Separation Of Church And State "Is A Lie"

[jochhejaam]

In Kathryn Harris's opinion. You go girl!

An Excerpt from an interview with a representative from The Florida Baptist Witness.

Question: What role do you think people of faith should play in politics and government?

Harris: The Bible says we are to be salt and light. And salt and light means not just in the church and not just as a teacher or as a pastor or a banker or a lawyer, but in government and we have to have elected officials in government and we have to have the faithful in government and over time, that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers. And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women and if people aren’t involved in helping godly men in getting elected than we’re going to have a nation of secular laws. That’s not what our founding fathers intended and that’s certainly isn’t what God intended. So it’s really important that members of the church know people’s stands. It’s really important that they get involved in campaigns. I said I’m going to run a campaign of integrity. I’m not going to run it like all of the campaigns that I’ve seen before…. And you know, it’s hard to find people that are gonna behave that way in a campaign and be honorable that way in a campaign. But that’s why we need the faithful and we need to take back this country. It’s time that the churches get involved. Pastors, from the pulpit, can invite people to speak, not on politics, but of their faith. But they can discern, they can ask those people running for election, in the pulpit, what is your position on gay marriage? What is your position on abortion? That is totally permissible in 5013C organizations. They simply cannot endorse from the pulpit. And that’s why I’ve gone to churches and I’ve spoken in four churches, five churches a day on Sunday and people line up afterwards because it’s so important that they know. And if we don’t get involved as Christians then how could we possibly take this back?

Question: Do you support civil rights protections on the basis of sexual preference?

Harris: Civil rights have to do with individual rights and I don’t think they apply to the gay issues. I have not supported gay marriage and I do not support any civil rights actions with regard to homosexuality.

Question: Do you support a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as being only between one man and one woman? Why or why not?

Harris: I fully support a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as being only between one man and one woman. I have voted in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment because we should not undermine the uniqueness of an institution that continues to serve as an essential thread in the fabric of our society.

Full interview: http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/6298.article

[Melmart1]

That’s not what our founding fathers intended and that’s certainly isn’t what God
Uhhh.. which God would that be? Yours? Mine?


Civil rights have to do with individual rights and I don’t think they apply to the gay issues

Sooo.. gays are not individuals?



undermine the uniqueness of an institution that continues to serve as an essential thread in the fabric of our society.

So in order for something to be essential to our society, it must be unique? And I don't get why people treat marriage with such kid gloves. We live in the age of 3-day marriages and drive-through wedding ceremonies from your car (yes, I know someone who got married that way). Straight people have completely bastardized the institution of marriage. Gay people couldn't do any worse.

[sabar]

Just another person that blindly follows the party line, who will probably get elected, create laws based on her faith, and continue to create long sentences that lack pauses and breaks.

[Spurminator]

Wow. I always thought Katherine Harris was just a convenient punching bag for Democrats upset about the 2000 election, but it looks like she's really a complete moron.

James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin would be interested to hear that they intended this to be a nation of non-secular laws...

[Zunni]

Just another person that blindly follows the party line, who will probably get elected, create laws based on her faith, and continue to create long sentences that lack pauses and breaks.
The funny thing is, she is NOT supported by the GOP. They asked her to withdraw based on her numbers, and she said no.

[Extra Stout]

Just another person that blindly follows the party line, who will probably get elected, create laws based on her faith, and continue to create long sentences that lack pauses and breaks.
Actually, it is unlikely she will get elected.

[ChumpDumper]

If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin.Nice move alienating the Jewish vote in Florida, cupcake.

[Ocotillo]

In her Senate race she is polling in the thirties somewhere......

Adios Cruella.....

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Melmart1]Uhhh.. which God would that be? Yours? Mine?
I'm quite sure she's referring to hers, which would be the same as mine.
Which God do you claim as yours?




Sooo.. gays are not individuals?
Far be it of me to pretend to be able to correctly interpret Harris's interview, but I would assume that she's saying that a lifestyle in and of itself is not by definition an individual.

[ChumpDumper]

Are you really trying to present the words of Katherine Harris as serious political discourse?

[Extra Stout]

Are you really trying to present the words of Katherine Harris as serious political discourse?
I'm not sure that I would pick Katherine Harris as the sentinel of Christian morality and ethics in Congress, any more than I would pick Bob Ney, Tom DeLay, or Duke Cunningham.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

I'm quite sure she's referring to hers, which would be the same as mine. Which God do you claim as yours?


Um.... so yeah that whole freedom of religion thing...they were just kidding about that right?

[Extra Stout]

Um.... so yeah that whole freedom of religion thing...they were just kidding about that right?
The Religious Right does not read the Fourteenth Amendment into the First, nor do they recognize established case law precedents. Unlike all Supreme Court justices except Clarence Thomas, they reject the concept of stare decisis.

So, in their line of thinking, "freedom of religion" means only that Congress may not establish a national church, nor may it pass laws to restrict the practice of a religion.

Or, in other words, there cannot be a Church of America like there is a Church of England, nor can, say, Islam be banned or the construction of new mosques prohibited. Those are the only protections they read into the First Amendment regarding "freedom of religion."

[boutons_]

The Bible-thumpers continue their push to install their theocracy,
to render what is Caesar's unto God.

[Extra Stout]

The Bible-thumpers continue their push to install their theocracy,
to render what is Caesar's unto God.
Well, boutons, you should be pleased that Katherine Harris is going to lose this campaign, and that the litany or GOP corruption scandals have snared enough members of the RR so as to undermine the moral underpinnings of their message.*

*--In an alternate world where the Democrats were not overrun with hostile parties bent upon marginalizing the practice of (Christian) religion in America into irrelevance (i.e., freedom from religion), a message working to tie pious religious action to social justice might gain some sway, as it has in black churches, since corruption is endangering the GOP hold on those voters.

[Ya Vez]

she is as crazy as al sharpton and jesse jackson are on the left...

[jochhejaam]

Actually, it is unlikely she will get elected.
Bill Nelson is up by almost 30 percent (61-30) with 1/3 of the Republicans preferring Nelson.

Harris isn't electable so she's now throwing caution to the wind.

[scott]

we are becoming a society with no moral direction. our society is not going to last because we so divided. most people are looking to get "his" and not thinking of the future. this will spell a quick and bloody end to the USA.....if those muslims have anything to say about it.............and the chinese will be all to eager to cash in when we fall.

I just hope more and more people could be united under a strict christian way of life, but the pressure to get "his" permeates almost every american church and their clergy. christianity is the key, uniting christians into a strong and moral political and fighting force would be the only answer. without that we will become and are becoming an amoral giant ameoba that can, and eventually will, be manipulated by the rest of the world. nukes or not.......we are a country for sale, to whomever wants a piece. :depressed

Okay I'll bite... to what lengths should we go to ensure the US is united under Christianity to avoid becoming this amoral giant ameoba?

[PixelPusher]

Okay I'll bite... to what lengths should we go to ensure the US is united under Christianity to avoid becoming this amoral giant ameoba?

I say repeal the constitutional admendment and institute a Christian monopoly STAT! Institute laws and penalties against heretics and non-believers. America will then transform into a peaceful, loving, morally correct paradise...kinda like Europe back in the Middle Ages, before those damn artists and scientists like Da Vinci and Galileo had to go and ruin it with their loathesome "Renaissance".

Ah, good times...

[jochhejaam]

I say repeal the constitutional admendment and institute a Christian monopoly STAT! Institute laws and penalties against heretics and non-believers. America will then transform into a peaceful, loving, morally correct paradise...kinda like Europe back in the Middle Ages, before those damn artists and scientists like Da Vinci and Galileo had to go and ruin it with their loathesome "Renaissance".

Harris's arguements are not compelling (I respect her as a Christian) nor are they representative of Christianity's problem with the currently applied interpretation of the First Amendment.
I think it's the extremes that people such as Newdow and groups such as the ACLU have taken this "Separation of Church and State". This is a nonsensical "crying a river" over things that pose no threat to citizens that wish to worship some foreign god. (don't go getting your boxers in a wad over the "foreign god" thing)

Such as:
-Prohibiting the display of the Ten Commandments and Nativity Scenes on public property.

-Removing "In God We Trust" from our currency.

-Banning the voluntary recital of the Pledge of Allegiance in Public Schools.

-
I personally couldn't care less if some athiest or someone that has exported their religion into our Country is offended by these things. They are not preventing you from worshiping your god. Tough it out, get over it and move on.
You're more than welome to stay here but if it's too unbearable for you here, there are Countries that won't bother you with these things, nothing's preventing you from relocating.
We don't have to knuckle under or cater to a handful of loudmouths who can't sleep at night at the thought of these beastly things going on in our Country. (Watch out, the Starbucks is startin' to kick in! :lol )



If the Separation of Church and State activists want a fight, get on the Muslims in Dearborn and Detroit Michigan who are broadcasting their "call to prayer" on loudspeakers throughout their Cities 5 times a day (somewhat amusing is that some Catholics in these Cities are chiming their Church bells during this "call to prayer" in an effort to drown them out ). http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001658.php


That's all. :)

[MannyIsGod]

Whats amusing about that?

[jochhejaam]

Whats amusing about that?
Nice contribution to the thread.

[boutons_]

"you should be pleased that Katherine Harris is going to lose this campaign"

KH is spouting this desparate, rousing, divise, hateful, polarizing tripe because she knows southern/red-state/bubba/simpliistic/rabble FL is full of people who will suck in her tripe and vote for her. Agreed, all indications are that she will not only lose, but is reportedly embarrassing the Repugs who have told her to cancel her campaign (but NOT because of its content). If the Repugs thought she was the front runner, they'd be 100% behind her, no matter what tripe she spews.

[FromWayDowntown]

I personally couldn't care less if some athiest or someone that has exported their religion into our Country is offended by these things. They are not preventing you from worshiping your god. Tough it out, get over it and move on.

Of course, Christianity is purely an import to this land as well -- a fact that is frequently overlooked. The generally pagan views of the Native American cultures are, historically, the religion that the Europeans found when they arrived and began the process of moving the indigenous people off native lands and converting them (by word and sword) to Christianity. That, as well as the fact that the Founding Fathers who are so frequently cited for a supposed support of governmental involvement in religious matters had, in many cases, left Europe to flee religious persecution. In reality, the construct of Christianity as the religious orthodoxy in the United States of America is almost purely a matter timing and power.

I don't see the argument -- and never will -- that those who aren't Christians should just shut the hell up and let Christians celebrate their religion publicly. I don't see it, frankly, because the flip side of that would never fly with those who are most ardent about that sort of a policy, assuming it would ever be permitted to apply consistently.

I've posed this hypothetical before, but I think it's appropriate here. Suppose that a handful of Christian families (Religious Right-ers) were entrenched in communities that over time developed a, say, Muslim majority. Better yet, a majority of the Islamo-fascists that I'm told are so prevalent in this world. For any number of reasons (convenience, economics, schools) those families don't want to move. But since the religious majority in a community is permitted to control the public displays of religious symbols and celebration, the children of these families are made to sit through Muslim prayers at school events; the families don't see nativity scenes in late December, they see tributes to Mohammed and other religious iconography -- let's say paintings of Osama bin Laden; and every official notice from the community government includes some form of tribute to Allah. Are they going to protest? I'd bet they would. If jochhejaam's view prevailed, though, they couldn't have a leg to stand on unless such a majoritarian-centered view of the Establishment Clause could somehow be limited to national majorities. That, of course, would be completely non-sensical.

More significant to me is this question: why do some Christians feel that their religion is undermined (or their faith unasserted) if the law prohibits the government from allowing public displays that are focused on only their relgious viewpoint? Is it not enough to worship God in your church and in your home and in groups (whether publicly or privately) with those who are like-minded? Why is it that the use of private means to assert religious viewpoints in a public manner are insufficient? Is it not enough for you to put the creche in your front yard each year at Christmas time? Does the vitality of your religious viewpoint depend on the government endorsing that choice and publicly displaying symbols of your religion to the exclusion of others? I've never heard anyone who supports a rollback of Establishment Clause principles adequately answer that question or any of its subparts.

[Extra Stout]

FWD,

The best hypothesis I can come up with is that contemporary American Christian evangelical teaching is struggling to instill an internal sense of morality among its followers, depending rather on an external sense of morality.

In other words, believers are being raised to obey God primarily out of fear of Him or because "He says so!", rather than obeying Him because the law is written on their hearts. A severe analogy would be to a social class that avoids murder because its members fear the consequences of law enforcement, rather than holding an intrinsic value for human life.

(This can be observed in the rhetoric of the movement's leaders, who agonize that there can be no morality absent religious zeal.)

This produces a superficial brand of piety among the nominally faithful, who readily apostasize upon encountering external secular influences, because once the fear of God recedes in immanence and immediacy, the motivation to keep the faith recedes as well. Thus, in somewhat of a panic, these evangelicals seek to mitigate these external secular influences, either by cultural isolation, or by using the power of the state to reinforce their external sense of morality.

The latter means has been preferred over the past couple of decades.

[leemajors]

totally off topic, but i found this quote by graham greene interesting - made long ago, and greene was left leaning in his personal views... i wonder what he would make of today's literature:

Catholicism is usually explicitly present in Greene's novels. Greene in his literary criticism attacked most modern literature for having lost any religious sense or themes, which resulted, he argued, in dull characters who "wandered about like cardboard symbols through a world that is paper-thin." Only by recovering a religious element, the consciousness of the infinite meaning of human actions leading to an eternal destiny of salvation or damnation, could the novel recover its drama and power. Catholicism in his books is presented against a background of unvarying human evil, sin and doubt.

[101A]

FWD,

The best hypothesis I can come up with is that contemporary American Christian evangelical teaching is struggling to instill an internal sense of morality among its followers, depending rather on an external sense of morality.

In other words, believers are being raised to obey God primarily out of fear of Him or because "He says so!", rather than obeying Him because the law is written on their hearts. A severe analogy would be to a social class that avoids murder because its members fear the consequences of law enforcement, rather than holding an intrinsic value for human life.

(This can be observed in the rhetoric of the movement's leaders, who agonize that there can be no morality absent religious zeal.)

This produces a superficial brand of piety among the nominally faithful, who readily apostasize upon encountering external secular influences, because once the fear of God recedes in immanence and immediacy, the motivation to keep the faith recedes as well. Thus, in somewhat of a panic, these evangelicals seek to mitigate these external secular influences, either by cultural isolation, or by using the power of the state to reinforce their external sense of morality.

The latter means has been preferred over the past couple of decades.

Ummmm, no.

In fact, evangelical teaching instructs that it is not the acts of the person that saves or condemns them, it is through the grace of god that one is saved; which is exactly opposite of what you "assume". Evangelicals are taught to model their lives after Christ, and that although it is impossible to live without sin, we need to strive to do so.

[Extra Stout]

Ummmm, no.

In fact, evangelical teaching instructs that it is not the acts of the person that saves or condemns them, it is through the grace of god that one is saved; which is exactly opposite of what you "assume".
I don't think you grasped what I was talking about. I am certainly well familiar with the basic teaching of saving grace.

When I talk about the difference between an external and internal sense of morality, I am not talking about the difference between salvation by works and salvation by grace. I am talking about the daily motivation to choose to do right. A person with an external sense of morality would choose to do right because of something like fear of consequences, or a conviction that God is watching them. A person with an internal sense of morality would choose to do right because they love what is right and hate what is wrong.

The latter is what I would call having the law written upon one's heart or having the mind of Christ. And, my observation is that the development of that internal conscience is deficient in modern evangelical Christian discipleship. The church is very good at getting people to kneel at the altar and say a prayer and accept Jesus, but not so good at making people into fully devoted disciples of Christ who can persevere in the faith in the gauntlet of the real world around them where rationalization is so easy and tempting.

It's like Jesus' parable of the sower -- the church is throwing much seed on rocky or thorny ground, and little reaches the rich soil. And its attempts to snuff out the secular influences and inject superficial piety into the public polity is like a futile effort to tear out the thorny weeds, which will only grow
back when the sower is away.


Evangelicals are taught to model their lives after Christ, and that although it is impossible to live without sin, we need to strive to do so.
This would be specifically what I am addressing. Evangelicals are told to model their lives after Christ, but are not well-taught on how truly to put on the mind of Christ. The church relies too much upon strict legalistic enforcement of dogma and not enough upon the spiritual disciplines of prayer, meditation, fasting, and self-denial to allow the Holy Spirit to infuse itself into one's conscience and internalize what is right and what is wrong in God's eyes. So you end up with a bunch of people who can speak at length about what the Bible says, but not so much about the everyday life and choices of a disciple in the real world.

In this way, outside influences that challenge dogma become an unacceptable threat, because once there is a chink in that armor, there is nothing inside to buttress the faith. Such a faith is like the city built upon low ground, and protected by a levee. The levee holds for a while, until the great storm comes, and breaches it, and then the whole city is inundated and ruined. Whereas the faith that is truly grounded in the mind of Christ is like the city built upon high ground, where no flood can rise high enough to reach it.

So what we see in the church today are frantic efforts to repair the levees before the next storm comes. Why instead do they not choose to build upon high ground?

[spurster]

The church relies too much upon strict legalistic enforcement of dogma and not enough upon the spiritual disciplines of prayer, meditation, fasting, and self-denial

And I thought the spiritual disciplines were tax cuts, deficit spending, torture, and snooping.

[Extra Stout]

And I thought the spiritual disciplines were tax cuts, deficit spending, torture, and snooping.
Don't try to eat the pearls. They aren't digestible. Have some corn instead.

[Phenomanul]

I don't think you grasped what I was talking about. I am certainly well familiar with the basic teaching of saving grace.

When I talk about the difference between an external and internal sense of morality, I am not talking about the difference between salvation by works and salvation by grace. I am talking about the daily motivation to choose to do right. A person with an external sense of morality would choose to do right because of something like fear of consequences, or a conviction that God is watching them. A person with an internal sense of morality would choose to do right because they love what is right and hate what is wrong.

The latter is what I would call having the law written upon one's heart or having the mind of Christ. And, my observation is that the development of that internal conscience is deficient in modern evangelical Christian discipleship. The church is very good at getting people to kneel at the altar and say a prayer and accept Jesus, but not so good at making people into fully devoted disciples of Christ who can persevere in the faith in the gauntlet of the real world around them where rationalization is so easy and tempting.

It's like Jesus' parable of the sower -- the church is throwing much seed on rocky or thorny ground, and little reaches the rich soil. And its attempts to snuff out the secular influences and inject superficial piety into the public polity is like a futile effort to tear out the thorny weeds, which will only grow
back when the sower is away.


This would be specifically what I am addressing. Evangelicals are told to model their lives after Christ, but are not well-taught on how truly to put on the mind of Christ. The church relies too much upon strict legalistic enforcement of dogma and not enough upon the spiritual disciplines of prayer, meditation, fasting, and self-denial to allow the Holy Spirit to infuse itself into one's conscience and internalize what is right and what is wrong in God's eyes. So you end up with a bunch of people who can speak at length about what the Bible says, but not so much about the everyday life and choices of a disciple in the real world.

In this way, outside influences that challenge dogma become an unacceptable threat, because once there is a chink in that armor, there is nothing inside to buttress the faith. Such a faith is like the city built upon low ground, and protected by a levee. The levee holds for a while, until the great storm comes, and breaches it, and then the whole city is inundated and ruined. Whereas the faith that is truly grounded in the mind of Christ is like the city built upon high ground, where no flood can rise high enough to reach it.

So what we see in the church today are frantic efforts to repair the levees before the next storm comes. Why instead do they not choose to build upon high ground?

Good post. Sad state of affairs the 'church' is in.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Of course, Christianity is purely an import to this land as well -- a fact that is frequently overlooked. The generally pagan views of the Native American cultures are, historically, the religion that the Europeans found when they arrived and began the process of moving the indigenous people off native lands and converting them (by word and sword) to Christianity. That, as well as the fact that the Founding Fathers who are so frequently cited for a supposed support of governmental involvement in religious matters had, in many cases, left Europe to flee religious persecution. In reality, the construct of Christianity as the religious orthodoxy in the United States of America is almost purely a matter timing and power.

I don't see the argument -- and never will -- that those who aren't Christians should just shut the hell up and let Christians celebrate their religion publicly. I don't see it, frankly, because the flip side of that would never fly with those who are most ardent about that sort of a policy, assuming it would ever be permitted to apply consistently.

I've posed this hypothetical before, but I think it's appropriate here. Suppose that a handful of Christian families (Religious Right-ers) were entrenched in communities that over time developed a, say, Muslim majority. Better yet, a majority of the Islamo-fascists that I'm told are so prevalent in this world. For any number of reasons (convenience, economics, schools) those families don't want to move. But since the religious majority in a community is permitted to control the public displays of religious symbols and celebration, the children of these families are made to sit through Muslim prayers at school events; the families don't see nativity scenes in late December, they see tributes to Mohammed and other religious iconography -- let's say paintings of Osama bin Laden; and every official notice from the community government includes some form of tribute to Allah. Are they going to protest? I'd bet they would. If jochhejaam's view prevailed, though, they couldn't have a leg to stand on unless such a majoritarian-centered view of the Establishment Clause could somehow be limited to national majorities. That, of course, would be completely non-sensical.

More significant to me is this question: why do some Christians feel that their religion is undermined (or their faith unasserted) if the law prohibits the government from allowing public displays that are focused on only their relgious viewpoint? Is it not enough to worship God in your church and in your home and in groups (whether publicly or privately) with those who are like-minded? Why is it that the use of private means to assert religious viewpoints in a public manner are insufficient? Is it not enough for you to put the creche in your front yard each year at Christmas time? Does the vitality of your religious viewpoint depend on the government endorsing that choice and publicly displaying symbols of your religion to the exclusion of others? I've never heard anyone who supports a rollback of Establishment Clause principles adequately answer that question or any of its subparts.

I don't think you grasped what I was talking about. I am certainly well familiar with the basic teaching of saving grace.

When I talk about the difference between an external and internal sense of morality, I am not talking about the difference between salvation by works and salvation by grace. I am talking about the daily motivation to choose to do right. A person with an external sense of morality would choose to do right because of something like fear of consequences, or a conviction that God is watching them. A person with an internal sense of morality would choose to do right because they love what is right and hate what is wrong.

The latter is what I would call having the law written upon one's heart or having the mind of Christ. And, my observation is that the development of that internal conscience is deficient in modern evangelical Christian discipleship. The church is very good at getting people to kneel at the altar and say a prayer and accept Jesus, but not so good at making people into fully devoted disciples of Christ who can persevere in the faith in the gauntlet of the real world around them where rationalization is so easy and tempting.

It's like Jesus' parable of the sower -- the church is throwing much seed on rocky or thorny ground, and little reaches the rich soil. And its attempts to snuff out the secular influences and inject superficial piety into the public polity is like a futile effort to tear out the thorny weeds, which will only grow
back when the sower is away.


This would be specifically what I am addressing. Evangelicals are told to model their lives after Christ, but are not well-taught on how truly to put on the mind of Christ. The church relies too much upon strict legalistic enforcement of dogma and not enough upon the spiritual disciplines of prayer, meditation, fasting, and self-denial to allow the Holy Spirit to infuse itself into one's conscience and internalize what is right and what is wrong in God's eyes. So you end up with a bunch of people who can speak at length about what the Bible says, but not so much about the everyday life and choices of a disciple in the real world.

In this way, outside influences that challenge dogma become an unacceptable threat, because once there is a chink in that armor, there is nothing inside to buttress the faith. Such a faith is like the city built upon low ground, and protected by a levee. The levee holds for a while, until the great storm comes, and breaches it, and then the whole city is inundated and ruined. Whereas the faith that is truly grounded in the mind of Christ is like the city built upon high ground, where no flood can rise high enough to reach it.

So what we see in the church today are frantic efforts to repair the levees before the next storm comes. Why instead do they not choose to build upon high ground?
Great posts, both of you! I mean it! :tu

[MannyIsGod]

Nice contribution to the thread.I asked a question. If you choose to ignore it, theres not much I can do about it.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown]




[QUOTE]I don't see the argument -- and never will -- that those who aren't Christians should just shut the hell up and let Christians celebrate their religion publicly. I don't see it, frankly, because the flip side of that would never fly with those who are most ardent about that sort of a policy, assuming it would ever be permitted to apply consistently.
I'll assume that you're generalizing since I didn't use a "shut the hell up and let the Christians celebrate their religion publicly" arguement. But since you brought it up, what are you referring to when you say "let Christians celebrate publicly"?

Defusing an anticipated arguement: If I disagreed with my wife on an issue and told her "tough it out" or "just get over it and move on", chance are there wouldn't be a problem. If I told her to "shut the hell up", there undoubtedly would be a major problem.
Don't overstate someones position FWD. Don't misrepresent or distort what someone's said for the sole reason of protesting something that gets your hackles up and hopefully they'll afford you the same courtesy.
You could and should have aired your opinion without (mis)quoting me.
"Objection sustained"




[

More significant to me is this question: why do some Christians feel that their religion is undermined (or their faith unasserted) if the law prohibits the government from allowing public displays that are focused on only their relgious viewpoint? Is it not enough to worship God in your church and in your home and in groups (whether publicly or privately) with those who are like-minded? Why is it that the use of private means to assert religious viewpoints in a public manner are insufficient? Is it not enough for you to put the creche in your front yard each year at Christmas time? Does the vitality of your religious viewpoint depend on the government endorsing that choice and publicly displaying symbols of your religion to the exclusion of others?
Why is it that some people feel the need to suppress Christian symbolism and reference to God? Is anyone being forced to view and abide by the Ten Commandments? I'm a Christian and I'm not, so how are others?
Are they forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance? Does it undermine their faith or put a damper on their lack of faith by having "In God We Trust" on our currency? Do any of those things truly interfere with the religious viewpoint of non Christians? If you can't prove that someone's being harmed by these things then there is not a problem.
Even if 1 in 50,000 people are being adversely affected by them (they're not), the 49,999 that are neutral or supportive of them should not have to acquiesce to such a microscopic percentage of dissent.

[jochhejaam]

I asked a question. If you choose to ignore it, theres not much I can do about it.
Okay Manny. You found nothing amusing about it. Great and thanks for playing.

[ChumpDumper]

Why is it that some people feel the need to suppress Christian symbolism and reference to God? Is anyone being forced to view and abide by the Ten Commandments? I'm a Christian and I'm not, so how are others?Why is it that some people feel the need to put the Ten Commandments in monument form around courthouses?

[jochhejaam]

Why is it that some people feel the need to put the Ten Commandments in monument form around courthouses?
Because they believe them to be a great piece of literature?
That could be one reason, eh?

[ChumpDumper]

Because they believe them to be a great piece of literature?
That could be one reason, eh?Disingenuous.

[jochhejaam]

Why is it that some people feel the need to put the Ten Commandments in monument form around courthouses?
Would you consider that act as Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion?

[jochhejaam]

Disingenuous.
How cliche. Anything original?

[ChumpDumper]

How cliche. Anything original?Feh, your disingenuousness is cliche.

[ChumpDumper]

Would you consider that act as Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion?I consider it a stupid idea.

[jochhejaam]

I consider it a stupid idea.
Disingenuous but eloquent.

[ChumpDumper]

You don't even know what that word means, do you?

[jochhejaam]

You don't even know what that word means, do you?
:lol

[ChumpDumper]

I think whatever the courts decided, pulling these kinds of stunts may lead to some little things the religious right may want, but they'll end up getting a whole lot they won't want as well.

[jochhejaam]

I think whatever the courts decided, pulling these kinds of stunts may lead to some little things the religious right may want, but they'll end up getting a whole lot they won't want as well.
You think a monument to the Commandments is a stunt? Get serious CD, you know better than that. The stunt is in trying the oppress the Commandments.

Do you find the Commandments repulsive?

[ChumpDumper]

You think a monument to the Commandments is a stunt?In those locations? Absolutley.
Do you find the Commandments repulsive?I find the use of them as a political football completely repulsive.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'll assume that you're generalizing since I didn't use a "shut the hell up and let the Christians celebrate their religion publicly" arguement. But since you brought it up, what are you referring to when you say "let Christians celebrate publicly"?

I am generalizing, and you assume that I was quoting you for the points I made in paragraphs after my first. The ONLY reason I quoted your post was for your silly point suggesting that Christianity is somehow a native religion and that all other religious viewpoints are imported. That's both historically wrong and horrendously xenophobic.

But, frankly, as to juxtaposition of the remainder of my post with yours, I'm not sure that there's a meaningful distinction between the sentiment I used and your suggestion that those who aren't Christians "Tough it out, get over it and move on." If you want to play semantics, I'm not going to engage in that sort of silliness. From what you've posted, I think it's perfectly reasonable for one to take that you believe that non-Christians shouldn't object to governmentally-endorsed, overtly-Christian public displays (which strikes me as tantamount to the celebration of a religion); that such people should "tough it out, get over it, and move on." I chose, for the purpose of the argument, to cast your argument (as I understand it from your post) in terms that are accurate, if not as rhetorically favorable to you. That's a part of discourse.

To answer your question, I mean precisely what I've written. As I noted above, public displays like a creche or other overtly Christian symbols is a celebration by Christians. In other words, a creche largely has no meaning beyond a celebration of a particular religious viewpoint; I doubt that anyone could look at a creche and derive from it any secular meaning -- I mean if it were just about the birth of a child, it would be irrelevant. Obviously, to those who are Christians, the creche is a symbol of the birth of Jesus Christ and the coming of the Savior. A creche cannot be anything other than a celebration of a Christian viewpoint and when displayed publicly, it is the public celebration of a Christian viewpoint. The same may be said for prayers or hymns, I think. The landscape is muddier when dealing with other matters: Ten Commandments displays and such. That's true, though, largely because those symbols can have meaning across a broad social spectrum.


Defusing an anticipated arguement: If I disagreed with my wife on an issue and told her "tough it out" or "just get over it and move on", chance are there wouldn't be a problem. If I told her to "shut the hell up", there undoubtedly would be a major problem.

Semantics.


Don't overstate someones position FWD. Don't misrepresent or distort what someone's said for the sole reason of protesting something that gets your hackles up and hopefully they'll afford you the same courtesy.

You could and should have aired your opinion without (mis)quoting me.

I quoted you on your erroneous historical statement. Maybe I should draw a line in my post or expressly indicate that I'm no longer quoting you. As to the "tough it out" sentiment, I didn't quote you -- I paraphrased. And, as I've said, I don't see that your distinction adds to or detracts from the argument. It's curious that you spend so much time here dealing with semantics and not addressing the substance of my point.

I think my sidebar objection trumps your "he didn't quote me accurately" objection.


Why is it that some people feel the need to suppress Christian symbolism and reference to God? Is anyone being forced to view and abide by the Ten Commandments? I'm a Christian and I'm not, so how are others? Are they forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance? Does it undermine their faith or put a damper on their lack of faith by having "In God We Trust" on our currency? Do any of those things truly interfere with the religious viewpoint of non Christians? If you can't prove that someone's being harmed by these things then there is not a problem.
Even if 1 in 50,000 people are being adversely affected by them (they're not), the 49,999 that are neutral or supportive of them should not have to acquiesce to such a microscopic percentage of dissent.

It's an interesting dodge to try to state the converse of a point without addressing the merits of the point that was made.

Since you're in such a huff, though, I'll actually bother to answer your question.

Nobody with any intelligence at all is truly seeking to suppress Christian symbolism and reference to God -- the desire is to keep government out of supporting displays of Christian symbolism and making references to God. Government very clearly could not stop you from placing religious symbols on your front yard and keeping them there every day of the year (though it could impose limits involving distance, size, lighting, and other such things); nor could government stop you from waking each morning, opening your front door, and shouting as loud as you wish "Glory to God in the Highest" or whatever worshipful statement you wish to make.

My question is: why is your ability to do those things insufficient? why is there any need for government to endorse your religious viewpoint? why is there any need for government to parrot your display or to echo your religious statement?

Ultimately, that's the question that nobody has ever been able to answer for me. I don't need government to play any role in my religious choices, other than to allow me the opportunity to exercise my right to make religious choices and the freedom to proclaim those choices as I see fit -- not as government thinks my religion should be celebrated, and not because the majority happens to agree with me. My religion is something I celebrate in my home and in my church. My religion is something that I share with others, as a private citizen. My religious beliefs, however, are not dampened or stifled in any conceivable fashion if the government fails to recognize them.

It's not about whether government's action causes someone to doubt their faith. It's about the fact that the Constitution is understood to preclude government from getting involved in religion, however insignificantly.

It's about the fact that in every respect, the Constitution serves to protect the rights of the 1 in 50,000 -- those who aren't in the religious or social majority.

It's about the fact that nobody is asked to acquiesce to dissent because each person is still left to the individual choice to worship and celebrate his or her religion as he or she sees fit -- with as many or as few of the likeminded as he or she chooses.

Your question urges me to wonder why people should object to governmental involvement in religion. Mine asks you why people need or even want government to be involved in religion, however subtly.

I think I've provided you with my answer to your question. You've certainly not answered mine.

[FromWayDowntown]

Would you consider that act as Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion?

Some might consider it an act of government. Some have also concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment extends the purview of the First Amendment to entities beyond Congress, like state and local governments (as well as governmental entities like public school districts) and precludes those entities from acting in a fashion that endorses religion.

But I mean, that's just the Supreme Court and every other court in America. What on Earth do they know about the Constitution?

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=ChumpDumper]In those locations? Absolutley. Okay, that's you're personal opinion but I've never heard of them referred to as stunts, and obviously I disagree.






I find the use of them as a political football completely repulsive.
So do I and shame on the ACLU and others for politicizing them.

There was a time, not so long ago, when these monuments weren't an issue which would mean that they weren't a stunt.

[ChumpDumper]

Two and a half tons of granite in a court building is a stunt. If you think the displays are so great, put one of those granite slabs in your front yard.

[jochhejaam]

Two and a half tons of granite in a court building is a stunt.
Do you have even a shred of evidence that would substantiate that these monuments were erected as a stunt or is it purely conjecture on your part?

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, I have Roy Moore's diary. :rolleyes

[Spurminator]

The intent is irrelevant. Either it's okay or it's not.

Those who do not support it see it as an endorsement of a single religion. Those who do support it argue that it isn't an endorsement, in which case it's simply a piece of decoration... in which case, who cares?

I'm more inclined to see it as a piece of historical decoration than a provocative statement about the Bible's role in our laws. As such, I don't really care if it's in our courts or not. So if enough people are uncomfortable with it, and it holds no role above decoration to the people who are comfortable with it, then it probably doesn't belong there.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm more inclined to see it as a piece of historical decoration than a provocative statement about the Bible's role in our laws.Several courts have approved of a historical display of the ten commandments, especially when integrated into a larger display including other documents which provide more context. I believe a display in Oklahoma does this with the Mayflower compact and some native American documents.

OTOH, you have Judge Moore sticking this huge slab of granite in the Alabama Supreme Court lobby, saying on video tapes of the installation which were sold by a christian ministry:

"Today a cry has gone out across our land for the acknowledgment of that God upon whom this nation and our laws were founded....May this day mark the restoration of the moral foundation of law to our people and the return to the knowledge of God in our land."

Which is more likely to be seen as a stunt?

[Spurminator]

Several courts have approved of a historical display of the ten commandments, especially when integrated into a larger display including other documents which provide more context. I believe a display in Oklahoma does this with the Mayflower compact and some native American documents.

OTOH, you have Judge Moore sticking this huge slab of granite in the Alabama Supreme Court lobby, saying "Today a cry has gone out across our land for the acknowledgment of that God upon whom this nation and our laws were founded....May this day mark the restoration of the moral foundation of law to our people and the return to the knowledge of God in our land."

Which is more likely to be seen as a stunt?

Oh I have no doubt Judge Moore's intent was to make a religious statement, and while it does make me less sympathetic for his cause, I just don't think it makes a difference in deciding whether or not it's an appropriate display. The display speaks for itself.

In other words, if an agnostic judge from San Francisco erected the exact same monument because his friend was the sculptor, I don't think it would be any more permissible than one erected by an ultra-religious judge.

[jochhejaam]

[



I quoted you on your erroneous historical statement. Maybe I should draw a line in my post or expressly indicate that I'm no longer quoting you. As to the "tough it out" sentiment, I didn't quote you -- I paraphrased.
You posted my quote of "tough it out" and paraphased it as "go to hell"?
Sorry, as stated before there's no similarity between the two and that would effectively render your paraphrase as null and void.
Disingenuous.


It's an interesting dodge to try to state the converse of a point without addressing the merits of the point that was made.
There was no dodging, just pointing out how ridiculous your paraphrasing was.


Since you're in such a huff
In a huff? :lol Get some fresh tea leaves, the ones your using have malfunctioned. (Why do you pretend to know how I'm feeling when I'm posting?) Your intention is to insinuate that I'm in a huff and therefore possibly irrational? (Disingenuous. Part II)
We're not in a Court of Law here FWD, no jurors to sway. Your posts are regularly with merit, so lets stop with the gamesmanship.


Nobody with any intelligence at all is truly seeking to suppress Christian symbolism and reference to God -- the desire is to keep government out of supporting displays of Christian symbolism and making references to God.
The desire needs to accurately reflect the intent of the Amendment. Does that symbolism constitute Congress having made a law respecting the establishment of a religion? If so, cite the law.

(Would you like "In God We Trust" removed from our currency)?



My question is: why is your ability to do those things insufficient why is there any need for government to endorse your religious viewpoint? why is there any need for government to parrot your display or to echo your religious statement?
I don't need government to endorse, echo or parrot my beliefs. The question is, are they in violation of the First Amendment by erecting a monument to the Ten Commandments, by having "In God We Trust" on our currency or by having children in Public Schools voluntarily recite the Pledge?
That issue has nothing to do with my personal religious freedom. They are two separate and unique issues and thats why IMO you'll never get the answer you seek. The question is delusive.


It's about the fact that in every respect, the Constitution serves to protect the rights of the 1 in 50,000 -- those who aren't in the religious or social majority.
Okay, but the Constitution was not intended to respect the one irate, hypothetically but unsubstantiated injured citizen while simultaneously disrespecting and disregarding the rest.



Your question urges me to wonder why people should object to governmental involvement in religion. Mine asks you why people need or even want government to be involved in religion, however subtly.
Is there something wrong with Government reflecting a sense of morality?

[jochhejaam]

Purely conjecture.

That's what I thought.

[ChumpDumper]

I still don't know what "disingenuous" means.Were Judge Moore's words to big to understand, too?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

joch, are you seriously trying to tell us that "tough it out" or "just get over it and move on" does not imply dissmisal? You might as well say "go to hell" which is what you mean really. You're dismissing other people's belief as unimportant. FromWayDownTown posed a rather interesting question in his first post and you have yet to answer it. If the situation were reversed, would you not object to the government endorsing the Islamic faith as it is clearly doing with the Christian faith now?

[jochhejaam]

Were Judge Moore's words to big to understand, too?


[QUOTE=JudgeMoore] "Today a cry has gone out across our land for the acknowledgment of that God upon whom this nation and our laws were founded....May this day mark the restoration of the moral foundation of law to our people and the return to the knowledge of God in our land."
Moore's primary reason for erecting the monumnet is that he believes them to be sacred and unassailable. The notoriety of the monument is secondary. With that in mind, referring to it as a stunt would be incorrect.

[jochhejaam]

joch, are you seriously trying to tell us that "tough it out" or "just get over it and move on" does not imply dissmisal? You might as well say "go to hell" which is what you mean really. You're dismissing other people's belief as unimportant.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying, so go to hell!



























Or, yes, that's what I'm saying, get over it.

Did each statement elicit the same emotion from you?

[FromWayDowntown]

Yeah, that's what I'm saying, so go to hell!



























Or, yes, that's what I'm saying, get over it.

Did each statement elicit the same emotion from you?

Yes. They did.

[ChumpDumper]

Moore's primary reason for erecting the monumnet is that he believes them to be sacred and unassailable. The notoriety of the monument is secondary. With that in mind, referring to it as a stunt would be incorrect.And the ensuing "rock tour" across Alabama with the sacred commandments lashed to a flatbed truck?

Moore obviously stuck the slab in there to start a fight in the courts.

Stunt.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Yeah, that's what I'm saying, so go to hell!

Or, yes, that's what I'm saying, get over it.

Did each statement elicit the same emotion from you?
if what you are saying concerns me, then yes. You're telling me to basically stop complaining and shut up, and I'm supposed to react differently simply because you didn't put it bluntly http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

by the way, again you manage to avoid the question joch. Would you or would you not mind the government endorsing Islam as openly as the US government endorses Christianity? and not only that, but going by your statement, telling you to "tough it out" and "get over it" when instead of having "in God we trust" in your currency, you have "All praise Allah"?

[ChumpDumper]

I mean -- it was a stunt, get over it.

[leemajors]

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”

[Obstructed_View]

And the ensuing "rock tour" across Alabama with the sacred commandments lashed to a flatbed truck?

Moore obviously stuck the slab in there to start a fight in the courts.

Stunt.
Methinks you are crediting him with WAY too much foresight.

[ChumpDumper]

Methinks you are crediting him with WAY too much foresight.Moore pretty much owes his judicial career to the ten commandments and prayer in courtroom issues dating back to 1994, so I don't see how you can say he never gave it any thought.

[E20]

I don't remember where it was, but it's in Washington D.C, I think the big daddy of them all court-houses, well anyway they have a place were they have all statues of the great religous figures of the world today. Just wanted to comment. LOL

[MannyIsGod]

Gee, Joch. I wonder why I didn't devote the time to make a statement about the theme of the thread. This shit has been hashed over and over and over again, and you dodge the points left and right like you dodged my question (which you still haven't bothered to answer). So why should I jump on the merry-go-round this time? Its the same old game with you.

So I ask once again, what was ammusing about using church bells to drown out the muslim prayers?

[Obstructed_View]

Moore pretty much owes his judicial career to the ten commandments and prayer in courtroom issues dating back to 1994, so I don't see how you can say he never gave it any thought.
Yeah, I suppose he considers himself a crusader. However, if he actually gave it some thought it seems he would have arrived at the fact that it's not a winning fight, it's just a firestorm. He is either a believer, an attention whore, or so militant that he's forgotten that he's supposed to be a christian. He certainly isn't very smart, which is why I suggested that you are giving him too much credit.

[Obstructed_View]

Two and a half tons of granite in a court building is a stunt. If you think the displays are so great, put one of those granite slabs in your front yard.
Actually, I just remembered (and verified) that Moore ran for governor. Using something like that as a political springboard certainly lends some more credence to the "stunt" argument.

[ChumpDumper]

The run for governor, book deals and a columnist job followed the monument episode.

If it was only about the commandments, he could have stuck to the woodcarving of them in his courtroom that started it all over a decade ago.

[jochhejaam]

And the ensuing "rock tour" across Alabama with the sacred commandments lashed to a flatbed truck?

Okay, but the "rock tour" isn't a violation of the First Amendment.

You refer to Moore's actions as a stunt, I see them as Moore regarding God's laws as superior to man's laws. That's called conviction in my book.

[jochhejaam]

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”

That's good Majors. Although Moore's love and respect for God's Commandments isn't praying.



Matthew 5: "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

[ChumpDumper]

Okay, but the "rock tour" isn't a violation of the First Amendment. Since I didn't say that, I don't see why you have to refute it.
You refer to Moore's actions as a stunt, I see them as Moore regarding God's laws as superior to man's laws. That's called conviction in my book.It was a stunt. Get over it.

[jochhejaam]

Okay, it wasn't a stunt. I'm over it.

Welcome aboard CD. Glad to have you on our side of the aisle on this one.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm a hypocrite.

[jochhejaam]

Yes. They did.
That would make sense given the fact that the post was a reply to ManuMania.

[jochhejaam]

Go to bed CD. :lol

You're probably the only one that sleeps with his laptop.

[ChumpDumper]

That's good Majors. Although Moore's love and respect for God's Commandments isn't praying.BTW, the other part of Moore's schtick was leading prayer before court precedings.

[jochhejaam]

BTW, the other part of Moore's schtick was leading prayer before court precedings.
Unless you're God, you are clueless as to the sincerity of the man. I believe the man's quite sincere in his expression of love for God. Why do you feel the need to refute that?

Have you ever put your job on the line base on conviction? He gave up a job that paid him well in excess of $100.000. Heck of a stunt.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm God since I know he's sincere.Belief and stunt-pulling are not mutually exclusive.

[jochhejaam]

Belief and stunt-pulling are not mutually exclusive.
I'll take a wild guess and say that Moore forfeited an annual salary of $140,000 based on his conviction. That's called a making a statement, not pulling a stunt.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm God.

[jochhejaam]

by the way, again you manage to avoid the question joch. Would you or would you not mind the government endorsing Islam as openly as the US government endorses Christianity?
The question that needs to be asked/answered is whether or not the issues we're discussing are to be construed as endorsing a religion. They are not.

If our government officially endorses Christianity, get back with me and then I'll answer the question.

[Ya Vez]

isn't argentina officially a roman catholic state..? manu...

[jochhejaam]

Gee, Joch. I wonder why I didn't devote the time to make a statement about the theme of the thread. This shit has been hashed over and over and over again,...So why should I jump on the merry-go-round this time? Its the same old game with you.

So I ask once again, what was ammusing about using church bells to drown out the muslim prayers?
You go on a tangent about how you shouldn't bother getting involved in the thread and then you turn around and get involved. :lol






(BTW, I answered your question, you just didn't like the answer).

[ChumpDumper]

I'll take a wild guess and say that Moore forfeited an annual salary of $140,000 based on his conviction. That's called a making a statement, not pulling a stunt.Well, if you go into the Alabama Supreme Court rotunda today, you'll see the ten commandments quite clearly displayed in a contextual presentation as I described for Oklahoma earlier.

Turns out Moore's conviction was for the rock, since that's the reason he was removed.

Nice.

[FromWayDowntown]

That would make sense given the fact that the post was a reply to ManuMania.

Then tell me to "shut the hell up" and to "get over it." I assure you, my thoughts will remain the same. I had no idea that the only valid response to your question was the response of whomever your post was directed to.

Of course, you don't seem to be at all inclined to actually address my posts since you still haven't answered my question. You've only given me dodges arguing about semantics and detailing your hurt feelings over my re-characterization of your statements.

Although you didn't expressly address the question to me and at some risk of re-phrasing your argument in a fashion that you'll quarrel with, the posting of the Ten Commandments IS an endorsement of religion when it's undertaken with religious motivation, as was true in Judge Moore's case and as was true with the Kentucky courthouse display that was recently ruled unconstitutional. The same is true of nativity scenes and public prayers that are inherently religious and expressly Christian.

In other news, the test of any argument is finding its endpoint and exploiting any illogic that can be found there.

I wonder: if our government were posting excerpts from the Koran on stone tablets in front of courthouses (to the exclusion of the Ten Commandments) or permitting displays favorable to Mohammed (to the exclusion of displays favorable to Jesus Christ) I suspect you'd have a major, major problem with that result. My hypothesis that most of the Christian Right would be up in arms if government were singling any other sort of religious iconography to the exclusion of Christian symbols is precisely why I think your argument fails.

Hey -- how about that? I'm right back to the question you haven't answered.

Good day.

[Extra Stout]

joch, would this post from earlier in the thread be an accurate representation of your position?


The Religious Right does not read the Fourteenth Amendment into the First, nor do they recognize established case law precedents. Unlike all Supreme Court justices except Clarence Thomas, they reject the concept of stare decisis.

So, in their line of thinking, "freedom of religion" means only that Congress may not establish a national church, nor may it pass laws to restrict the practice of a religion.

Or, in other words, there cannot be a Church of America like there is a Church of England, nor can, say, Islam be banned or the construction of new mosques prohibited. Those are the only protections they read into the First Amendment regarding "freedom of religion."

[Phenomanul]

Must..... stay....... out.. of the discussion......

You all are picking way too much on JJ.... and all over semantics!!!

FWD the lawyer in you just dosn't allow you to be wrong... you and JJ at several junctions were arguing the same point but from different perspectives.
And CD is being...... well... like usual... the devil's advocate. :lol

The freedoms accorded to us by the U.S. Constitution allow us to worship as we please... that is an amazing priviledge.

If we don't like something, we can lobby for change; just like the other side can lobby for the 'status quo'... that's part of our democracy.

People can be extreme on both sides of the argument. Nevertheless, the existence of 'religious' symbols in our currency, in emblems or in other federal/state establishments shouldn't bother people any more than the existence of Satanic cults, Neo-nazis or fascists bothers them.

IF those symbols are there, it's because our founding fathers felt the need to attribute the greatness of this country to its faith in GOD. But if that sentiment is no longer prevalent -- the people can do as they please; just as long as it is voted for by the people and the decision is not left up to some random judge or court.

[Crookshanks]

The reason the ten commandments are relevant is because all of our laws are based directly on those ten commandments!

Our laws were not based on the teachings of the Koran - however, if I went to live in a predominately Muslim country, I would expect to see displays of the Koran. It would be foolish of me (not to mention life threatening) to protest those displays just because I'm a christian and not a Muslim!

The same reasoning should apply with the displays of the ten commandments. And, I really doubt that a person could be so offended just by passing by the display! I pass by things all the time that I find offensive, but I'm not hiring a lawyer to prosecute the offenders!!!!

[FromWayDowntown]

FWD the lawyer in you just dosn't allow you to be wrong... you and JJ at several junctions were arguing the same point but from different perspectives.

I'd dispute your characterization of my position -- and I'd tell you that the sincerity with which I hold my position on this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with my profession. Like I've posted repeatedly, I've reached my position on this issue largely because nobody has been able to answer the question that I've posed to my satisfaction. If someone would answer that question in a manner that suggested something I've never considered before, I suppose it's possible that I could be swayed to rethink. That's hardly a refusal to allow myself to be wrong, hegamboa -- it's a willingness to listen to what others have to say, if they'll answer the question I've posed.

My problem with jochhejaam in this thread isn't semantic. We're taking divergent views here, but I think I've been fair with him in trying to answer the questions he poses. I don't think he's accorded me the same courtesy, frankly, choosing instead to focus on whether I quoted him accurately and trying to recast my questions to better suit his argument. I don't think that my questions and his are the same -- I think they seek very different answers. As I say, I've provided jochhejaam with my answers, but have yet to see anything resembling an answer to my questions. That's a frustrating part of argument around here. People take positions and stick with tenets, but frequently aren't willing to actually engage in a give-and-take discussion.

[boutons_]

"The same reasoning should apply with the displays of the ten commandments"

No, your self-serving, benighted reasoning sucks.

[Phenomanul]

I'd dispute your characterization of my position -- and I'd tell you that the sincerity with which I hold my position on this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with my profession. Like I've posted repeatedly, I've reached my position on this issue largely because nobody has been able to answer the question that I've posed to my satisfaction. If someone would answer that question in a manner that suggested something I've never considered before, I suppose it's possible that I could be swayed to rethink. That's hardly a refusal to allow myself to be wrong, hegamboa -- it's a willingness to listen to what others have to say, if they'll answer the question I've posed.

My problem with jochhejaam in this thread isn't semantic. We're taking divergent views here, but I think I've been fair with him in trying to answer the questions he poses. I don't think he's accorded me the same courtesy, frankly, choosing instead to focus on whether I quoted him accurately and trying to recast my questions to better suit his argument. I don't think that my questions and his are the same -- I think they seek very different answers. As I say, I've provided jochhejaam with my answers, but have yet to see anything resembling an answer to my questions. That's a frustrating part of argument around here. People take positions and stick with tenets, but frequently aren't willing to actually engage in a give-and-take discussion.

Fair enough.

[Spurminator]

The reason the ten commandments are relevant is because all of our laws are based directly on those ten commandments!


I agree. The Founding Fathers basically reworded the Ten Commandments when writing the Constitution. That's why you see all of those references like "We the people shall have no other gods before Our Protestant Lord God" and "No citizen shall covet his neighbor's wife." That's also why it's against the law to commit adultery, work on the sabbath, use the Lord's name in vain and make idols. And most importantly, that's why we have so many juvenile detention centers filled with children who do not honour their father and mother.

Furthermore, because of our reliance on the Ten Commandments we are the only nation in the free world who is against murder and stealing.

So if some athiest has a problem with a two ton granite display in front of a court of law, they can just move to France or Spain, where there's never been an official state religion.

[ObiwanGinobili]

I agree. The Founding Fathers basically reworded the Ten Commandments when writing the Constitution. That's why you see all of those references like "We the people shall have no other gods before Our Protestant Lord God" and "No citizen shall covet his neighbor's wife." That's also why it's against the law to commit adultery, work on the sabbath, use the Lord's name in vain and make idols. And most importantly, that's why we have so many juvenile detention centers filled with children who do not honour their father and mother.

Furthermore, because of our reliance on the Ten Commandments we are the only nation in the free world who is against murder and stealing.

So if some athiest has a problem with a two ton granite display in front of a court of law, they can just git out.


it's sopossed to be blue and italic.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

isn't argentina officially a roman catholic state..? manu...
it is, and its bullshit IMO

EDIT: To clarify, our constitution does provide freedom of religion, and our government does respect the practice of every religion. Having said that, our government provides a variety of subsidies to the Catholic Church.

[ChumpDumper]

Our laws were not based on the teachings of the Koran - however, if I went to live in a predominately Muslim country, I would expect to see displays of the Koran. It would be foolish of me (not to mention life threatening) to protest those displays just because I'm a christian and not a Muslim!

The same reasoning should apply with the displays of the ten commandments. It should be life threatening to protest a ten commandments display?

[Extra Stout]

The reason the ten commandments are relevant is because all of our laws are based directly on those ten commandments!
That little axiom had to come from your pastor. It is sort of misleading. The Decalogue is among the seminal proto-legal documents of the ancient world, but it is not alone. That context also must take into account Babylonian, Egyptian, Hittite, Greek, and Roman law. The conception that the Decalogue alone is the Urgesetz of all Western civilization is specious.


Our laws were not based on the teachings of the Koran - however, if I went to live in a predominately Muslim country, I would expect to see displays of the Koran. It would be foolish of me (not to mention life threatening) to protest those displays just because I'm a christian and not a Muslim!
I have to admit, I wouldn't really have a problem with the recognition of different religions; for example, if some Muslim civic group did something really marvelous for the community, I would not be opposed to a public display that included an expression of Islam as recognition of their contribution.

The problem, however, is that our laws are not written to allow that, and if we wish to allow that sort of thing, we really would have to nullify about 130 years or so of American jurisprudence and start again from there. That, or amend the Constitution to change the scope of the 14th Amendment.

[Spurminator]

The conception that the Decalogue alone is the Urgesetz of all Western civilization is specious.

Showoff.

[boutons_]

"You shall have no other gods but me"

... no corresponding US laws

"You shall not take the name of your Lord in vain"

... no corresponding US laws. "Oh My God" seems to programmed into every US citizens brain.

"You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy"

... no corresponding US laws. "secular" Europe has more blue laws than the USA.


"Honor your father and mother"

... no corresponding US laws

"You shall not murder"

.... murder is illegal

"You shall not commit adultery"

... is not illegal

"You shall not steal"

... stealing is illegal.

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"

... slander, libel laws.

"You shall not covet your neighbor's goods.

... not illegal. In fact, coveting goods is a fundamental engine of the US economy, aka, consumerism.

[DarkReign]

More significant to me is this question: why do some Christians feel that their religion is undermined (or their faith unasserted) if the law prohibits the government from allowing public displays that are focused on only their relgious viewpoint? Is it not enough to worship God in your church and in your home and in groups (whether publicly or privately) with those who are like-minded? Why is it that the use of private means to assert religious viewpoints in a public manner are insufficient? Is it not enough for you to put the creche in your front yard each year at Christmas time? Does the vitality of your religious viewpoint depend on the government endorsing that choice and publicly displaying symbols of your religion to the exclusion of others? I've never heard anyone who supports a rollback of Establishment Clause principles adequately answer that question or any of its subparts.

I thought you participated in those religious threads? They are tasked with spreading their beliefs with fervency.

Mere laws and tradition will not stand in the way of their moral superiorty, which they will spread because their way is the right way. They know that because a book told them.

Fight that logic.

[scott]

I agree. The Founding Fathers basically reworded the Ten Commandments when writing the Constitution. That's why you see all of those references like "We the people shall have no other gods before Our Protestant Lord God" and "No citizen shall covet his neighbor's wife." That's also why it's against the law to commit adultery, work on the sabbath, use the Lord's name in vain and make idols. And most importantly, that's why we have so many juvenile detention centers filled with children who do not honour their father and mother.

Furthermore, because of our reliance on the Ten Commandments we are the only nation in the free world who is against murder and stealing.

So if some athiest has a problem with a two ton granite display in front of a court of law, they can just move to France or Spain, where there's never been an official state religion.

Word.

[FromWayDowntown]

I thought you participated in those religious threads? They are tasked with spreading their beliefs with fervency.

Mere laws and tradition will not stand in the way of their moral superiorty, which they will spread because their way is the right way. They know that because a book told them.

Fight that logic.

Trust me -- I understand your point. It's telling to me that nobody has bothered to answer my question as of yet. Telling, but not surprising.

[MannyIsGod]

Trust me -- I understand your point. It's telling to me that nobody has bothered to answer my question as of yet. Telling, but not surprising.Avoidance is a central theme of Joch's posting.

[jochhejaam]

joch, would this post from earlier in the thread be an accurate representation of your position?


Stout, I’d be interested in your definition of “The Religious Right.” Too many unfairly associate it or bunch it together with unflattering catch phrases dreamed up by the enemies of religion such as, The Far Right, The Lunatic Fringe, Religious Fanatics and so on. With that being the case I’m hesitant to respond based on the wording of your post. I'll respond in spite of that.

I do not consult with, nor am I bound by an agenda or any particular faction. That being said my position is that regardless of personal feelings or beliefs, I am obligated to follow the law as its currently interpreted, however, I reserve the right to civily disobey any future law passed by man that would infringe on my personal right to freely adhere to or practice the tenets God has set forth in Scripture.
Although I do accept the concept of stare decisis, I don't do so vigorously or without reservation. I don’t believe that the authors of the First Amendment intended to remove every hint or vestige of morality from every nook and cranny of government. The U.S. Constitution is not a perfect document, therefore future alterations for the purpose of clarification, be it by Amendment or Supreme Court ruling, may be in order.

[FromWayDowntown]

Stout, I’d be interested in your definition of “The Religious Right.” Too many unfairly associate it or bunch it together with unflattering catch phrases dreamed up by the enemies of religion such as, The Far Right, The Lunatic Fringe, Religious Fanatics and so on. With that being the case I’m hesitant to respond based on the wording of your post. I'll respond in spite of that.

I agree with that. It's decidedly unfair to lump all Christians with conservative political beliefs into the stereotypes that have grown to be associated with those monnikers. There are certainly those who fit the stereotype, but not all.


Although I do accept the concept of stare decisis, I don't do so vigorously or without reservation.

That's good, because stare decisis is by no means an inexorable command. Were it, no application of law to fact could ever be reconsidered, regardless of how egregiously bad that decision might be. Stare decisis is, nevertheless, a crucial doctrine for assuring that the principles of law by which people go about their lives will not be undermined by changes in the prevailing winds of political or social belief. Stare decisis is really an adhesive that connects law to fact and ensures that there will be ordered application of law to fact in every circumstance.


I don’t believe that the authors of the First Amendment intended to remove every hint or vestige of morality from every nook and cranny of government.

So, is governmental morality coterminous with the overt recognition of Christian iconography and tenets? is it impossible for government to act in a morally responsible fashion without at the same time endorsing (whether tacitly or expressly) the Christian faith?


The U.S. Constitution is not a perfect document, therefore future alterations for the purpose of clarification, be it by Amendment or Supreme Court ruling, may be in order.

I don't dispute that the Court might eventually decide that the current line of Establishment Clause precedent either needs to be reworked or completely overhauled (though I think we're a very long way from that happening). I don't think the Court can do so without seriously jeopardizing the commitment to stare decisis, which creates an interesting jurisprudential question. Regardless, the edicts of the Court aren't alterations to the Constitution. Application of the document's general wording to particular fact situations is not alteration of the Constitution. I think that sort of a characterization is a particularly gross misstatement by those who consider a non-conservative Court to be an activist Court and who deride it as such.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown]Then tell me to "shut the hell up" and to "get over it." I assure you, my thoughts will remain the same. I had no idea that the only valid response to your question was the response of whomever your post was directed to.
Sure, now that you're prepared for it. :lol




Of course, you don't seem to be at all inclined to actually address my posts since you still haven't answered my question. You've only given me dodges arguing about semantics and detailing your hurt feelings over my re-characterization of your statements.
I assure you FWD, you are not capable of hurting my feelings. But by stating that (you are clueless as to my feelings), you only reinforce that you have a bad habit of trying to direct or manipulate the conversation with what appear to be intentional mischaracterizations.





the posting of the Ten Commandments IS an endorsement of religion when it's undertaken with religious motivation, as was true in Judge Moore's case
That's the interpretation of some. The truth of the matter is that displaying the Ten Commandments does not constitute the establishment of a religion.





I wonder: if our government were posting excerpts from the Koran on stone tablets in front of courthouses (to the exclusion of the Ten Commandments) or permitting displays favorable to Mohammed (to the exclusion of displays favorable to Jesus Christ) I suspect you'd have a major, major problem with that result. My hypothesis that most of the Christian Right would be up in arms if government were singling any other sort of religious iconography to the exclusion of Christian symbols is precisely why I think your argument fails.

Hey -- how about that? I'm right back to the question you haven't answered.

ManuMania presented the question for you and indeed I did respond to it. (see post #90)

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown] So, is governmental morality coterminous with the overt recognition of Christian iconography and tenets? is it impossible for government to act in a morally responsible fashion without at the same time endorsing (whether tacitly or expressly) the Christian faith?
Is there a legitimate religion (sorry Scientologists) that does not claim morality as being a central and inextricable element of it's tenets? I'd say that representatives of the different religions that are peculiar to the American people could agree on a long list of moral absolutes that would not be considered offensive or injurious by any of them. For starters, take those absolutes and teach them in the Public Schools, hopefully reinforcing what's being taught at home.
I don't see that as a violation of the Constitution.

IMO, those in Government should want to be viewed by the public as having a keen understanding and respect for moral absolutes. You know, set a good example. It's run by people, not robots.

[Extra Stout]

Stout, I’d be interested in your definition of “The Religious Right.” Too many unfairly associate it or bunch it together with unflattering catch phrases dreamed up by the enemies of religion such as, The Far Right, The Lunatic Fringe, Religious Fanatics and so on. With that being the case I’m hesitant to respond based on the wording of your post. I'll respond in spite of that.
When I speak of the "Religious Right," I am speaking of that portion of evangelical conservatives who wish to see a more overtly Christian presence in government and in society in general, both in representation and in practice, who to some degree mate religious and partisan identity.

I agree with some of the positions. I too would like to see an expansion of Christian influence upon society. I like to see people whose morality is informed by faith in office.

I do not like the idea of the government or a political party becoming more overtly Christian. I like Christians in the GOP (and in the Democratic Party for that matter), but I do not like a Christian GOP. We end up getting political ideology on things like tax policy and Chamber of Commerce issues, and foreign policy infused into the faith.

I do not like using the power of the state to expand Christian influence in society. Not. One. Bit.

We end up with Christian defamed by things like the Abramoff scandal. We end up with Grover Norquist fretting about the future of evangelical leadership, not because he's concerned about the flock, but because he's looking to ensure GOP turnout.

I accept and understand, however, that the Democratic Party has a contingency that regards the sincere practice of religion in America as a hindrance to the nation's advancement as per their worldview, and who wish to use the power of the state, popular culture, or whatever else can be brought within their means to marginalize faith in society into irrelevance, so I think it is difficult for Christians to embrace non-partisanship. There is a clear enemy on the advance. I figure Christians on the left either don't see the secularists for what they are, or are theological liberals who view the faith as an emotionally cathartic dog-and-pony show supporting a social justice agenda.

When I speak of the "Far Right," I mean the Dominionists on rightward to the Theonomists. I agree with nothing they have to say.


Although I do accept the concept of stare decisis, I don't do so vigorously or without reservation. I don’t believe that the authors of the First Amendment intended to remove every hint or vestige of morality from every nook and cranny of government. The U.S. Constitution is not a perfect document, therefore future alterations for the purpose of clarification, be it by Amendment or Supreme Court ruling, may be in order.
I disagree that government endorsement of Christianity through the display of symbols is necessary to maintain morality in government. I think it is important to keep moral people in positions of power. I think that if professing the Christian faith becomes the litmus test of morality, we'll get charlatans who praise Jesus on camera, then scuttle off to rob us blind (see DeLay, Tom). While Christians are the most likely to hold a code of moral similar to mine, I can accept that there are those who practice other faiths, or even no faith, and who follow different ideologies, yet who still are people of integrity. I think politicians have to be graded on what they do, rather than what they say.

[boutons_]

"that regards the sincere practice of religion in America as a hindrance to the nation's advancement"

This sounds like the anonymous/phantom "some would blah blah" so frequently used by the Repugs to slime their opponents with treason, anti-Americanism, appeasement, pro-terrorist, etc, when their opponents don't espouse the "some" straw man position at all.

"to marginalize faith in society"

name names, not "some", and campaigns and Democratic, or any, orgs that do this.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Extra Stout]
I do not like the idea of the government or a political party becoming more overtly Christian. I like Christians in the GOP (and in the Democratic Party for that matter), but I do not like a Christian GOP. We end up getting political ideology on things like tax policy and Chamber of Commerce issues, and foreign policy infused into the faith.

I do not like using the power of the state to expand Christian influence in society. Not. One. Bit.
That's just excellent (do you tire of hearing that?)






I disagree that government endorsement of Christianity through the display of symbols is necessary to maintain morality in government. I would agree with that, but on the other hand, I don't see the necessity of squelching it. I'll take that a step further and state that overt symbolism in the form of Nativity Scenes, monuments of the Ten Commmandments, etc., are not an endorsement of Christianity. I would say it would be more fitting to describe them as significant historical symbolism.
(I don't know what impact a Nativity Scene or a Monument of the Ten Commandments in and of itself could have on a person, but I applaud those whose singular reason for wanting them put on display is in the hope that they could possibly lead someone to redemption).


I think it is important to keep moral people in positions of power. I think that if professing the Christian faith becomes the litmus test of morality, we'll get charlatans who praise Jesus on camera, then scuttle off to rob us blind (see DeLay, Tom). While Christians are the most likely to hold a code of moral similar to mine, I can accept that there are those who practice other faiths, or even no faith, and who follow different ideologies, yet who still are people of integrity. I think politicians have to be graded on what they do, rather than what they say.
Excellent thoughts again Sir Stout.

[Extra Stout]

http://alternet.org/story/36195/
http://www.godlessamericans.org/
http://www.ffrf.org/index2.php
http://www.malleus.net/

Just a few examples... I am not referring to atheism, but rather anti-theism.

[Extra Stout]

I would agree with that, but on the other hand, I don't see the necessity of squelching it. I'll take that a step further and state that overt symbolism in the form of Nativity Scenes, monuments of the Ten Commmandments, etc., are not an endorsement of Christianity. I would say it would be more fitting to describe them as significant historical symbolism.
Those sorts of things depend upon context. That is why some displays stay and some come down.

[boutons_]

I haven't heard of any anti-theistic activities in the USA (which means they are pretty invisible), and the current, periodic upsweep in American religiosity seems to indicate anti-theistic organizations have no or trivial effect.

ie, anti-theism is not worth countering with, is not a pretext for the evangelical political push to tear down the church-state wall and install Christianity as the preferred, endorsed American state religion, espeicially not with the historically high levels of corruption and lying in the current Repug leadership, who would exploit such Christian support as badly as they have exploited WTC and the war on terr to advance Repug entrenchment to the detriment of the county.

[jochhejaam]

For those interested, here's an update on current litigation initiated by the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice).

From Jay Sekulow, founder of the ACLJ

This morning I asked Frank Manion, Senior Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, to give me an update on the Ten Commandments cases that are being litigated around the country. We have seen great success on this issue, but I wanted to give you a sense of what is happening in the most recent challenge. The ACLU has initiated federal litigation in Kentucky against a Foundations of Law & Government display in the Garrard County Courthouse. In addition to the Ten Commandments, the display includes other historical documents such as the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights. The issue in the case is whether under the Supreme Court’s decisions in McCreary County and Van Orden, the display can pass constitutional muster. Last fall, in a case that fit squarely within the two decisions, ACLU v. Mercer County, the Sixth Circuit ruled in our favor. The court there asserted that the ACLU’s arguments over church-state separation were growing “tiresome.” We are currently drafting a Motion for Summary Judgment that will be filed by the end of this month on behalf of Garrard County, Kentucky.



In Utah, we have another case that has developed that’s now on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. A New Age religious organization has sued the city of Pleasant Grove in order to have its quasi-religious monument erected next to a Fraternal Order of Eagles Ten Commandments monolith in a public park. The issue in the case is whether the First Amendment requires the city to erect the New Age religious monument in its park, despite the fact that neither the monument nor its donor has any historical connection with the city. The law in the Tenth Circuit is clear that permanent monuments in a public area constitute non-public forums. As a non-public forum, the city is permitted to exclude access to that area based on speaker identity, though not on viewpoint. The plaintiffs are represented by a prominent atheist lawyer who is using this tactic to force removal of Ten Commandments monuments throughout Utah. If successful, we can expect to see this strategy used by the ACLU all over the country. This is why we have assembled our senior legal team to fight this attempt to remove these Ten Commandments displays. We are expecting a date for oral argument in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals for this case in the next few weeks. I will keep everyone posted as it develops.



Also in Utah, another New Age religious group has challenged the city of Duchesne’s sale of a Ten Commandments monument and a parcel of land to a private party. The monument and parcel were sold in order to avoid any Establishment Clause difficulties. The issue before the court was whether the sale itself involved the Establishment Clause. The case is similar to three others that we prevailed on behalf of a city selling a Ten Commandments monument to a private party. We won cases in Marshfield, Wisconsin; La Crosse, Wisconsin; and Frederick, Maryland. These cases are also similar to the victory we obtained in the Mt. Soledad case in San Diego, in which we are awaiting oral argument from the Ninth Circuit.


http://www.aclj.org/trialnotebook/read.aspx?id=401

[ChumpDumper]

Why would the court not find that tiresome. It's fairly well-settled law as far as the contextual display goes.

It's no slab of granite.

[Mr. Peabody]

[QUOTE]
I'd say that representatives of the different religions that are peculiar to the American people could agree on a long list of moral absolutes that would not be considered offensive or injurious by any of them. For starters, take those absolutes and teach them in the Public Schools, hopefully reinforcing what's being taught at home.


I'd like to hear your thoughts on some examples of the agreed moral tenets that the "long list" of moral absolutes would contain. I don't think your list would be as long as you think it would.

[FromWayDowntown]

That's the interpretation of some. The truth of the matter is that displaying the Ten Commandments does not constitute the establishment of a religion.

Curiously, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that, at least in some circumstances, the display of the Ten Commandments IS an endorsement of religion and, therefore, an impermissible establishment of religion. It's not a terribly consistent doctrine; though I'll tell you that I think the results of the particular cases that come before the Court end up being rather predictable.

I can respect that you disagree with those conclusions, but for now, that is the law of the land. It is the law of the land, I think, because the displays that have been struck down are been burdened by express reference to Christianity (whether because they are provided by Christian groups for the purpose of proselytizing or because the government officials who sponsor the displays consider the displays religious when put into place).

Your insistence that any public display of the Ten Commandments by government is wholly neutral and not at all an endorsement or establishment is contrary to existing law.


ManuMania presented the question for you and indeed I did respond to it. (see post #90)

But you didn't. You said:


The question that needs to be asked/answered is whether or not the issues we're discussing are to be construed as endorsing a religion. They are not.

If our government officially endorses Christianity, get back with me and then I'll answer the question.

The premise of your answer ignores the premise of my question. My question remains: if, instead of displaying the Ten Commandments, a local government was supporting displays of governing documents of Islam or the landmark documents of atheism (if such exist), to the exclusion of the Ten Commandments, would you still insist that there was no problem with the act? If, instead of a Christian prayer at a local school event, the local school board was permitting wholly pagan rituals, would there be no problem in your mind? If, instead of a nativity scene, City Hall in a community prominently displayed a scene depicting the birth of Mohammed, woudl there be no problem in your mind?

I understand that you think none of those are endorsements of religion. That's not my question, though. My question is ultimately whether you think Christians would protest and whether you think they would be justified in doing so. Assuming the hypothetical facts, would Christians be appropriately vilified for seeking legal recourse to change those practices? Should they expect to prevail in courts of law?



you only reinforce that you have a bad habit of trying to direct or manipulate the conversation with what appear to be intentional mischaracterizations.

I apologize to you to the extent that any of this has become personal between us. I think we got off on the wrong foot with a misperception that has snowballed a bit. I certainly haven't intended it to become so contentious, but I'll admit that I've probably let myself become a bit too personally animated about our conversation here. I assure you, joch, I respect your opinions -- even if I disagree with them -- and enjoy chatting with you in this forum. If I've strayed from that path here, that's my fault and you have my apology.

Because I respect your opinions, I'd really like you to answer the questions I've posted at several points in this thread -- not with restatements of my premises or with a quasi-legal answer that doesn't address the substance of the question. I seek a true and genuine answer to those questions. To that extent, I am manipulating the conversation, hoping that I might have that desire satisfied before this thread ends.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown]Curiously, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that, at least in some circumstances, the display of the Ten Commandments IS an endorsement of religion and, therefore, an impermissible establishment of religion. It's not a terribly consistent doctrine; though I'll tell you that I think the results of the particular cases that come before the Court end up being rather predictable.

I can respect that you disagree with those conclusions, but for now, that is the law of the land. It is the law of the land, I think, because the displays that have been struck down are been burdened by express reference to Christianity (whether because they are provided by Christian groups for the purpose of proselytizing or because the government officials who sponsor the displays consider the displays religious when put into place).

Your insistence that any public display of the Ten Commandments by government is wholly neutral and not at all an endorsement or establishment is contrary to existing law.
We abide by the laws as they have been interpreted. When we passionately disagree with the interpretation we can litigate to the best of our abilities, exhausting all appeals, and then once again we abide by the Courts opinion. This can go on for as long as there is the will to do so with the hope of obtaining a favorable opinion from the Court. (Forever?)





The premise of your answer ignores the premise of my question. My question remains: if, instead of displaying the Ten Commandments, a local government was supporting displays of governing documents of Islam or the landmark documents of atheism (if such exist), to the exclusion of the Ten Commandments, would you still insist that there was no problem with the act? If, instead of a Christian prayer at a local school event, the local school board was permitting wholly pagan rituals, would there be no problem in your mind? If, instead of a nativity scene, City Hall in a community prominently displayed a scene depicting the birth of Mohammed, woudl there be no problem in your mind?
I understand that you think none of those are endorsements of religion. That's not my question, though. My question is ultimately whether you think Christians would protest and whether you think they would be justified in doing so. Assuming the hypothetical facts, would Christians be appropriately vilified for seeking legal recourse to change those practices? Should they expect to prevail in courts of law?
I agree that I sidestepped the premise of your question. Nevertheless, I did offer a response. The question is hypothetical and it’s not incumbent of me to respond to a scenario that has not and may never take place. In essence, the way I'm seeing it, you’re attempting to win talking points via illusion.

BTW, I'm betting that you could correctly predict what my answer would be.




I apologize to you to the extent that any of this has become personal between us. I think we got off on the wrong foot with a misperception that has snowballed a bit. I certainly haven't intended it to become so contentious, but I'll admit that I've probably let myself become a bit too personally animated about our conversation here. I assure you, joch, I respect your opinions -- even if I disagree with them -- and enjoy chatting with you in this forum. If I've strayed from that path here, that's my fault and you have my apology.
You've never responded to me in such a way that I've felt an apology was in order. There's no fault or blame or straying IMO. We have differing opinions. and you defended your position quite well. Because of that along with my respect for your opinions, my perception of the issue has been somewhat modified.



I'd really like you to answer the questions I've posted at several points in this thread -- not with restatements of my premises or with a quasi-legal answer that doesn't address the substance of the question. I seek a true and genuine answer to those questions. To that extent, I am manipulating the conversation, hoping that I might have that desire satisfied before this thread ends.
There is the possiblity that I wasn't able to formulate an appropiate response to some of your questions (along with my aversion to hypothetical traps). That may account for some of the unanswered questions, but I will attempt to go back and selectively respond :angel to some of the questions before the thread gets too deeply buried.

[Guru of Nothing]

I checked, but did not doublecheck - I did not say anything stupid in this thread.

It's as if God loves me more than others.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown] More significant to me is this question: why do some Christians feel that their religion is undermined (or their faith unasserted) if the law prohibits the government from allowing public displays that are focused on only their relgious viewpoint? Is it not enough to worship God in your church and in your home and in groups (whether publicly or privately) with those who are like-minded? Why is it that the use of private means to assert religious viewpoints in a public manner are insufficient? Is it not enough for you to put the creche in your front yard each year at Christmas time? I don't think it's unusual or out of line for Christians to fight back when the status quo is disturbed. The fact that the displaying of the Commandments is upheld in many instances is proof that their feelings are not without merit. We are under attack by haters of Christianity and I think it's only natural to fight back. We're winning battles in the courts that we shouldn't even have to fight!
Attack- Christian groups are often denied the usage of Public Schools for after hour activities while other groups are given access to the Schools.
We're winning this battle in the Courts but why is it that certain people and groups feel the need to stifle the assembly of Christians?

Attack-Fighting to have the phrase "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Attack-Fighting to have "In God We Trust" removed from our currency


Why should we forfeit these things without a fight? Christianity and pacifism are not synonymous. We did not initiate these fights but we will engage. We are irrefutably in a battle.

1 Timothy 6: 12 12 Fight the good fight of faith. 2 Timothy 4:7-8 "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

[Guru of Nothing]

Attack-Fighting to have "In God We Trust" removed from our currency



Fuck Money!

Sincerely, God.

[Phenomanul]

I checked, but did not doublecheck - I did not say anything stupid in this thread.

It's as if God loves me more than others.



Fuck Money!

Sincerely, God.


What a great set-up GON!!!

[Spurminator]

Why should we forfeit these things without a fight?

Under God" wasn't even IN the Pledge of Allegience until 1954. If I were an athiest, I could just as easily say that was an attack on my beliefs.

"Under God" and "In God We Trust" aren't going to bring more people to church or care for the suffering. Regardless of their function or relevance, all this debate serves to do is reinforce the stereotype of the pushy "evangelism-by-force" Christian.

Since the Civil War, some groups have made efforts to rewrite the Preamble of the Constitution to read similar to the following:


We the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Governor among the nations, and His revealed will as of supreme authority, in order to constitute a Christian government, to form a more perfect union, ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Congress has considered this kind of revision several times. Now, say Congress approved this in 1950 for whatever reason. Move the clock forward to today, and the ACLU is lobbying to remove this new language and return to the original Preamble. Which side of the fence would you be on? Would you agree, or would you dismiss the ACLU as an extremist organization? I mean, they're just words, what's the big deal?

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Spurminator]Under God" wasn't even IN the Pledge of Allegience until 1954. If I were an athiest, I could just as easily say that was an attack on my beliefs.
Only 52 years? Is that supposed to pass as sound reasoning for it's removal without being contested?

Explain how the voluntary reciting of the Pledge is an attack on the beliefs of atheists.

If reciting the pledge is voluntary how is that an endorsement of religion?

The Pledge doesn't promote any particular god, does it?










"Under God" and "In God We Trust" aren't going to bring more people to church or care for the suffering.
That would mean that it's not a proselytizing tool for religion. Thanks for jumping to my side of the aisle, I appreciate your support. (arguing both sides of the issue in the same post is somewhat unusual but not totally unheard of Brother Spur. :lol )







Regardless of their function or relevance, all this debate serves to do is reinforce the stereotype of the pushy "evangelism-by-force" Christian.
Earlier in the post you stated that it's not an evangelism tool and now you're labeling it "evangelism by force". Which is it?

Voluntarily reciting the Pledge and "In God We Trust" are in no way evangelism tools. Now if the currency were labeled "In Jesus Christ We Trust" you would have a point. But it isn't and you don't






Since the Civil War, some groups have made efforts to rewrite the Preamble of the Constitution to read similar to the following:

Congress has considered this kind of revision several times. Now, say Congress approved this in 1950 for whatever reason. Move the clock forward to today, and the ACLU is lobbying to remove this new language and return to the original Preamble. Which side of the fence would you be on? Would you agree, or would you dismiss the ACLU as an extremist organization? I mean, they're just words, what's the big deal?You are aware that hypotheticals are not considered a legitimate form of advancing an arguement, yes? Can you cite something that actually happened to support your argument?

[FromWayDowntown]

You are aware that hypotheticals are not considered a legitimate form of advancing an arguement, yes? Can you cite something that actually happened to support your argument?

You might take that notion up with Socrates, who seemed to think that one perfectly legitimate way to counter an argument is to test whether you get an acceptable or logical result under changed facts that are less-than-favorable to the argument's proponent. His methods have become a paragon for teaching. I guess I could see where one would dismiss that technique as an illegitmate form of argument, though. :rolleyes

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Spurminator]"Under God" and "In God We Trust" aren't going to bring more people to church or care for the suffering. Regardless of their function or relevance, all this debate serves to do is reinforce the stereotype of the pushy "evangelism-by-force" Christian.
That's one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard Spurminator. Never in my life have I heard of someone use "Under God" from the Pledge or "In God We Trust" on our currency in their attempts to evangelize someone. Never! They are totally immaterial when it comes to evangelizing.

Have you or any other Christians attempted to use them? Geez, I hope not.

[jochhejaam]

You might take that notion up with Socrates, who seemed to think that one perfectly legitimate way to counter an argument is to test whether you get an acceptable or logical result under changed facts that are less-than-favorable to the argument's proponent. His methods have become a paragon for teaching. I guess I could see where one would dismiss that technique as an illegitmate form of argument, though. :rolleyes
Because fiction is always more subtantial than fact. :rolleyes :lol

[DarkReign]

Because fiction is always more subtantial than fact. :rolleyes :lol

EDITED for being totally irrelevant.

[Spurminator]

Only 52 years? Is that supposed to pass as sound reasoning for it's removal without being contested?

Why contest it? Just because?


Explain how the voluntary reciting of the Pledge is an attack on the beliefs of atheists.

If reciting the pledge is voluntary how is that an endorsement of religion?

You're naive if you think it's voluntary. Kids are expected to stand and say the Pledge and not be disruptive. It's not like being in class is voluntary, like, for example, a football game.

And if it's truly voluntary, at some point kids will stop doing it because it's not a particularly cool thing to do. So now you have God's name attached to a mockery. Frankly, I'd prefer it wasn't cheapened by its inclusion in a trite oath of submission to a man-made piece of colorful cloth and the man-made government it represents. I pledge MY allegiance to God. My country, while important to me, is a distant second.


The Pledge doesn't promote any particular god, does it?

:lol


That would mean that it's not a proselytizing tool for religion. Thanks for jumping to my side of the aisle, I appreciate your support. (arguing both sides of the issue in the same post is somewhat unusual but not totally unheard of Brother Spur. )


[QUOTE]
That's one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard Spurminator. Never in my life have I heard of someone use "Under God" from the Pledge or "In God We Trust" on our currency in their attempts to evangelize someone. Never! They are totally immaterial when it comes to evangelizing.

Have you or any other Christians attempted to use them? Geez, I hope not.

You missed the point.

Whether it is and whether it's seen as such are separate. As Christians, we believe we are called to add to the flock. Thus, we should fight only if it helps that cause.

Fighting over things that do not serve that purpose hinders our efforts.



Now if the currency were labeled "In Jesus Christ We Trust" you would have a point. But it isn't and you don't

How would that be different?

The phrase "In God We Trust" clearly implies a Deity of some sort. Many people do not believe such a Deity exists. Whether it's Yahweh, Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the term "God" implies a religious belief system. Its ambiguity towards any specific "god" does not make it less of an endorsement of a certain kind of religion.



You are aware that hypotheticals are not considered a legitimate form of advancing an arguement, yes?

Sure it is. All you have to say is "No, I would not fight for such an amendment" and my point would be largely diffused. Your refusal to do so would only strengthen my point that you feel unfairly attacked by questions over things that probably should not have been instituted in the first place.

[Mr. Peabody]

[QUOTE]
You are aware that hypotheticals [U]are not considered a legitimate form of advancing an arguement, yes? Can you cite something that actually happened to support your argument?


Who doesn't consider hypotheticals as a way of advancing in argument? Most of the propositions in philosophy are based on hypotheticals. It's a good way of determining whether a position is as consistent as it is made out to be.

[Mr. Peabody]

[QUOTE] Attack- Christian groups are often denied the usage of Public Schools for after hour activities while other groups are given access to the Schools.


Are these other groups religious groups? Or are you referring to the chess club, drama club, young Republicans, etc.? In this circumstance, it may be the case that the Christian groups are comparable to the "other" groups to which you refer.

[FromWayDowntown]

[Attack- Christian groups are often denied the usage of Public Schools for after hour activities while other groups are given access to the Schools.
We're winning this battle in the Courts but why is it that certain people and groups feel the need to stifle the assembly of Christians?

I'd tell you that if Christian groups are denied usage after school hours for activities that are permissible for other groups, then the people who are denying access are in violation of the law of the land. In a 1990 case (Board of Education of the Westside Community School v. Mergens) the Supreme Court held, quite explicitly, that such a prohibition, based on nothing other than the organization's affiliation with a religion, would evidence state hostility -- not neutrality -- to religion. As such, it was unconstitutional for the state (through a public school district) to deny access. Thus, if public school districts are denying access solely because the groups are religious, they've violated the Free Exercise Clause and should be ordered to stop.

All things being equal, there is no battle to win on that issue, though. The issue has already been decided. Assuming the facts are wholly neutral, the effort strikes me as being more about educating public school districts concerning the effect of Mergens than it is about establishing a principle that access is not an establishment.

What I don't understand about any of the situations that you detail, joch, is that they are largely issues that have already been resolved. As noted above, Mergens seems to address your first concern. I've noted elsewhere in this thread that there is language in the Supreme Court's opinion in Newdow that strongly suggests that it has already decided that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is not an unconstitutional establishment of religion. I think that precedent strongly supports the notion -- for much the same reason -- that "In God We Trust" isn't in any real danger if challenged.

You can fight back, but metaphorically, you're fighting an army that uses rubber bands by firing bazookas. These are really non-issues.

Those issues have always been seen as different than public endorsement of overtly Christian iconography and practice. The same would be true, I think, if a community used overtly Jewish or overtly Islamic symbols or speech.

The whole point brings me to another observation, though: to the extent that these are issues, they are so in the same way that you are steadfast in your belief that Christians must fight for public prayer or Ten Commandments displays or nativity scenes. Your arguments seem to contend that precedent on those matters should be rethought and that none constitutes an establishment of religion. The converse of that, of course, is that the notion that public facilities should be made available to religious groups, that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on currency, and that any public display of religious symbols should be deemed an impermissible establishment. If it's alright for those who take a narrow view of the Establishment Clause to argue for the rethinking of precedent, surely you'll have to concede that it's alright for those who think the Establishment Clause should be more comprehensive to make the same arguments.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown]I'd tell you that if Christian groups are denied usage after school hours for activities that are permissible for other groups, then the people who are denying access are in violation of the law of the land. In a 1990 case (Board of Education of the Westside Community School v. Mergens) the Supreme Court held, quite explicitly, that such a prohibition, based on nothing other than the organization's affiliation with a religion, would evidence state hostility -- not neutrality -- to religion. As such, it was unconstitutional for the state (through a public school district) to deny access. Thus, if public school districts are denying access solely because the groups are religious, they've violated the Free Exercise Clause and should be ordered to stop.

All things being equal, there is no battle to win on that issue, though. The issue has already been decided. Assuming the facts are wholly neutral, the effort strikes me as being more about educating public school districts concerning the effect of Mergens than it is about establishing a principle that access is not an establishment.
I agree, that's the only aspect that needs to be cleared up regarding this issue. There are still school boards and principles that deny access because it's their personal preference to discriminate against Christian groups. They however, are in the minority. In light of the fact that this issue has been settled by the Courts, in most circumstances the School boards would acquiesce rather than face litigation. Others deny access out of fear of litigation, that's where the education comes into play.




What I don't understand about any of the situations that you detail, joch, is that they are largely issues that have already been resolved. As noted above, Mergens seems to address your first concern. I've noted elsewhere in this thread that there is language in the Supreme Court's opinion in Newdow that strongly suggests that it has already decided that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is not an unconstitutional establishment of religion. I think that precedent strongly supports the notion -- for much the same reason -- that "In God We Trust" isn't in any real danger if challenged.

You can fight back, but metaphorically, you're fighting an army that uses rubber bands by firing bazookas. These are really non-issues.

Those issues have always been seen as different than public endorsement of overtly Christian iconography and practice. The same would be true, I think, if a community used overtly Jewish or overtly Islamic symbols or speech.
Once again I agree with your premise. My arguements are more suitable to those who still feel they should be removed on the grounds that they serve as evangelical tools or are an endorsement of religion. My friend Spurminator falls into that category.







The whole point brings me to another observation, though: to the extent that these are issues, they are so in the same way that you are steadfast in your belief that Christians must fight for public prayer or Ten Commandments displays or nativity scenes. Your arguments seem to contend that precedent on those matters should be rethought and that none constitutes an establishment of religion. The converse of that, of course, is that the notion that public facilities should be made available to religious groups, that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on currency, and that any public display of religious symbols should be deemed an impermissible establishment. If it's alright for those who take a narrow view of the Establishment Clause to argue for the rethinking of precedent, surely you'll have to concede that it's alright for those who think the Establishment Clause should be more comprehensive to make the same arguments.
I agree that the Federal Government may not create a State Run Religion. I'm not so sure that I agree that a personal endorsement by a public official in a public capacity is in violation of the portions of the Constitution that deals with this issue.

Overall your points are well taken. Thanks for the clarification.



BTW, I was too hasty with the dismissal of hypothetical arguement. I often resort to them myself in discussion.

[Guru of Nothing]

What a great set-up GON!!!

Your sense of perception is unlimitless.

[jochhejaam]

Here's just one more example of how the misinterpretation of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause has created a monster that suppresses freedom of religious expression. These Clauses were intended to advance religious freedom, not supress it!

One, and only one, complaint over a five year period causes the local Postmaster to tremble in fear and results in the accomadation of some anti-God activist (not your average athiest).
Totally unacceptable!


Crimes of Biblical Proportions
Monday, September 11, 2006
By Scott Norvell

Following complaints from a local atheist, a post office in California removed a poster carrying the words "God Bless America" from public view so it wouldn't violate the separation of church and state, reports the Santa Maria Times.

The phrase on the poster in the Lompoc post office, which also pictured an American flag, so offended local resident Matt Hughes that he demanded it be removed.

"They posted a religious expression, in this case, a prayer, and it's not the business of our government to be promoting religion," Hughes said. "That's the business of our churches." <Not! That's a right protected by the Constitution!>
The postmaster <aka the wimp> to whom he complained moved the poster to a back room out of public view. It had been hanging on a wall above the customer service counter since shortly after 9/11/01.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213404,00.html

[Phenomanul]

Your sense of perception is unlimitless.


And your sense of spiteful sarcasm is overflowing. :rolleyes


eehhhh.

[Duff McCartney]

Well as Penn Gillette said...that is true...seperation of church and state is a lie. There should complete and utter seperation of church and state and that doesn't happen.

So you're right Katherine Harris....it is a lie.

[ChumpDumper]

If you live in Lompoc, you know there is such a thing as hell.

[smeagol]

Well as Penn Gillette said...that is true...seperation of church and state is a lie. There should complete and utter seperation of church and state and that doesn't happen.

So you're right Katherine Harris....it is a lie.
Penn Gillette? Yeah, there's a guy we should all be listening too when it comes to politics . . . :rolleyes

[jochhejaam]

Well as Penn Gillette said...that is true...seperation of church and state is a lie. There should complete and utter seperation of church and state and that doesn't happen.




The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government. -Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States January 1, 1802 in an address to the Danbury Baptists-


Thomas Jefferson > Penn Gillette

[ChumpDumper]

Preaching to the chior.

[FromWayDowntown]

Thomas Jefferson > Penn Gillette

Of course. But it would be helpful if you would post something that Jefferson actually wrote in support of that proposition.

Here (from the Library of Congress website (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)) is the full text of the letter that President Jefferson actually sent to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802:


To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802

I've scanned the document and, frankly, don't see any references to one-way streets or to ensuring that Christian principles will stay in government. Indeed, what Jefferson wrote is pretty much consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence -- government may not take a position on religious issues, but cannot interfere with the individual right to practice religion as one sees fit.


The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government

I was curious, though, about two things -- first did President Jefferson include language like you intimate was part of his correspondence to the Danbury Baptist Association in an earlier draft of his letter? The answer appears to me to be "no." Again, from the Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html):


To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and, in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,

[Jefferson first wrote: "confining myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine and that." These lines he crossed out and then wrote: "concurring with"; having crossed out these two words, he wrote: "Adhering to this great act of national legislation in behalf of the rights of conscience"; next he crossed out these words and wrote: "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience I shall see with friendly dispositions the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties."]

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & the Danbury Baptist [your religious] association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802

The other question that occurred to me (and which I had never previously considered) was whether President Jefferson might have given a separate address to the DBA on January 1, 1802 and might have tried to memorialize his remarks in the famous letter. That appears to be impossible as historical evidence suggests that President Jefferson was in Washington for the New Year and, to my way of thinking, likely could not have made it to and from Connecticut in such a short period of time.

In other words, Jefferson never said that.

[jochhejaam]

In other words, Jefferson never said that.


If you disagree with something, deny it ever existed. That's quite the educated and constructive way of addressing an opinion that runs contrary to your own.
Well done FWD.

[Spurminator]

If you disagree with something, deny it ever existed. That's quite the educated and constructive way of addressing an opinion that runs contrary to your own.
Well done FWD.


Uh, I think if one can prove it never existed (especially when the burden of proof isn't even on him) then it is pretty much the MOST educated and constructive way of addressing an opinion.

[jochhejaam]

Uh, I think if one can prove it never existed (especially when the burden of proof isn't even on him) then it is pretty much the MOST educated and constructive way of addressing an opinion.
Well, it would be rather foolish to assert the non-existence of something if you couldn't prove it.

So. prove it never existed.

If someone does, great. I'll attack the issue from another angle.
Fair enough?

[FromWayDowntown]

If you disagree with something, deny it ever existed. That's quite the educated and constructive way of addressing an opinion that runs contrary to your own.
Well done FWD.

Either the Library of Congress has the wrong draft of the letter, or your effort to paraphrase Jefferson's words is demonstrably incorrect. I didn't offer an opinion -- I think I simply showed that Jefferson's document does not say what you contend it says.

[FromWayDowntown]

Well, it would be rather foolish to assert the non-existence of something if you couldn't prove it.

So. prove it never existed.

If someone does, great. I'll attack the issue from another angle.
Fair enough?

Wait -- you cite a specific source (which is THE specific source -- the only specific source -- for the wall of separation metaphor), contend it says something (that government should adhere to Christian principles), and then, when it's shown to not say what you contend it says, you implore us to search all of history and prove your erroneous paraphrase wrong?!?!? That's even more ridiculous than contending that hypothetical situations are an untenable argumentative strategy.

Prove to me that Jefferson EVER, ANYWHERE said what you contend he said.

[Spurminator]

Well, it would be rather foolish to assert the non-existence of something if you couldn't prove it.

So. prove it never existed.

If someone does, great. I'll attack the issue from another angle.
Fair enough?

No, the burden is on you to prove its existence because you used it as a source.

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg3.htm

[Spurminator]

FWD, while you're at it, go ahead and prove that Pop Rocks and Coke DON'T make your stomach explode when mixed together.

[FromWayDowntown]

FWD, while you're at it, go ahead and prove that Pop Rocks and Coke DON'T make your stomach explode when mixed together.

But that's true, spurm -- I'm sure it is, because I read it somewhere on the internet.

[scott]

Well, it would be rather foolish to assert the non-existence of something if you couldn't prove it.

So. prove it never existed.

If someone does, great. I'll attack the issue from another angle.
Fair enough?

Pretty telling on your unflexibility on the subject (I don't even know or need to know what the subject is... I just clicked on this for some odd reason). If someone is able to show you the fallacy of one of your assertions, it won't matter because you'll just move on to some other assertion. Thanks for the clarification.

[Duff McCartney]

Penn Gillette? Yeah, there's a guy we should all be listening too when it comes to politics . . . :rolleyes

All I'm saying is I agree with that statement. There should be complete and utter seperation of church and state and that just doesn't happen.

The reason it doesn't happen is somehow America got so screwed up that politicians religious beliefs are a major factor in deciding if they get elected.

[Extra Stout]

All I'm saying is I agree with that statement. There should be complete and utter seperation of church and state and that just doesn't happen.

The reason it doesn't happen is somehow America got so screwed up that politicians religious beliefs are a major factor in deciding if they get elected.
"Complete and utter" perhaps isn't as clear as you might have hoped it to be.

Is your position that religiously informed morals and ethics should be excluded from the public forum?

[Mr. Peabody]

I agree with Penn Gillette, but what Penn Gillette and I think is really of no consequence.

[Spurminator]

somehow America got so screwed up that politicians religious beliefs are a major factor in deciding if they get elected.

I don't know that it "got" that way... It's been that way since the beginning. Used to be, a candidate's DENOMINATION was a major factor. The very idea of a non-Christian President has really never been seriously entertained until very recent times.

[Mr. Peabody]

FWD, while you're at it, go ahead and prove that Pop Rocks and Coke DON'T make your stomach explode when mixed together.

This is fun.

Remember when GW said, "I don't care about Blacks!"

Prove to me that he's never said that.

[Spurminator]

This is fun.

Remember when GW said, "I don't care about Blacks!"

Prove to me that he's never said that.


Excellent point... We should call Al.

[boutons_]

"politicians religious beliefs are a major factor"

religion and ethnicity taboos were broken by JFK who was both

1)Catholic

and

2)Irish.

The was 1960 when only White/Nothern European/Protestants ran the country, aka, WASPs.

ie, a Jew or Catholic or Irish or Italian running for Pres before 1960 was basically a non-starter.

[DarkReign]

Well, it would be rather foolish to assert the non-existence of something if you couldn't prove it.

So. prove it never existed.

If someone does, great. I'll attack the issue from another angle.
Fair enough?

Oh my God, JJ...thats really very ignorant. You claimed TJ said it, not FWD. He doesnt have to disprove shit, you have to prove it. The burden of proof falls on you, not him.

Wow....is this how you debate in real life with other real people? If so, you dont have much respect, even if its faked in your direction.

[DarkReign]

"politicians religious beliefs are a major factor"

religion and ethnicity taboos were broken by JFK who was both

1)Catholic

and

2)Irish.

The was 1960 when only White/Nothern European/Protestants ran the country, aka, WASPs.

ie, a Jew or Catholic or Irish or Italian running for Pres before 1960 was basically a non-starter.

No offense, bouts, but he was also filthy, stinking fucking rich who had friends in Hollywood who could promote a message from a media untapped by the politicians of the day.

It hasnt happened since...dont think it ever will again.

[boutons_]

Sure, Kennedy was part of the east coast plutocracy whose great fortune came from boot-legging.

Before Kennedy, being Catholic and/or Irish precluded the thought of running for the presidency. We now have Catholic Kerry and Jew Lieberman who run.

US society has become more open since the 1950s.

[jochhejaam]

Pretty telling on your unflexibility on the subject (I don't even know or need to know what the subject is... I just clicked on this for some odd reason). If someone is able to show you the fallacy of one of your assertions, it won't matter because you'll just move on to some other assertion. Thanks for the clarification.
Exhausting arguments that oppose a line of thought doesn't equate to being inflexible, it's an attempt to bring the issue to some sort of consensus or conclusion in my own mind.


I though I was posting an accurate quoting of Jefferson but I was not able to substantiate that the quote attributed to him exists. Therefore, I move that post #148 in this thread be stricken from the record (who's the striker of the posts around here? :lol ). The quote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, and on record with the Library of Congress, does not credit Jefferson with part of the quote I obtained. (nasty rumor I guess)
Fortunately this misinformation did not lead us to war.

I don't like misinformation any more than the next person.

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't like misinformation any more than the next person.

That's an interesting retrenching from your original response, which was fairly direct in saying that unless someone could prove to you that Jefferson never said it, you would continue to believe it. I'm glad to see you've at least relented from that.

Believe me -- if Jefferson had ever said what you claimed he did, there likely wouldn't have been 50+ years of Establishment Clause bickering.

[Winehole23]

Of course, Christianity is purely an import to this land as well -- a fact that is frequently overlooked. The generally pagan views of the Native American cultures are, historically, the religion that the Europeans found when they arrived and began the process of moving the indigenous people off native lands and converting them (by word and sword) to Christianity. That, as well as the fact that the Founding Fathers who are so frequently cited for a supposed support of governmental involvement in religious matters had, in many cases, left Europe to flee religious persecution. In reality, the construct of Christianity as the religious orthodoxy in the United States of America is almost purely a matter timing and power.

I don't see the argument -- and never will -- that those who aren't Christians should just shut the hell up and let Christians celebrate their religion publicly. I don't see it, frankly, because the flip side of that would never fly with those who are most ardent about that sort of a policy, assuming it would ever be permitted to apply consistently.

I've posed this hypothetical before, but I think it's appropriate here. Suppose that a handful of Christian families (Religious Right-ers) were entrenched in communities that over time developed a, say, Muslim majority. Better yet, a majority of the Islamo-fascists that I'm told are so prevalent in this world. For any number of reasons (convenience, economics, schools) those families don't want to move. But since the religious majority in a community is permitted to control the public displays of religious symbols and celebration, the children of these families are made to sit through Muslim prayers at school events; the families don't see nativity scenes in late December, they see tributes to Mohammed and other religious iconography -- let's say paintings of Osama bin Laden; and every official notice from the community government includes some form of tribute to Allah. Are they going to protest? I'd bet they would. If jochhejaam's view prevailed, though, they couldn't have a leg to stand on unless such a majoritarian-centered view of the Establishment Clause could somehow be limited to national majorities. That, of course, would be completely non-sensical.

More significant to me is this question: why do some Christians feel that their religion is undermined (or their faith unasserted) if the law prohibits the government from allowing public displays that are focused on only their relgious viewpoint? Is it not enough to worship God in your church and in your home and in groups (whether publicly or privately) with those who are like-minded? Why is it that the use of private means to assert religious viewpoints in a public manner are insufficient? Is it not enough for you to put the creche in your front yard each year at Christmas time? Does the vitality of your religious viewpoint depend on the government endorsing that choice and publicly displaying symbols of your religion to the exclusion of others? I've never heard anyone who supports a rollback of Establishment Clause principles adequately answer that question or any of its subparts.in the news: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/satan-ten-commandments-oklahoma-city

[Winehole23]

Extra Stout's memorable reply to FWD: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48901&p=1175079&viewfull=1#post1175079

[FromWayDowntown]

in the news: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/satan-ten-commandments-oklahoma-city

And away we go . . . .

[Winehole23]

Members of the world’s oldest faith would like to join a display of religious symbols at Oklahoma’s state capitol, joining a Judeo-Christian tablet and a proposed Satanist monument.


The Universal Society of Hinduism plans to submit an application (http://rajanzed.com/rajan/index.php/2013/12/10/hindus-interested-in-erecting-lord-hanuman-statue-in-oklahoma-capitol-grounds/) to the Oklahoma State Capitol Preservation Commission for permission to place a statue of Lord Hanuman on the statehouse grounds.


“If the Oklahoma State Capitol was open to different monuments, we would love to have a statue of Lord Hanuman, who was greatly revered and worshipped and known for incredible strength and was (a) perfect grammarian,” said Rajan Zed, president of Universal Society of Hinduism.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/11/hindus-join-satanists-demanding-equal-placement-on-oklahoma-capitol-grounds/

[RandomGuy]

Extra Stout's memorable reply to FWD: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48901&p=1175079&viewfull=1#post1175079

"FWD,

The best hypothesis I can come up with is that contemporary American Christian evangelical teaching is struggling to instill an internal sense of morality among its followers, depending rather on an external sense of morality.

In other words, believers are being raised to obey God primarily out of fear of Him or because "He says so!", rather than obeying Him because the law is written on their hearts. A severe analogy would be to a social class that avoids murder because its members fear the consequences of law enforcement, rather than holding an intrinsic value for human life.

(This can be observed in the rhetoric of the movement's leaders, who agonize that there can be no morality absent religious zeal.)

This produces a superficial brand of piety among the nominally faithful, who readily apostasize upon encountering external secular influences, because once the fear of God recedes in immanence and immediacy, the motivation to keep the faith recedes as well. Thus, in somewhat of a panic, these evangelicals seek to mitigate these external secular influences, either by cultural isolation, or by using the power of the state to reinforce their external sense of morality.

The latter means has been preferred over the past couple of decades."

[Blake]

What is memorable about that?

The only thing I'd add is that fear has been the evangelical preacher's biggest tool in keeping the sheep in line from almost day 1 in the history of christianity

It always will be, imo.

[Winehole23]

what's memorable or not is matter of personal taste, I guess.

[Blake]

what's memorable or not is matter of personal taste, I guess.

Ok. Was just wondering.

[Winehole23]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/06/satanic-temple-unveils-7-foot-goat-headed-baphomet-statue-for-oklahoma-capitol/

[Winehole23]

now Florida:

http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/state/2014/12/03/satanic-temple-joining-capitol-displays/19839961/

[Winehole23]

like FWD pointed out upstream, statutes encouraging religious monuments (Mosaic law, for example) on state grounds, tend to lead to outcomes like this.