don't care? I don't think the problem is a lack of knowledge but a lack of caring. It takes nurturing to get kids caring about other people.

Personally, I don't think the 10-commmandments should have ever been taken down because they can teach us all a valuable lesson regardless of what god we worship, and that is more powerful than hurting someone opinion of church and state.

Personally, I don't think the Ten Commandments are at all profound and the fact that people insist on parading them around like they're Newton's Principia tells me that we have a lot of people who are either impressed by very little or they've never really thought about just how obvious some of the commandments really are. The prohibitions against killing, theft, and adultery are obvious enough that their presence in the Ten Commandments is probably a result of borrowing them from whatever law existed in the time and place that they were scribbled down; laws against such things surely pre-date the Bible. The prohibitions against blasphemy are specific to religion and do nothing to ensure people will be decent to one another, and I wouldn't at all be surprised if those ideas were borrowed from other religions.

But I wholeheartedly disagree with your stance that the Ten Commandments ought be posted for the knowledge they present. They don't present any knowledge that people capable of reading don't already have. But neither do they teach people how to apply that knowledge. So... what do they do? Advertise. Posting the Ten Commandments is an advertising campaign, folks. It advertises Christianity, primarily. Personally, I got sick of advertising two years ago, and I avoid it whenever possible. I haven't watched T.V. since.

If you want to advertise, buy a damn billboard.

-Lemmy

[--Pete]

Hi,

A humourous related anecdote; this last Easter our city government made employees take down Easter Bunny decorations from their offices. Since, you know, on the third day, the Easter Bunny came and gave all the Apostles jellybeans and chocolate eggs.

Especially funny, since 'Easter' is actually an amalgam of the spring rites of many religions, probably dating back to early Celtic times or before. The arrival of spring is the sign for fertility and reproduction for plants, birds, many mammals, etc. A renewing, so to speak. And what better symbols for reproduction than rabbits and eggs.

Are you sure that the government 'leaders' were concerned about the religious rather than the sexual connotations. Some people are very up-tight;)

I would say not unconstitutional, . . .

Again, it is a mixed blessing that most of the Amendments to the constitution are so terse that they leave themselves open to interpretation. Given that the whole of the support for freedom of religion is contained in the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" (and the first five of these sixteen words are shared with other clauses), the limitations are unclear. When the Supreme Court took upon itself the right and duty to be the arbiter of the Constitution, and when that right became established through tradition, the meaning of that vague phrase was solidified over the years by case law of that Court's decisions. In that sense, I will maintain that the display of the ten commandments is indeed unconstitutional.

As to the Tenth Amendment, I do not believe that it applies. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In every case where there is a restriction on what the Federal Government can do, and there isn't a specific exemption for the states (as there is, for example, in the XXI Amendment), it has been assumed that the restriction carries over to the states. This is usually stated specifically in the later amendments, but appears to be implicit in the Bill of Rights. For more, as well as a brief impartial statement on Jefferson's wall, see this article.

I would be fine with the government not promoting religion, while not also interfering with it's exercise. Too often the "separation" clause is used to prohibit any religious activity done in public institutions.

When that religious activity is forced on all those in that public institution, then the line is crossed. If I go to court, and object (as I do) to the 'In God We Trust' plaque on the wall, will the officials remove it at my objection? If not, am I then not being forced to plea my case in circumstances contrary to my conscience? If I attend a legislative session, at any level of government, and the session is opened with a prayer (and don't give me any crap about 'non-denominational' -- anyone who thinks that the way a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Taoist, even a Jew or a Muslim would pray isn't substantially different from how a Christian from any sect would pray is either ignorant or in denial), then isn't my freedom of religion being negated. Aren't I, in effect, being told that anything other than a Christian is not respected here and will not get a fair hearing.

I would ask you to re-read the context in which Jefferson wrote about a "wall of separation".

I have read it, numerous times. It pretty well speaks for itself. And to anyone who has studied Jefferson, and is familiar with his Bible, the interpretation given by your reference is at best laughable. I would ask you to find a more impartial source than an extreme right wing group like the Liberty Counsel whose stated goal of "Restoring the Culture One Case at a Time by Advancing Religious Freedom, the Sanctity of Human Life and the Traditional Family" is a bunch of buzzwords whose meaning boils down to "returning as fast as possible to a religious (i.e., fundamentalist Christian) dominated dark age of superstition and ignorance."

Forgive me if I cannot take the interpretation of bigoted idiots as my model for the universe.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

One could also argue that posting the Ten Commandments "in effect" makes Judaism our official state religion when using your argument. That is no more correct than your assertion.

Sorry, must have been my misuse of 'judo' for 'Judeo' that confused you (since fixed). Indeed, inasmuch as Christianity is largely based on Judaism, you could make that claim. On the other hand, since no hatred is stronger than family hatreds, Christianity by and large hates Judaism almost as much as they hate each other's sects. Making that claim at best a joke.

That "plaque" (like the varied, multi denominational depictions on the facade at the Supreme Court) is a symbol of a significant element of the complex lineage of our sets of laws.

Bull#$%&. Go read the damned thing. Sandwiched between a bunch of mythology and 'duties' to god, and a nice big chunk of thought police crap are precisely FOUR laws:
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
A basis for a legal system? Hardly. Four almost universally acknowledged principles surrounded by five times the verbiage devoted to religion. If I accept these four principles, should I also accept that god made the universe in six days, and that's why I should rest on Saturday. Or do you propose posting only those four commandments that don't promulgate the religious agenda?

Do you argue that because Murder is unlawful, we are thus violating the establishment clause by those legislative acts? It relates to "the Ten Commandments." (Or is it eleven??? ) What the heck, Pete, let's strike down laws against thievery, seeing as how we can't have any "Judeo Christian" laws or we'll bar other religions. (Yes, hyperbole is involved here.)

"All horses are animals, thus all animals are horses". I really expect better logic from you, Occhi.

--Pete

[Dixen Andomiel]

Normally I don't bother touching subjects such as this, esp considering that the discussion of religion in my home has been banned by my wife because I have strong, passionate views against just about every "established, mainstream, organized" (my words) religion... and not necessarily *just* Christian either... and don't even get my started on Catholicism. I will attempt to keep my post *ON TOPIC* and not veer off and rant on about the questionable sanity of those who subscribe to the biggest con ever perpetrated in human history.

[disclaimer]
Now, if you are easily offended... skip now to the next post because I *guarantee* any b**ching, whining or crying to follow because of my post will fall on deaf ears... take your "faith" and stick it; come with *PROOF* or don't come at all.
[/disclaimer]

I think it's rather clear that just about, if not every single, law made in this country in some form or fashion comes from a small piece of biblically mandated morality... Murder, theft, even adultery. Whether you like it or not this country (speaking of the US here) was founded of, for, and by a people who lived very religious lives... Here in Ohio it was the Quakers... Do you honestly think it was any different in any of the colony states? The "separation of church and state" was *specifically* added to the Constitution to prevent things like the Vatican from coming in and putting a stranglehold on our nations growth and development; anyone remember all the publicity that JFK got during his campaign because he was Catholic and the "people" didn't want the Pope being President? GWB and his assertions that his God and his Presidency will allow him to make such broad sweeping changes to the Constitution like an amendment banning gay marriage is laughable... and all I have to say to that is change it all you want a**hole, we'll fix it when we take this country back from the bible beating mommy's boys that seem to think that they should be allowed to force *THEIR* morality on the rest of us.

I can say this much... if you think for *ONE* second whether it matters or not that the ten commandments posted in, by, near or in the same damn time zone as the courtroom you end up sitting is going to matter how your verdict goes; think of this: 95% of all people on the planet believe in "God" in some form, fashion, or shape thereof. The title of the book they use in reference to this "God" matters little when they hang your a** for doing this, that or the other that *THEY* think is wrong based on *THEIR* religious morality or beliefs.

What *REALLY* pisses me off about the people in this country is that while 95% of them believe in a "God", 99.9% of them are stupid enough to think that their opinions and/or morality means more than anyone else's... Who gives a flying fark if the local public school allows a bible study group to use the library after school? You don't like it then make sure your damned kid is home from school and isn't there... It's kind of like the TV; if you don't like what's on *GASP* Changing the F**king channel! Don't cry and whine to the Censors to try to get something removed ... *SOMEONE* likes it and wants to see it, why in the hell does everyone think it's their business to try to mandate what *I* want to watch?

It's time for people in this country to face facts... There are people that don't like you ... and they don't have to have a good reason. It could be because of your skin color, hair color, religious preference, or hell cause you speak with an "accent" (and Lord knows *EVERYONE* has an accent to someone). You aren't going to change their opinion of you no matter what you do and that's just the way it is... trying to force your opinion on someone else just cause you can find enough like minded people is the *EXACT* same thing they did to <insert group's name here> at some point in time in history.

Oh boy... I'm not sure how much of that would be considered on topic... Opps. :)

Summary: 1) Everyone is more worried about everyone else's morality instead of their own. 2) If you think that "separation" is the same as "eradication" then you're a f**king idiot. 3) If the pedos wanna make this own political party, let 'em... some extremist group will come along and start killing 'em off and you won't have to worry about it as much then. 4) If you take offense to #2 and are stupid enough to whine at me in a future post then you really are a f**king idiot. :)

Note to Moderators: I specifically give you permission to hack some things out of this if I went overboard... or email me and I'll fix it. :)

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
Sorry, must have been my misuse of 'judo' for 'Judeo' that confused you (since fixed). Indeed, inasmuch as Christianity is largely based on Judaism, you could make that claim. On the other hand, since no hatred is stronger than family hatreds, Christianity by and large hates Judaism almost as much as they hate each other's sects. Making that claim at best a joke.
Bull#$%&. Go read the damned thing. Sandwiched between a bunch of mythology and 'duties' to god, and a nice big chunk of thought police crap are precisely FOUR laws:
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
A basis for a legal system? Hardly. Four almost universally acknowledged principles surrounded by five times the verbiage devoted to religion. If I accept these four principles, should I also accept that god made the universe in six days, and that's why I should rest on Saturday. Or do you propose posting only those four commandments that don't promulgate the religious agenda?
"All horses are animals, thus all animals are horses". I really expect better logic from you, Occhi.

--Pete

Fine, in your view, the sky is falling, it's raining clay tablets all over the land, striking down unbelievers right and left. I'll make sure to carry my kevlar umbrella when I go out tomorrow. :P The symbol, what the Ten Commandments represents, if I might choose my words a touch more carefully, embodies the codification of laws as a "best practice." Given that the Mosaic laws run on for verse after verse in the OT, the Ten C's are a symbolic shorthand for that. That some people consider them an end unto themselves is another matter, and not one which gives me faith in the future of a harmonious social climate.

Christianity is most definitely not Judaism. It is inclusive, not exclusive for one thing. (Yeah, once one does that initiation, which used to be, Old School, "getting naked and skinny dipping" in a symbolic ritual. ) In two thousand years, the two creeds have diverged profoundly. (Your remark on the mutual antipathy hits the X on the target. ) Given the immense cultural change in the world in the last 300 years, I find a two thousand year timeline more than sufficient to draw a very clear demarcation between Judeo and Christian. Lord knows, the both of those houses have, and continue, to do so.

Or maybe the stain of "original idea" cannot be erased. Is that your theme? Should I presume that Democracy and Communism are the same, but they just hat each other, since they both arose into their modern form through differing strands of "Enlightenment Thought?" That the Enlightenment "relearned" some pre Christian ideals is an irony not lost on me.

"Judeo Christian" is, IMO, one of the grossest misnomers running around. I think it contributes to some of the Far Right Evangelical whacko's and their angenda. One has to choose: are you Judeo, or are you Christian? The element of choice is remarkably simple: was Jesus a man, or divine?

Pick one, and run with it, but but a choice is required.

That split is the critical difference, and it makes for an immense distinction, since all else follows, or doesn't, from that choice.

Or, reject having to make that choice, and go the agnostic or athiest route. Or maybe the Tao. They make better tea.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

I would say that 95% of what is blamed on religion is in fact the failing of human beings. Justifications for horrible acts are done with religions (as in the Spanish Inquisition, Darfur, or Sudan in general), and without religions (as in Stalins purge, The Khmer Rouge killing fields, Nazism, or Rwanda).

A person can be very religious and still believe in freedom for others to do as they will. Maybe in your experience the religious people you've met have been heavy handed, and certainly the ones we hear about on the TV are the most outrageous and the most in your face.

When I was under 10 year old I was brought up in a very good church and I enjoyed it, but at when I was 10 we moved out into a rural area and I began to really despise the people in my church. They were as you stated very judgemental, while their kids were doing really bad things behind their parents backs. I would get almost ill church when I would see these peers of mine who the night before were raising he// the next day were reading the liturgy, singing in the choir, and acting again holier than thou. Yes, hypocrites. By the time I got to college I was compelled to unconvert all the born agains, and I used my extensive biblical training to debunk it all. So I was I guess an agnostic (if not just evil) for the next 15 years of my life, and there was not much is the minor sin department that I did not dabble in. I did not do murders, robberies, assualts or anything like that, but if you looked up the definition of hedonist in the dictionary that was my photo. I did stuff that would have made my peers back in high school look like saints.

You probably guessed that I've already turned away from that wasted life style. I was really killing myself, and I had two children and I decided that if I could find a church like the one I went to when I was younger I would like my children to have that good moral basis. Also, my wife ( who tolerated my bad behavior ) was looking for something more in her life and she had not stepped inside a church since she had been five years old (their family only went to church when grandma visited. Then grandma died.) I'll stop there, but that is where I'm coming from. I'm still very much a libertarian, but no longer a libertine.

[Taem]

In order to teach "right from wrong" you have to define what that is. Just saying "Kids need to know right from wrong" might get a round of applause, but that's only because it's so utterly vague that nobody will ever disagree with it. Is the problem that kids actually don't know that something they do will get them in trouble, or is it that they don't care? I don't think the problem is a lack of knowledge but a lack of caring. It takes nurturing to get kids caring about other people.

Can't morality be defined or at least interpreted threw our laws? In college, I took a couple of interpersonal communication classes and I'll tell you that they didn't teach me a thing about what was "right" and what was "wrong", however the information gleamed from these classes made people [think] about the actions they were taking. It is the process of thinking about the consequences of ones actions before committing to them that harvested concepts such as right and wrong IMO, and I believe this tool can be used to help our little ones deal with moral situations better than children who have never had such instruction.

Personally, I don't think the Ten Commandments are at all profound and the fact that people insist on parading them around like they're Newton's Principia tells me that we have a lot of people who are either impressed by very little or they've never really thought about just how obvious some of the commandments really are. The prohibitions against killing, theft, and adultery are obvious enough that their presence in the Ten Commandments is probably a result of borrowing them from whatever law existed in the time and place that they were scribbled down; laws against such things surely pre-date the Bible. The prohibitions against blasphemy are specific to religion and do nothing to ensure people will be decent to one another, and I wouldn't at all be surprised if those ideas were borrowed from other religions.

But I wholeheartedly disagree with your stance that the Ten Commandments ought be posted for the knowledge they present. They don't present any knowledge that people capable of reading don't already have. But neither do they teach people how to apply that knowledge. So... what do they do? Advertise. Posting the Ten Commandments is an advertising campaign, folks. It advertises Christianity, primarily. Personally, I got sick of advertising two years ago, and I avoid it whenever possible. I haven't watched T.V. since.

Fair enough. I really don't have a strong enough argument against what you said to make a proper rebuttal, however I think in this instance we can agree to disagree. Without any types of positive enforced moral stipulations in public view - there are plenty of negative ones, such as vandalism - it seems almost counterintuitive to society to complexly remove all the good ones, but this is just my opinion.

[SwissMercenary]

it seems almost counterintuitive to society to complexly remove all the good ones, but this is just my opinion.

I think neither Pete nor I would have any problem with 'moral commandments', if you were to remove the religion shrink-wrap off them.

"Don't cheat, don't steal, don't kill, don't lie." Hang that up on the wall, and I won't be complaining. Just cut the "Worship MY God" crap out. You're arguing for a black and white case of "Well, if you don't like the Ten Commandments, then what, do you want us to go without any commandments?"

There just happen to be more solutions to the problem than bible-thumping and anarchy.

[LemmingofGlory]

Can't morality be defined or at least interpreted threw our laws?

That gets murky when laws start showing up because people have voted in utter nonsense.

In college, I took a couple of interpersonal communication classes and I'll tell you that they didn't teach me a thing about what was "right" and what was "wrong", however the information gleamed from these classes made people [think] about the actions they were taking. It is the process of thinking about the consequences of ones actions before committing to them that harvested concepts such as right and wrong IMO, and I believe this tool can be used to help our little ones deal with moral situations better than children who have never had such instruction.

Aha! Now, that's a much clearer idea than advocating teaching "right from wrong." I am all for teaching communication in schools. Communication is the backbone of relationships with other people (and with oneself). It'd be wonderful to teach children communication concepts very early on.

Without any types of positive enforced moral stipulations in public view - there are plenty of negative ones, such as vandalism - it seems almost counterintuitive to society to complexly remove all the good ones, but this is just my opinion.

And speaking of communication... I'm not sure what you're saying when you say "positive enforced moral stipulations" and "complexly remove." But it sounds like you're saying that removing the Ten Commandments from certain public government buildings is to remove all "positive enforced moral stipulations," which implies it's the only one remaining.

But from my point of view, I'm not sure why it's so terribly important to advertise religion on government property when there are so many private venues where such things can be advertised. I mean, courthouses? Most people who go there are in trouble in the first place. It's too late for them. Start with the places they visit every day. Think grocery stores, fast food joints, Toys'R'Us, corporate office buildings, gas stations, and used car lots for Ten Commandments monuments. Well, maybe not gas stations. People don't want to be reminded of Jesus when they're picking up the latest issue of "Jugs."

-Lemmy

[the Langolier]

Angel' date='Jun 1 2006, 07:20 AM' post='111053']
:blink:Oh my God! I'm so #¤%&ing offended, I can hardly muster the will to type! And I'm a liberal!!
...
What's next? Legalising rape? Oh wait ... pedophaelia *is* rape!

In the spirit of having to choose between two evils, I'd rather side with a genodical maglomaniac like Adolph Hitler than rally behind child molesters

Talk about being offended...

Pedophilia /= rape. Pedophiles /= molesters. They aren't "pedos", there are people. It's so great that in two sentances they can become monsters and no one thinks twice. "Predators" is another term used a bit too losely too. It's hard to call someone a predator when the young people are giving out personal information and encouraging and inviting others to come, all with the explicit understanding that sexual activity is the goal. It's not like deer bring a six-pack and ammo. Just look at the topic title. There's a pretty distinct parallel about the opinion of this party vs. the opinion of the current topic of the ten commandments, etc.

As far as this political party is concerning: I believe it's nothing but the equivalent of a troll - they hurt any other cause they could possibly have. Unless, of course, their cause is actually *more* stringent laws of morality - which they'd probably have fair success at. First they create all this stir over this political party and in so doing push the great majority of the public in a single direction. Now what will happen? The public will be aggitated; it will react; it will gain momentum. As is such the history of polictics, that momentum will carry it on and it will overcorrect itself. As DeeBye mentioned about Canada looking to *raise* the age of consent - it's already working. Look at political policy that is generated through national events like September 11, Hurricane Katrina, Columbine, etc. And finally, just look at the guy's teeth! - no way those are real - and even if they *were*, NO political party looking to gain actual support would choose such a spokesperson.

Someone criticized this party because their intensions seemed "selfish". Duh. What do you think politics is?! What do you think parties are for?! What do you think lobbyists are for?! What do you think lawyers are for?! What do you think elected officials (considering their relationship to their constituents) are for?! Everything about it is fighting for your own interests. Majority rule, minority rights.

EDIT: Oh by the way, with a couple hot-topic issues presented in this post, one might wonder as to where the author stands with regard to the legal age of consent. I have a very conservative view on the matter, some might even call it religious right wing. The Good Lord gave us the right to choose for ourselves, so I think it should be the same age at which we become accountable for those choices - eight!

P.S. Flame-me-not: it's a joke

[Occhidiangela]

People don't want to be reminded of Jesus when they're picking up the latest issue of "Jugs."
-Lemmy

Good one. :lol: When you have children, some day in the far future, it is well to remember that children in the early developmental stage benefit from structure and consistency. As they grow, the structure can flex, but a sense of security is very handy in considering a great number of things in absolutes. Where that is based from, and how it is taught to them by you and your future wife, the source of "right from wrong" themes, is up to you. As they flesh out their reasoning skills, they can learn how gray the world really is. How quickly they can arrive at this stage is again up to you, and what you endorse. Likewise, what you expose them to, and what they are exposed to beyond your immediate control.

Be prepared to do a lot of explaining, and if you find yourself in the situation I have frequently been in -- I don't really know -- hit the Encyclopedia, the Bible, the Dictionary, or a well grounded web page, to back up your explanation.

Whatever you do, don't trust what they are taught in school. The curricula in public schools has been used as source of indoctrination for some time now, perhaps forever, and may well be at odds with where you are coming from.

Best of luck when that happens. To sum up, the right from wrong comes from what you teach them, and what you endorse.

Occhi