Ten Commandment challenges spread

[zakur]

Ten Commandment challenges spread

Some 3,300 years after Moses descended from Mount Sinai, a debate over the Ten Commandments is raging in towns and cities across America.

From Cambridge, Mass., to Montgomery, Ala., to Everett, Wash., state and local officials are scrambling to defend the placement of the Ten Commandments in government buildings or on public land.

In some cases, monuments and plaques depicting the Ten Commandments have been on display for decades. But now their placement on government property is increasingly being challenged by groups who say such displays violate the US Constitution's mandated separation between church and state. "The rulings are now mostly against the Ten Commandments. The tide has turned," says Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation in Madison, Wis.

The disputes are part of a larger national debate over how much entanglement of religion and government the Constitution permits, including questions about the inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

"This is a culture war," says Edward White, a lawyer with the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich. "You have certain groups who are trying to secularize this country and stamp out every image of our Judeo-Christian heritage. The fight is being fought everywhere."

 

[Upchurch]

"This is a culture war," says Edward White, a lawyer with the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich. "You have certain groups who are trying to secularize this country and stamp out every image of our Judeo-Christian heritage. The fight is being fought everywhere."

In a sense, that is true. However, instead of "certain groups trying to secularize this country", I'd say they're trying to bring the country back to it's original principles of a secular state.

Further, no one is trying to "stamp out every image of our Judeo-Christian heritage." As far as I can tell, they are only trying to remove one religion's symbolic presense from the government.

"The rulings are now mostly against the Ten Commandments. The tide has turned," says Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation in Madison, Wis.

(my emphesis)

Quite. And it's about time we returned to this founding principle.

 

[Tmy]

I cant stand these people. These 10 commandment things always fail, why do they keep wasting everyones time.

I wish I was a Satanist. Then Id try to get devil prayer groups in public schools, have pentagrams displays at Town hall and do every dopey thing the bible thumpers do. Then sit back and watch there ironic and hypocritical complaining.

 

[Upchurch]

I cant stand these people. These 10 commandment things always fail, why do they keep wasting everyones time.

What I don't really understand is the origin of this concept that the US is somehow a Christian country. By design, that is specifically what it isn't.

 

[Tmy]

They should get more creative. Like posting the 5 or 6 secular commandments and seeing if they can get away with it.

The dopeyest thing is that these people think that if they could post the 10 commandments all over, then the world would suddenly become a better place.

 

[Tricky]

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore has lost his appeal in Federal Court to allow his "Ten Commandment" monument to remain. The only place left to go is the Supreme Court, but he says he will do so.

And we wonder why the courts are overloaded.

 

[Tony]

I wonder if this is really about constitutionality or ideology.

I have a feeling these groups wouldnt give a damn if the constitution was being ignored if they agreed with it.

 

[Upchurch]

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore has lost his appeal in Federal Court to allow his "Ten Commandment" monument to remain. The only place left to go is the Supreme Court, but he says he will do so.

Amazing that an Alabama Supreme Court Justice doesn't understand what America is all about...

 

[Tricky]

Amazing that an Alabama Supreme Court Justice doesn't understand what America is all about...

Not really surprising. Supreme court justices are elected in Alabama. If your constituency is full of bible-thumpers, then your elected officials will be bible-thumpers. Remember, this is Alabama we're talking about.

 

[Upchurch]

I wonder if this is really about constitutionality or ideology.

It think it's both, actually. It is a Constitutional issue, after all, but there is also the ideology of the Founding Fathers to consider, which is what is being defended by removing these religious symbols from public government grounds.

I have a feeling these groups wouldnt give a damn if the constitution was being ignored if they agreed with it.

Perhaps, humans being humans. However, you'll note that no one is trying to post anything else in the 10 commandment's place.

 

[hammegk]

....you'll note that no one is trying to post anything else in the 10 commandment's place.

Only because ya'all can't agree on anything. That's why you need the materialist/atheist Policy Manual (Mathematics of Morality for Secular Humanists). Note that writing it would just be the start; then you will need to convince a large enough group of followers, raise your own army, & then we will all do things "your way".

As it is you remain a tiny -- but vocal -- mini-minority in the US. Have moral anarchists like yourselves ever organized to effectively "govern" anything for more than a day or two?

It is a Constitutional issue, after all, but there is also the ideology of the Founding Fathers to consider, which is what is being defended by removing these religious symbols from public government grounds.

Too bad more people don't agree with the logic/premises you use to arrive at that conclusion. Unless you have defined "attack" to mean "defend"?

 

[ShowMe]

As it is you remain a tiny -- but vocal -- mini-minority in the US. Have moral anarchists like yourselves ever organized to effectively "govern" anything for more than a day or two?

The number of people saying this is not significant to the argument. The separation of Church and State is clearly outlined in the Constitution; nobody here wants to do away with churches. We just want the government to follow the laws that the country was started upon.

Covering your ears and saying "nah nah nah nah" isn't going to do anything.

Too bad more people don't agree with the logic/premises you use to arrive at that conclusion.

Agree completely. Perhaps they should read that old piece of paper sometime, instead of trying to scream us down with the religious rhetoric that cannot stand up to logic?

 

[hammegk]

The number of people saying this is not significant to the argument. The separation of Church and State is clearly outlined in the Constitution; nobody here wants to do away with churches. We just want the government to follow the laws that the country was started upon.[/b]

Umm, but the majority is not always wrong either. And reasonable people can and do disagree with the meaning & intent of those words.

Remember the question you forgot to answer: Have moral anarchists like yourselves ever organized to effectively "govern" anything for more than a day or two?"

One thing this working long-term society provides is the freedom for you to complain.

...Perhaps they should read that old piece of paper sometime, instead of trying to scream us down with the religious rhetoric that cannot stand up to logic?

Or, maybe you are wrong. That's also a reasonable interpretation of the facts as we know them.

 

[Scorpy]

You would think that all the persecution Christians have suffered at the hands of their fellow Christians would make them just as determined to keep religion out of government as everyone else.

 

[a_unique_person]

Not really surprising. Supreme court justices are elected in Alabama. If your constituency is full of bible-thumpers, then your elected officials will be bible-thumpers. Remember, this is Alabama we're talking about.

An interesting thought just occurred to me, as distinct from all the other mundane ones I am always having.

The US constitution was supposed to be set up to prevent the 'mob rule', so it is a 'constitutionally limited republic'.

Other countries also have tried to get away from the 'mob rule' problem with similar limitations in their constitutions.

However, nowhere else, to my knowledge, does the political process directly link to the legal process, as in, directly electing judges, DAs, etc. These areas, in Australia for example, are handled indirectly from the Political process to prevent the mob rule problem. If a government comes up with a bad law, it can be struck down by the courts. (Now, I am not naive enought to think that the courts are not subject to political views, but you get the idea, government elected, puts up laws, legal system, enelected, but answerable to the laws of the land).

By electing legal officials, you are corrupting one of the means of preventing mob rule. Perhaps that is a part of the reason the US has such a high prison population.

Already in Australia, the impostion of 'mandatory' sentencing is being imposed on the legal system, much to the concern of the judiciary, who see the political arm of government imposing too much on the legal arm.

 

[Upchurch]

Only because ya'all can't agree on anything. That's why you need the materialist/atheist Policy Manual (Mathematics of Morality for Secular Humanists). Note that writing it would just be the start; then you will need to convince a large enough group of followers, raise your own army, & then we will all do things "your way".

hammegk, this is rather a quick conclusion to jump to, even for you. I'm not suggesting anything replace it, nor is anyone else that I'm aware of. Other than smart-alecs who recommend Muslim, Hindu, or Satanic passages, but I don't think they're serious. And if they were, I would oppose that as well.

It is a Constitutional issue, after all, but there is also the ideology of the Founding Fathers to consider, which is what is being defended by removing these religious symbols from public government grounds.

As it is you remain a tiny -- but vocal -- mini-minority in the US. Have moral anarchists like yourselves ever organized to effectively "govern" anything for more than a day or two?

First of all, "moral anarchist"? Where do you get anything akin to anarchy in anything I've said?

Second, this isn't explicitly a moral issue. It's an issue of ideology. If you are familiar with American history, you know that one of the primary principles that the Founding Fathers wanted included in the formation of this country was a government free of an institutionalized, government-mandated state religion. Heck, that was the very reason the pilgrams came to this continent in the first place. It was so important to them that they stated it in the first clause of the First Amendment.

This is ideology is summed up by the rather famous "seperation of church and state" quote by President Thomas Jefferson,

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative 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 separation between church and State.

You'll note that in the entire Constitution, the only reference to God at all is the phrase, "In the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven", which was common usage then and equivalent to saying "1787 A.D." today.

Too bad more people don't agree with the logic/premises you use to arrive at that conclusion. Unless you have defined "attack" to mean "defend"?

I agree that it's a shame that many of the more vocal/political evangelous leaders don't agree with the Framers of the Constitution when they say they want to bring American government "back" under the control of their Christian god, even though it never really was in the first place. That "logic/premise" I used to "arrive at that conclusion" wasn't mine. It was the Continental Congress's.

And when I say "defend", I mean "defend" because our country was started as a secular state and meant to remain a secular state. Causing the U.S. to become a Christian state is an attack on the ideals the country was founded on. In defending the secular state that we are, you defend the ideological foundations of the country.

 

[Upchurch]

Remember the question you forgot to answer: Have moral anarchists like yourselves ever organized to effectively "govern" anything for more than a day or two?"

I forgot to answer it as well. I don't know about "moral anarchists" but the type of government I'm advocating has worked for a little over 216 years.

 

[Mike B.]

An interesting thought just occurred to me, as distinct from all the other mundane ones I am always having.

The US constitution was supposed to be set up to prevent the 'mob rule', so it is a 'constitutionally limited republic'.

Other countries also have tried to get away from the 'mob rule' problem with similar limitations in their constitutions.

However, nowhere else, to my knowledge, does the political process directly link to the legal process, as in, directly electing judges, DAs, etc. These areas, in Australia for example, are handled indirectly from the Political process to prevent the mob rule problem. If a government comes up with a bad law, it can be struck down by the courts. (Now, I am not naive enought to think that the courts are not subject to political views, but you get the idea, government elected, puts up laws, legal system, enelected, but answerable to the laws of the land).

By electing legal officials, you are corrupting one of the means of preventing mob rule. Perhaps that is a part of the reason the US has such a high prison population.

Already in Australia, the impostion of 'mandatory' sentencing is being imposed on the legal system, much to the concern of the judiciary, who see the political arm of government imposing too much on the legal arm.

But aren't the laws used by the legal system written by the democratically elected legistlature?

The mandatory sentences being "imposed" on Australia are being done by the people's representatives. If they pass a mandatory sentence rule, how is that different from any other sentence law?

 

[Yahweh]

Umm, but the majority is not always wrong either. And reasonable people can and do disagree with the meaning & intent of those words.

Remember the question you forgot to answer: Have moral anarchists like yourselves ever organized to effectively "govern" anything for more than a day or two?"

Goody goody gumdrops, another "all atheists are immoral" whatchamacallit or somethin'... I'll explain this quickly:

"Moral Anarchy" sure is a harsh term to use, thats not nice. Atheism and Secularism teach no morality. Now now, a lot of people like to use that excuse as a way of saying "all atheists all immoral", that is entirely incorrect. Atheism and secularistics beliefs are moral-neutral. In a secular government, we would establish laws as a "make as many people happy as you can, hurt no one, everyone is equal, etc." fashion (which is very moral I would say). That isnt so hard to understand is it?

One thing this working long-term society provides is the freedom for you to complain.

Freedom of Speech, what's your point.

Or, maybe you are wrong. That's also a reasonable interpretation of the facts as we know them.

I dont follow...

 

[Upchurch]

I'm curious. Who here thinks that the writers of the U.S. Constitution intended the U.S. to be a religious Christian state and why?

(maybe I should make a poll...)