Ten Commandments Controversy Moves West

[DKSuddeth]

Christians are certainly not trying to FORCE you to a belief in Christianity. Neither is our government. What are Secularists afraid of? People having the right to express their Christian beliefs? People voting on certain ideas according to their Christian beliefs? Majority rule as per our Constitution?

thats what they say, but history shows that ANY religion becomes oppressive. Thats why I believe that the establishment clause was specifically created to prevent the 'men of god' from coercing the populace. When its been allowed to continue we've ended up with things like the salem witch trials.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

thats what they say, but history shows that ANY religion becomes oppressive. Thats why I believe that the establishment clause was specifically created to prevent the 'men of god' from coercing the populace. When its been allowed to continue we've ended up with things like the salem witch trials.

If anything, religion has become LESS oppresive in America.

So, why is the ACLU so concerned about it?

 

[DKSuddeth]

If anything, religion has become LESS oppresive in America.

A better question would by WHY has it become less oppressive?

So, why is the ACLU so concerned about it?

maybe to keep it less oppressive?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

A better question would by WHY has it become less oppressive??

I was just using your subjective wording. I don't believe that religion of any form is oppresive today -- other than Secularism.

maybe to keep it less oppressive?

I think you are fooling yourself to think that the ACLU is after freedom from religious oppression which does not exist today except in the form of Secularism which they themselves are promoting.

You might more accurately say that the ACLU is after freedom from religious influence, especially Christian influence. Influence, btw, is not a crime nor is it against the Constitution.

 

[musicman]

There is no objective morality. Based on my belief in individualistic Libertarianism, people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others. Your turn. By what right do you deem your life to be more important than some poor, downtrodden junkie's need for a fix? Don't say that it is due to an absolute objective morality.


And why in the world shouldn't I? I'm not the one denying objective morality's existence.

 

[mattskramer]

Okay. Then answer my question. On what basis do you deem your life to be more important than some poor, downtrodden junkie's need for a fix? I gave you my subjective reason. Give me yours and I will prove that it is subjective (It is ultimately based on what you consider to be right).

 

[musicman]

Okay. Then answer my question. On what basis do you deem your life to be more important than some poor, downtrodden junkie's need for a fix? I gave you my subjective reason. Give me yours and I will prove that it is subjective (It is ultimately based on what you consider to be right).

"...men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...". My right to life comes , not from the government, nor from some subjective human consensus, but from God's objective, unchanging word. Now, you may say(not prove) that my belief in God indicates subjectivity, since, A) I choose to believe in God, and, B) you are essentially faithless. However, you benefit directly from the privilege of living in a country built on Godly principles (at least, for as long as this country is allowed to abide by them). It is wrong for a junkie to murder you over the price of a fix - not because you say so, not because the authorities say so, and not because mankind has somehow managed to stumble upon that brilliant conclusion. It is wrong because you have a God-given right to your life.

Just a couple of thoughts on faith. It is extraordinary to me that an intelligent human being could ponder this beautiful world, and the insane improbability of it's(or his) existence, and not be filled with awe and gratitude for a just and loving God. To me, the convoluted explanations for there NOT being a God require infinitely more "faith" than any religion I've ever seen. However, the hard-headed and obstinate will argue, to the very end, that, since God is not actually seen, He can't be. This is as it was meant to be. Faith is required. You have to meet God part of the way ( nothing even approaching halfway; a little bit of common sense will do the job nicely). If He came rolling up your driveway in a '55 T-Bird, shouting, "How they hangin', matts? Got a beer?", then your belief in Him would have no value - you would not have done Him the ridiculously small courtesy of chucking your worldly arrogance.

To put it in more secular terms, have you ever read a book called "The Little Prince"(can't recall the author's name)? One sentence from that book says it all:

"That which is essential is invisible to the eye".

 

[mattskramer]

"...men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...". My right to life comes , not from the government, nor from some subjective human consensus, but from God's objective, unchanging word. Now, you may say(not prove) that my belief in God indicates subjectivity, since, A) I choose to believe in God, and, B) you are essentially faithless.

Yep.

However, you benefit directly from the privilege of living in a country built on Godly principles (at least, for as long as this country is allowed to abide by them).

I am benefiting from the privilege of living in a country built, in part, from principles that leaders may have pulled from passages from an old book (the Bible). That does not necessarily make those principles right or wrong. Also, the country was built on other things too - land taken from the American Indian and cheap labor from Black slaves. I think that I benefited largely from these events too.

It is wrong for a junkie to murder you over the price of a fix - not because you say so, not because the authorities say so, and not because mankind has somehow managed to stumble upon that brilliant conclusion. It is wrong because you have a God-given right to your life.

Based on whose authority is it wrong? Do I have a God-given right to my live? Who said so? Where is this God? Again, your view is subjective. It is based on your belief that God exists and that it gives us a right to life.

Just a couple of thoughts on faith. It is extraordinary to me that an intelligent human being could ponder this beautiful world, and the insane improbability of it's(or his) existence, and not be filled with awe and gratitude for a just and loving God.

We are delving into apologetics. There are many books that attempt to prove that God exists. There are books that attempt to prove that God does not exist. Even if we assume that God existed and that he created the universe, this is only the first step. Does God still exist? Does he know that his creation still exists? Does he directly and physically influence the world? Does he care about the humans in his creation? Does he have any rewards for his humans? If so, how do we get those rewards? There are so many questions and there are many religions that believe that God exists. These religions have different answers to the questions asked.

To put it in more secular terms, have you ever read a book called "The Little Prince"(can't recall the author's name)? One sentence from that book says it all: "That which is essential is invisible to the eye".

No, but I might read it some time.

 

[Moi]

Just a couple of thoughts on faith. It is extraordinary to me that an intelligent human being could ponder this beautiful world, and the insane improbability of it's(or his) existence, and not be filled with awe and gratitude for a just and loving God.

Not that I want to divert into a discussion about god and the existence thereof, but this statement deserves mention.

Because you have faith you infer that intelligent people see god in the universe. I, however, as a woman of quite high intelligence, do not. I find it remarkable how anyone with any intelligence can presume that his peers must believe in god.

You know what? It's still irrelevant as to how this country needs to operate. There is no need to believe in god just to be moral nor do you need to reference religion in order to gain an esprit de corps of country.

I don't believe in god but I'm not threatened by those who do. I consider myself to be highly moral without the need for exterior pressures on my actions. I love my country more than almost anyone I've ever met. My lack of belief in god has not impacted either of those traits one tiny whit.

This country would not fall apart if the 10 commandment were never put on public lands. Isn't that really what this argument is about? The people who "need" to see the 10 commandments so that other's behaviors are controlled will never get their wish. For the people who lack the morals to begin with aren't going to be swayed by foreign words which they don't believe in. Those with morals don't need the reminder nor a religious reason for being so.

 

[musicman]

Moi:

"Not that I want to divert into a discussion about god and the existence thereof..."

How can a thread about the Ten Commandments do anything BUT "divert" into a discussion about God and His existence?

"I consider myself to be highly moral without the need for exterior pressures on my actions".

Anyone who follows a religion because of "exterior pressures" is doing it for the wrong reasons.

"This country would not fall apart if the Ten Commandments were never put on public lands".

This country didn't fall apart when the Ten Commandments were put up in the first place. Why this agonizing need to tear them down NOW? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say, "Communities shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion". That's part of what communities in a free society are supposed to be allowed to do for themselves. That's why our founding fathers were careful to remove the federal government from the equation.

"The people who 'need' to see the Ten Commandments so that other's behaviors are controlled will never get their wish".

Is that what you think this is all about? Do you think Christians want to impose their religion on everyone else? Do you imagine that we crouch in dank cellars, plotting the overthrow of society so that we, at long last, can force our theocracy - our control - on you? If so, you have completely misunderstood Christianity. I often muse that we've replaced ten commandments with 35,000 laws, and none of us are safe. But no Christian theocracy is going to fix that, because a Christian theocracy could not exist; it is a contradiction in terms.

I'd just like to know why, now , after statues and symbols have stood for decades (or sometimes centuries)- without the country falling apart, I might add - is it so vital that they come down NOW - and the wishes of the surrounding community be damned?!

 

[Moi]

This thread is not about belief in god or the existence of god. It's about the constitutionality of putting religious symbols or words on public lands. The existence can be debated elsewhere if people so choose. I, among many others, think that question is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Whether you believe in god or not, isn't the same as if you believe god's so-called words belong on public land.

I agree that the country didn't fall apart when the stone was placed there. And I even agree that it won't fall apart if the stone is left there. Religious symbols and words have been around for centuries...I'll grant you that. But so were monarchies...and their consituents still lived, yes? There are a few monarchies left- their citizens are still living, breathing and enjoying life. I'd say we're a damn site better off without them and better for our country being independent.

Christianity, judaism, buddhism etc. would still be the same without having to be put on public lands with public money. Those who don't follow a religion are, in fact, being infringed upon when they are asked to swear to a god they don't believe in or to pledge to a god or to even have to read it every time they go to the municipal building. It's invasive to take money from one person for a religious expression which they don't favor.

It doesn't offend me, it doesn't scare me and it certainly isn't going to make me suddenly bow to religion. But it does infringe on my rights and for that I'll defend its detractors any day.

Good enough isn't good enough for me. I want this country to be the best. That means protecting the rights of its citizens according to the constitution.

 

[musicman]

Call me crazy, Moi, but I would find any demand that God be kept out of a discussion of the Ten Commandments to be imperious and unreasonable.

Speaking of the discussion, isn't the monument in question on CITY property? I don't remember ever reading "Cities shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" in the Constitution, either. This is exactly the kind of localized problem the founding fathers were wise enough to keep the federal government out of. It's a community matter, it seems to me.

What's this case doing in the federal courts, anyway?

 

[Moi]

Speaking of the discussion, isn't the monument in question on CITY property? I don't remember ever reading "Cities shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" in the Constitution, either. This is exactly the kind of localized problem the founding fathers were wise enough to keep the federal government out of. It's a community matter, it seems to me.

What's this case doing in the federal courts, anyway?

I think that's because they are claiming civil rights violations...civil rights are federal not state based. And yes it's quite clear that the constitution only prohibits congress from making laws which violate the religious prohibitions; however, the citizens of the town are the ones making the claim so clearly the entire town isn't for such displays. They certainly have a right to be heard and a valid point. Like I've said before, I don't think their point should lead to the removal of preexisting monuments though.

And I'm sticking to my guns that a belief in god is not necessarily an excuse for allowing such references in public. I know plenty of people who believe in god who do not believe it's acceptable to say these words while taking a pledge of allegience to a country or place them in public places.

 

[musicman]

I think that's because they are claiming civil rights violations...civil rights are federal not state based. And yes it's quite clear that the constitution only prohibits congress from making laws which violate the religious prohibitions; however, the citizens of the town are the ones making the claim so clearly the entire town isn't for such displays. They certainly have a right to be heard and a valid point. Like I've said before, I don't think their point should lead to the removal of preexisting monuments though.

And I'm sticking to my guns that a belief in god is not necessarily an excuse for allowing such references in public. I know plenty of people who believe in god who do not believe it's acceptable to say these words while taking a pledge of allegience to a country or place them in public places.

One little college puke who moved away years ago, and has now enlisted the aid of the ACLU in making his ostentatious display of contempt, scarcely qualifies as "the citizens of the town". To quote the article, "City officials say public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the Ten Commandments where it is". Screw them, though. What do they matter? They just live there. This prick reminds me of Michael Newdow. So concerned about his daughter's rights! Are you aware that he was acting against his daughters wishes? Those are the kind of inconvenient facts that get glossed over in these cases.

If I didn't know better, I'd infer, from your tone ("such references in public", "acceptable to say these words") that you were talking about people saying "cocksucker", or something. Some sense of proportion seems to have been lost.

 

[musicman]

You read- I specifically stated that I was responding to a general question, not to this monument.

And, I hate to tell you, activist judges or not, the majority will of the people will prevail. The constitution can and has been changed. If the majority have chosen to say nothing and do nothing in preservation of their beliefs the will of the people will have spoken. Even if only through apathy.

That just might be the most lucid and profound statement on this subject I've ever read.

 

[Moi]

One little college puke who moved away years ago, and has now enlisted the aid of the ACLU in making his ostentatious display of contempt, scarcely qualifies as "the citizens of the town". To quote the article, "City officials say public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the Ten Commandments where it is". Screw them, though. What do they matter? They just live there. This prick reminds me of Michael Newdow. So concerned about his daughter's rights! Are you aware that he was acting against his daughters wishes? Those are the kind of inconvenient facts that get glossed over in these cases.

If I didn't know better, I'd infer, from your tone ("such references in public", "acceptable to say these words") that you were talking about people saying "cocksucker", or something. Some sense of proportion seems to have been lost.

The guy from the pledge case? Yes, I knew he was doing it over his daughter and exwife's objections. That's why the courts were having such a difficult time with it and why, even if it's in the win column, the issue isn't settled. Someone with standing will eventually be able to get their day in court.

 

[musicman]

And let's not overlook the glorious possibility that the townspeople might get THEIR day in court, as well. Imagine that - city residents determining what's best for their city. It sounds almost....American!