Reply With Quote
It should be life threatening to protest a ten commandments display?
it is, and its bull IMO
EDIT: To clarify, our cons ution 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.
Last edited by MaNuMaNiA; 08-29-2006 at 01:52 PM.
It should be life threatening to protest a ten commandments display?
That little axiom had to come from your pastor. It is sort of misleading. The Decalogue is among the seminal proto-legal do ents of the ancient world, but it is not alone. That context also must take into account Babylonian, Egyptian, Hit e, Greek, and Roman law. The conception that the Decalogue alone is the Urgesetz of all Western civilization is specious.
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 Cons ution to change the scope of the 14th Amendment.
Showoff.The conception that the Decalogue alone is the Urgesetz of all Western civilization is specious.
"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.
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.
Avoidance is a central theme of Joch's posting.
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. Cons ution is not a perfect do ent, therefore future alterations for the purpose of clarification, be it by Amendment or Supreme Court ruling, may be in order.
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.
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 cir stance.
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?
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 Cons ution. Application of the do ent's general wording to particular fact situations is not alteration of the Cons ution. 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.
[QUOTE]Sure, now that you're prepared for it.
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.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.
That's the interpretation of some. The truth of the matter is that displaying the Ten Commandments does not cons ute the establishment of a religion.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
ManuMania presented the question for you and indeed I did respond to it. (see post #90)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.
Last edited by jochhejaam; 08-29-2006 at 11:23 PM.
[QUOTE]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 Cons ution.
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.
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 iden y.
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.
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.
"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.
[QUOTE]That's just excellent (do you tire of hearing that?)
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 disagree that government endorsement of Christianity through the display of symbols is necessary to maintain morality in government.
(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).
Excellent thoughts again Sir Stout.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.
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.
Those sorts of things depend upon context. That is why some displays stay and some come down.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 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.
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 do ents 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 cons utional 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 cons ute non-public forums. As a non-public forum, the city is permitted to exclude access to that area based on speaker iden y, 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
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.
[QUOTE=jochhejaam]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.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.
Curiously, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that, at least in some cir stances, 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.
But you didn't. You said:
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 do ents of Islam or the landmark do ents 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 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.
[QUOTE]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?)
I agree that I sidestepped the premise of your question. Nevertheless, I did offer a response. The question is hypothetical and it’s not in bent 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.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 do ents of Islam or the landmark do ents 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?
BTW, I'm betting that you could correctly predict what my answer would be.
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 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.
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 respondI'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.to some of the questions before the thread gets too deeply buried.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions