Separation Of Church And State "Is A Lie"

[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.

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 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.






(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 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 uncons utional. 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.

The freedoms accorded to us by the U.S. Cons ution 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 Cons ution. 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 Cons ution. 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.