Beliefnet poll on Ten Commandments

[Toto]

Look for a small poll box on the side (http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/131/story_13152_1.html&storyID=13152&boardID=62956)

There are also articles by Jerry Falwell, Michael Newdow ("Judge Roy Moore Deserves Jail") (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/131/story_13136.html), and others, and a link the the TenCommandments Defense Fund.

Newdow may be pouring on the rhethoric at bit here by linking Moore to genocide:

The framers knew what they were doing when they placed this Establishment Clause in our Constitution. They carefully examined the history of man, and recognized that real harm inevitably follows the amalgamation of government and religion. People do amazing things in the name of their gods … sometimes wonderful, but often horrendous. Burnings at the stake, the Crusades, the Inquisitions and other abuses were well known to the men who created our Constitution, and--as we can see by looking no further than Rwanda, Serbia, Ireland, the Middle East … or the World Trade Center--their fears that such offenses could continue were obviously warranted.

What's all this have to do with a Ten Commandments monument? Everything. This is precisely how it starts. People don't simply wake up one day and commit genocide. They start by setting themselves apart from others, diminishing the stature of those adhering to dissenting beliefs in small, insidious steps. They begin by saying, "We're the righteous, and we'll tolerate those others." And as the toleration diminishes over time, the inevitable harms are overlooked. It is for that reason that James Madison wisely wrote that "it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties."

[Ronin]

Should the Ten Commandments be displayed in public buildings?

The wording of this poll is terrible.

Privately owned public buildings should have the freedom to display whatever they choose.

Government buildings, however, should be free from such endorsements in order to remain neutral to all seeking fair representation and judicial review.

[Shake]

Here's a point made late in that article, but it cuts to the heart of the matter. If Judge Moore feels that in good conscience he cannot comply with the federal court order, then he should resign his office and continue to make his case to the Supreme Court. The author agrees with Moore's convictions, but feels he went about it the wrong way. Paraphrasing a bit, he says that the judges must uphold the law, even if it's against their personal convictions. If they feel they cannot, then they should give up their office since they would be doing a greater injustice to stay and illegally fight a law or ruling they didn't agree with.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Ronin

"Privately owned public buildings should have the freedom to display whatever they choose.

Government buildings, however, should be free from such endorsements in order to remain neutral to all seeking fair representation and judicial review."

IMO with respect to the issue of theism in general, and Christian theism in particular there is no such thing as a neutral position.

I don't understand why some atheists view the ten commandments displayed in a court building as a violation of their first ammendment rights.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by Keith
I don't understand why some atheists view the ten commandments displayed in a court building as a violation of their first ammendment rights.

You're kidding, right?

You don't see how a monument with the 10 Commandments says that "The Judeo Christian Religion is more accepted here than any other system of beliefs?" You do not see it as an attempt to promote and establish one belief system above all competing systems?

I suppose, if you do not see it as promoting a belief system, then a statue of Hitler would not be seen as promoting the NAZI Ideology. Nor would you see any reason to protest a plaque that says, "Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to loose but your chains", since such a plaque could never be taken as an attempt to establish a Marxist state.

Now, as it turns out, establishing a Marxist or Faschist state is not unconstitutional, but there is a prohibition against the government promoting the establishment of a religion.

As well there should be -- because not only history but current events speak volumes of the evil when zealots think that the powers of the state are within their grasp. They stop at nothing, and they seem to see no moral limits to what they can do with that power once they obtain it.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit against Moore's monument had her property vandalized, and received over 70 death threats in one day on her answering machine.

This is the mentality of those who feel the need to put religious monuments in state building. This is the mentality of those who seek to obtain control of the state for religious purposes.

Against this, it makes perfectly good sense that somebody, somewhere, will stand up and say, "No. Not here. If you want converts to your religion, the only tools you will have available are the force of your private words. You will never have the mechanisms of the state available to you."

It has maintained the peace for over 200 years. Destroy this wall, and expect America to go the same route as India, Pakistan, Phillipines, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Morocco, North Ireland, and such other countries whose population thinks that it is a good idea to mix church and state.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe


"Now, as it turns out, establishing a Marxist or Faschist state is not unconstitutional, but there is a prohibition against the government promoting the establishment of a religion."



Have you read the first ammendment? Where does it say that there is a prohibition against the government promoting the establishment of a religion, and how does this display--just by being there, establish a religion?

[brighid]

Keith,

To state that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of our legal system, but most specifically that a specific version of the Christian God is the foundation of our law (as Judge Moore has repeatedly claimed and WHY he put this monument up) is to be ignorant of our laws, their establishment and how they work.

First of all we are guarnteed the freedom of religion in our constitution. The Ten Commandments says that people should have no other Gods before Yahweh. Our country and it's people can clearly have other Gods, or not Gods at all. Secondly, which set of Ten Commandments (although that number appears to be in contention) do we put up? Do we install the ones of Exodus, Deutoronomy, the KJV version, or another version? Which one is correct and how did it influence the Founding Fathers?

The government shall not establish or promote any religion over another and remain neutral. The laws of this land are more then simply what is stated in our Constitution and if you take the time to visit a law library and understand how legal decision are made you will understand the value of precedent.

The Virgina Religious Freedom Act (that Thomas Jefferson, one of our Founding Fathers crafted and who is responsible for the phrase "separation of church and state) makes it very clear what at least one (but also many who ratified that law) felt about religion.

It is in the best interest of all religious people to keep the government out of promoting or giving favor to any religion. It protects it. If you would like to see how religion influences human rights take a look at some modern, theocractic countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

The reason I, as an atheist, have a problem with this particular monument is because it was erected by a government official to promote a specific religious point of view (that not all Christians hold.) I would be equally upset if Sharia legal and historical "documents" were promoted by my secular government and you can be a pretty penny that vast Christian organizations would be up in arms about tax payer money going to support non-Christian religious points of view ... even if they had an equal impact on the framers of our Constitution ...

B

[Toto]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


This has been extended by the 14th amendment as interepreted by the Supreme Court to cover state and local governments.

What part of "no law" would allow the government to promote an establishment of religion?

As for whether this monument would tend to establish a religion, look at its motivation. Roy Moore wants to recognize his god. He wants to force non-believers to accept his view that the civil laws are subordinate to God's own laws. And if that doesn't convince you, there are a bunch of religious believers praying for the rock.

[StrictSeparationist]

Originally posted by Keith
Have you read the first ammendment? Where does it say that there is a prohibition against the government promoting the establishment of a religion, and how does this display--just by being there, establish a religion?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

In other words, no law that relates to or concerns an establishment of religion. The courts have consistently found over a period of about a half-century that by promoting religion, even in a symbolic way, government strays into territory forbidden by the intentionally broadly-written wording of the Establishment Clause. So while no one is arguing that Roy's Rock created an established church in Alabama, many feel that by creating an atmosphere in which Judeo-Christian beliefs were so clearly held to be an essential part of the justice system of the state, the monument both infringed on Free Exercise rights by attempting to subtly coerce religious nonconformists to give credence to the ideas embodied in the Decalogue and related to an establishment of religion, for the reasons given above.

[Keith]

Originally posted by StrictSeparationist

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

In other words, no law that relates to or concerns an establishment of religion. The courts have consistently found over a period of about a half-century that by promoting religion, even in a symbolic way, government strays into territory forbidden by the intentionally broadly-written wording of the Establishment Clause. So while no one is arguing that Roy's Rock created an established church in Alabama, many feel that by creating an atmosphere in which Judeo-Christian beliefs were so clearly held to be an essential part of the justice system of the state, the monument both infringed on Free Exercise rights by attempting to subtly coerce religious nonconformists to give credence to the ideas embodied in the Decalogue and related to an establishment of religion, for the reasons given above."

I think that part of religious freedom involves the right of people like Judge Moore to express their own personal beliefs about which gods, if any, are real and authoritative, even if it involves putting the ten commandments inside a government building. In this case congress was not even involved in the placing of the ten commandments inside the court building so I see nothing here that violates the first ammendment.

Of course we Americans could further ammend the constitution or simply pass a few laws that would banish all trace of God and religion from our currency, our government buildings, and at every government gathering or function. But then we would have less religious freedom and we would have religious viewpoint discrimination that, in effect, establishes atheism. A religiously free nation cannot be, by law, intolerant of religious expression.

[Toto]

Judge Moore is free to post the 10C on his own private property, or even in his own office. He is not free to use public property to force his beliefs on others.

As has been explained, the 14th amendment extends the first amendment to state officials.

I disagree that removing references to God from our money and public buildings would give us less religious freedom. Right now those references impinge on the religious freedom of everyone who does not hew to the official religious sentiment of the 1950's.

Under your interpretation, should American Atheists also be free to erect their own statue in the middle of the lobby of the Alabama courthouse? If they snuck the statue in in the middle of the night, do you think it would take two years to remove it?

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by Keith
Have you read the first ammendment? Where does it say that there is a prohibition against the government promoting the establishment of a religion, and how does this display--just by being there, establish a religion?

The first part of this question has already been answered.

The second? You put a statue in the middle of a public place that says "Thou shalt have no Gods before me," and then say that this isn't meant to tell people, "Thou shalt have no Gods before Me."

This has got to be a joke.

[PopeInTheWoods]

Originally posted by Keith
I think that part of religious freedom involves the right of people like Judge Moore to express their own personal beliefs about which gods, if any, are real and authoritative, even if it involves putting the ten commandments inside a government building. In this case congress was not even involved in the placing of the ten commandments inside the court building so I see nothing here that violates the first ammendment.
Roy Moore can "express his own personal beliefs about gods". Judge Moore, in his capacity as judge, cannot. You seem to have missed Toto's point that "Congress" mentioned in the First Amendment has been extended to "any government agency". Now do you see the First Amendment violation?

Of course we Americans could further ammend the constitution or simply pass a few laws that would banish all trace of God and religion from our currency, our government buildings, and at every government gathering or function. But then we would have less religious freedom and we would have religious viewpoint discrimination that, in effect, establishes atheism. A religiously free nation cannot be, by law, intolerant of religious expression.
You mush together two entirely separate issues here. The Constitution could of course be amended to establish a state religion or to prohibit the practice of religion, then the governmental promotion or suppression of religion wouldn't be unconstitutional. But the rest of your paragraph misses the point entirely. The Constitution (as it stands now) protects the rights of individuals from some forms of government action, it does not defend the rights of government officials to do whatever they want. The official actions of government officials can be restricted. For example, George W. Bush can raise money for his re-election, but President Bush cannot use the resources of the Presidency to aid his (official) re-election campaign (grandstanding carrier landings notwithstanding). Therefore you are both dead right and dead wrong when you assert that "A religiously free nation cannot be, by law, intolerant of religious expression." You are dead right if you add "by individuals" to your assertion, and dead wrong if you add " by the government". A relgiously free nation must be intolerant of religious expression by the government, because such expression denigrates the religious freedom of those whose religious views are different from the government's.

Andy

[Grumpy]

Originally posted by Keith
IMO with respect to the issue of theism in general, and Christian theism in particular there is no such thing as a neutral position.

In this case, that would mean having zero monuments in the courthouse rotunda is, what? An endorsement of atheism? Not hardly. Having no monuments, or having only secular monuments, leaves every person free to project their own creed onto it.

Keith continues...
Have you read the first ammendment? Where does it say that there is a prohibition against the government promoting the establishment of a religion, and how does this display--just by being there, establish a religion?

Luckily, Roy Moore has already obviated this dilemma. See, he's not challenging the contention that the monument amounts to an impermissible establishment of religion. He's arguing that it merely recognizes the de facto establishment of religion already in place! Which is precisely why he needs a federal judge to tell him there ain't no such thing.

You know how anti-separationists sometimes claim that the First Amendment does nothing but prohibit granting favored status to any particular Christian denomination? I wonder why they believe that would be a bad thing. Just because one denomination is favored doesn't mean others are infringed, right? Maybe we don't need the First Amendment at all, if that's all it does.

Or maybe it does more, and we'd best leave religion to take care of itself.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Toto


"As has been explained, the 14th amendment extends the first amendment to state officials.

Under your interpretation, should American Atheists also be free to erect their own statue in the middle of the lobby of the Alabama courthouse?"

Where does the 14th ammendmend say that it extends the first ammendment to state officials?

Yes, atheists should equally be allowed freedom of expression on religion and religious matters even inside of government buildings.

[Jewel]

Originally posted by Keith
Where does the 14th ammendmend say that it extends the first ammendment to state officials?

Yes, atheists should equally be allowed freedom of expression on religion and religious matters even inside of government buildings.

The 14th Amendment extends the entire Bill of Rights to the states.

It's the Equal Protection Clause:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In the context of having a 10C monument in a courthouse, non christians are at the very least given the impression that they will not be given equal protection under the law.

And yes, even though atheist and theist private citizens alike are allowed freedom of expression anywhere, government officials are restricted while they are representing the interests of the government.

Roy Moore does not have the right to use his office of Chief Justice to advance his personal views or beliefs any more than an atheist Chief Justice would have the right to erect a monument in the middle of his or her court house stating that god is a fairy tale.

[Keith]

Originally posted by PopeInTheWoods


"Therefore you are both dead right and dead wrong when you assert that "A religiously free nation cannot be, by law, intolerant of religious expression." You are dead right if you add "by individuals" to your assertion, and dead wrong if you add " by the government". A relgiously free nation must be intolerant of religious expression by the government, because such expression denigrates the religious freedom of those whose religious views are different from the government's.



Did Judge Moore also put up a sign above his ten commandments stating that the 10c are to be understood as having been officially adopted by the government? If not, then it seems to be quite a stretch to say that the display, merely by being placed there, violates the first ammendment.

[Jewel]

Originally posted by Keith
Did Judge Moore also put up a sign above his ten commandments stating that the 10c are to be understood as having been officially adopted by the government? If not, then it seems to be quite a stretch to say that the display, merely by being placed there, violates the first ammendment.

He was acting in official capacity when he put it there. A sign saying it is the official stance of the government is not nessessary. What do you think the odds would be of a private citizen sneaking such a thing into the courthouse at any time of day? What would be the odds of it sticking around if someone did manage it?

[StrictSeparationist]

Originally posted by Jewel
The 14th Amendment extends the entire Bill of Rights to the states.

It's the Equal Protection Clause:

Correction here, Jewel: the incorporation doctrine in fact derives its authority from the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.

In the context of having a 10C monument in a courthouse, non christians are at the very least given the impression that they will not be given equal protection under the law.

And yes, even though atheist and theist private citizens alike are allowed freedom of expression anywhere, government officials are restricted while they are representing the interests of the government.

Roy Moore does not have the right to use his office of Chief Justice to advance his personal views or beliefs any more than an atheist Chief Justice would have the right to erect a monument in the middle of his or her court house stating that god is a fairy tale.

Quite correct in all of this. And of course arguments based on the repudiation of the incorporation doctrine have arrived, unfortunately, over a century too late. A bunch of hot air from some right-wing lunatics with a knowledge of the Constitution that might best be described as extremely limited isn't going to convince the Supreme Court to reverse a judicial movement that brought us out of the days of abuse of power and severe injustice at the hands of state officials.

Originally posted by Keith
Did Judge Moore also put up a sign above his ten commandments stating that the 10c are to be understood as having been officially adopted by the government? If not, then it seems to be quite a stretch to say that the display, merely by being placed there, violates the first ammendment.

The message of official government endorsement of Judeo-Christianity was there whether it was spelled out in simple terms or not. Moore doesn't even dispute that this is an act that relates to an establishment of religion- he simply quarrels, as you do, with the proposition that federal courts have the authority to force state officials to abide by the federal Constitution. As has already been explained, that argument is without legal merit.

[Jewel]

Originally posted by StrictSeparationist

Correction here, Jewel: the incorporation doctrine in fact derives its authority from the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.

D'oh! Oh well, I tried. :o

[Toto]

Originally posted by Keith
Did Judge Moore also put up a sign above his ten commandments stating that the 10c are to be understood as having been officially adopted by the government? ....

Judge Moore testified to that effect in the court case. He claims that Christian theology is implicitly a part of English common law, which is part of Alabama law by statute.

Where does the 14th ammendmend say that it extends the first ammendment to state officials?


The Supreme Court has made that interpretation consistently, that the liberties identified in the first amendment are incorporated in the 14th.

Yes, atheists should equally be allowed freedom of expression on religion and religious matters even inside of government buildings.

Judge Moore did not erect his monument in a public area open to all citizens. He installed it in the courthouse under his authority as building manager. He also rejected attempts to install a recognition of Martin Luther King Jr., and a proposal by American Atheists to install a monument.

The facts are not with you on this case.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Toto

"The facts are not with you on this case."

Which facts? Can you be more specific?

[Keith]

Originally posted by Toto


"The Supreme Court has made that interpretation consistently, that the liberties identified in the first amendment are incorporated in the 14th."



Even if this were true, the 14th doesn't refer to the first ammendment generally nor does it mention the establishment clause specifically.

How does your desire to see the government adopt an atheistic stance (at least concerning government buildings and religious symbols) fit with your interpretation of the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment?

[Toto]

Originally posted by Keith
Which facts? Can you be more specific?

Go back and read all of the threads on this.

Moore testified in court that his purpose in erecting this monument was to advance his religious beliefs. He made no pretense of providing any balanced or historical perspective. The monument has no historical value itself.

You appear to be very - what should I say? - new to this issue?

[Ronin]

Keith ~ here is a letter that fairly sums up my position regarding the issue of promoting religion in governmental forums.

Government must be free of religious icons
(http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/editorial/6626310.htm)

I hope that you can see how neutrality is necessary in order to allow for a better system of governing those of all understandings.

[PopeInTheWoods]

Originally posted by Keith
How does your desire to see the government adopt an atheistic stance (at least concerning government buildings and religious symbols) fit with your interpretation of the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment?
I have no desire to see the government adopt an atheistic stance, as that would be a gross violation of the First Amendment. If some government agency or official erected a monument stating "God is a myth and all believers are idiots", I'd be solidly in favor of having it removed (as would the ACLU).

Andy

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by Keith
How does your desire to see the government adopt an atheistic stance (at least concerning government buildings and religious symbols) fit with your interpretation of the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment?

Another bad joke.

If I say that my car is blue, then I am saying something about the color of my car.

If I say that my car is not blue, I am saying something about the color of my car.

But, if asked about the color of my car, I say nothing, then I am NOT saying anything about the color of my car.

A person who says that silence when addressing the issue of religion is equivalent to saying that no God exists is LYING.

He is LYING to himself if he believes it. He is LYING to others if he does not. And the ultimate end of this LIE is to purpetrate and promote an injustice.

[Keith]

Originally posted by StrictSeparationist


..." he simply quarrels, as you do, with the proposition that federal courts have the authority to force state officials to abide by the federal Constitution."

I have not denied that federal courts have the authority to force state officials to abide by the U.S. constitution. And as far as I know, neither has Judge Moore.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Toto

"Go back and read all of the threads on this.

Moore testified in court that his purpose in erecting this monument was to advance his religious beliefs. He made no pretense of providing any balanced or historical perspective. The monument has no historical value itself.

You appear to be very - what should I say? - new to this issue?"

You still haven't told me which specific facts are not with me on this case. I thought you were implying that I was in error on some factual matter.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe

If I say that my car is blue, then I am saying something about the color of my car.

If I say that my car is not blue, I am saying something about the color of my car.

But, if asked about the color of my car, I say nothing, then I am NOT saying anything about the color of my car.

A person who says that silence when addressing the issue of religion is equivalent to saying that no God exists is LYING.

He is LYING to himself if he believes it. He is LYING to others if he does not. And the ultimate end of this LIE is to purpetrate and promote an injustice."

If I affirm that religious freedom entails the freedom to put religious symbols in government buildings I am making a non- neutral judgement which reflects my own personal worldview.

If you deny that religious freedom entails the freedom to put religious symbols in government buildings you are making a non-neutral judgement which reflects your own personal worldview.

If a person claims that he is making a religiously neutral judgement in his rejection of religious symbols in government buildings he is a liar.

[Toto]

Originally posted by Keith
I have not denied that federal courts have the authority to force state officials to abide by the U.S. constitution. And as far as I know, neither has Judge Moore.

I think you are wrong about what Judge Moore has claimed. Moore claims that his religious duties trump the power of the federal courts to enforce their decrees based on the US Constitution.

[Toto]

Originally posted by Keith
Even if this were true, the 14th doesn't refer to the first ammendment generally nor does it mention the establishment clause specifically.

It is settled law that the 14th amendment guarantees of liberty and equal protection include the liberties of the first amendment. This is not worth arguing about. That's why I said you seemed to be new to the issue.

How does your desire to see the government adopt an atheistic stance (at least concerning government buildings and religious symbols) fit with your interpretation of the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment?


I am not advocating an atheistic stance on government buildings and religious symbols. An atheist would want to post signs saying "There is no God."

I just advocate that the US government not take a stance on the issue of God.

[Toto]

Originally posted by Keith
You still haven't told me which specific facts are not with me on this case. I thought you were implying that I was in error on some factual matter.

You seem to think that anyone should be able to put up a religious symbol in a public building.

You don't seem to be aware of US court cases in the area.

[Worldtraveller]

First of all, this:
Originally posted by PopeintheWoods Therefore you are both dead right and dead wrong when you assert that "A religiously free nation cannot be, by law, intolerant of religious expression." You are dead right if you add "by individuals" to your assertion, and dead wrong if you add " by the government". A relgiously free nation must be intolerant of religious expression by the government, because such expression denigrates the religious freedom of those whose religious views are different from the government's.

Deserves a :notworthy ! very well said.

Whereas this:
Originally posted by Kieth Of course we Americans could further ammend the constitution or simply pass a few laws that would banish all trace of God and religion from our currency, our government buildings, and at every government gathering or function. But then we would have less religious freedom and we would have religious viewpoint discrimination that, in effect, establishes atheism.

Deserves a :confused:

How does banishing religious favoritism from government buildings imply less religious freedom? They aren't, and they are not trying to, close down the churches, where religious worship is supposed to occur. If the government went around closing down all of the churches and cathedrals and putting up mosques, THAT would be religious discrimination.

Yes, there definitely is such a thing as nuetrality with regards to religion. The religious zealots of this country need to get over the "you're either with us, or you're against us" attitude, and learn to get along with those who don't necessarily agree with them.

Cheers,
Lane

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally posted by Keith
You still haven't told me which specific facts are not with me on this case. I thought you were implying that I was in error on some factual matter.

The facts are set out in great detail in two court opinions. You can download them in PDF at these links:

Trial Court Opinion (http://www.almd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Glassroth%20v%20Moore%20Opinion.pdf)

11th Circuit Opinion (http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216708.pdf)

It's abundantly clear that Chief Justice Moore had the monument installed with the express purpose of acknowledging the sovereignty of the Christian God over the state of Alabama. This case is a no-brainer.

Originally posted by Keith
I have not denied that federal courts have the authority to force state officials to abide by the U.S. constitution. And as far as I know, neither has Judge Moore.

Moore most certainly has. From the court of appeals' opinion:

[Moore] contends that the district court’s order and injunction in this case contravene the right and authority he claims under his oath of office to follow the state and federal constitutions “as he best understands them, not as understood by others.” Brief of Appellant at 51. He asserts that “courts are bound by the Constitution, not by another court’s interpretation of that instrument,” and insists that he, as Chief Justice is “not a ministerial officer; nor is he answerable to a higher judicial authority in the performance of his duties as administrative head of the state judicial system.” Brief of Appellant at 53.

* * *

The clear implication of Chief Justice Moore’s argument is that no government official who heads one of the three branches of any state or of the federal government, and takes an oath of office to defend the Constitution, as all of them do, is subject to the order of any court, at least not of any federal court below the Supreme Court. In the regime he champions, each high government official can decide whether the Constitution requires or permits a federal court order and can act accordingly. (Footnotes omitted.)

The court correctly noted that Moore's stance is the same as that taken government officials who opposed court-ordered school desegregation.

Originally posted by Keith
If I affirm that religious freedom entails the freedom to put religious symbols in government buildings I am making a non- neutral judgement which reflects my own personal worldview.

If you deny that religious freedom entails the freedom to put religious symbols in government buildings you are making a non-neutral judgement which reflects your own personal worldview.

If a person claims that he is making a religiously neutral judgement in his rejection of religious symbols in government buildings he is a liar.

This view is standard accomodationist dogma, straight out of the Bartonian playbook. It's also woefully wrongheaded for reasons that other folks in this thread have described very well. Saying that a government official, acting in his official capacity, can't endorse a particular religion in the manner Moore did here is simply an expression of the basic and undeniable precept that government power has limits, one of which is set forth in the Establishment Clause and the case law interpreting it.

[TerriNPA]

OK I keep seeing about different versions of the 10c's... what are the different versions? I'm trying to find em but can't seem to locate them.

[Toto]

People mean different things when they talk about different versions of the ten commandments. There are different places in Exodus and Leviticus that list different commandments; in addition, the Catholics, Protestants and Jews all divide the text up differently.

Commandments 5 - 11 (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/cortesi2.html)

The documentation of the Hebraic Law begins in the book of Exodus chapter 20 , with the text "And God spake all these words, saying..." This, the only point in the Bible where God is portrayed as speaking directly to his people, rather than speaking through Moses or another intermediary, is a dramatic point in the Old Testament. This is one reason so much attention is given to the verses that follow.

That following text contains the ten familiar commandments, but that is not the end of what God had to say. There is a narrative break because the assembled Israelites are overwhelmed, and ask Moses to go and talk to God as their representative. The chapter continues with "And the LORD said unto Moses..." and there follows many more commandments, both liturgical and political in nature. The giving of the Law continues for many chapters and books. The well-known Ten are only the opening prologue.

The only reason to isolate these particular ten commandments is because the narrative context sets them apart as being spoken by God to the assembled people. There is no internal evidence that these ten are more important than the rest of the many, many clauses of the Law that God continues to dictate to Moses through the following chapters. And there is no evidence that the opening ten are somehow a perfect summary or encapsulation of the Law. All the clauses of the Law are commandments by God to the Hebrews, as evidenced by the frequent reminders, "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying..."

. . .

Leviticus chapter 19 begins with a partial restatement of the Ten Commandments of Exodus, but extends them with the crucial addition of the following words (Leviticus 19:17-18):

Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself : I [am] the LORD.



From here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/matthies.shtml)

The Protestant, Hebrew, & Catholic versions of the Ten Commandments all vary. (E.g., Protestant #8 "thou shalt not steal", Hebrew #8 "bearing false witness", Catholic #8 "stealing".) In fact none of them agree numerically. Also, take a look at Exodus 20 and compare it to Exodus 34. In the former we have the original set of Commandments that Moses later smashes. In the later (after Moses smashes the first set) God promises to "write on them the words that were on the first". Well if you compare the original Commandments with the end result you'll see that God did not follow through with his promise!

[Keith]

Originally posted by Toto

"I am not advocating an atheistic stance on government buildings and religious symbols. An atheist would want to post signs saying "There is no God."



If it is true that Christians need not post signs saying "The Christian God exists" to be advocating their religious views, then it is likewise true that atheists can be advocating their atheism without posting signs saying "There is no God." The atheist anti-religious attitude concerning strict separation is self evident proof of their belief that government must be atheistic.

[Grumpy]

Originally posted by Stephen Maturin
It's abundantly clear that Chief Justice Moore had the monument installed with the express purpose of acknowledging the sovereignty of the Christian God over the state of Alabama. This case is a no-brainer.

I'll say this much for Roy Moore: at least he's honest. Less scrupulous preachers/politicians would attempt to hide or sugarcoat their motives. Wrong as I believe he is, Moore at least will defend not only his actions, but his reasons for taking them.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Keith
If it is true that Christians need not post signs saying "The Christian God exists" to be advocating their religious views, then it is likewise true that atheists can be advocating their atheism without posting signs saying "There is no God."

Why, of course. Who here claimed that atheists want to post such signs in Gov't buildings?

The atheist anti-religious attitude concerning strict separation is self evident proof of their belief that government must be atheistic.

As an atheist, my attitude about separation is not anti-religious, it's that church and state should be separate. That's not anti-religious; in fact, it could be viewed as pro-religious, in that I don't think the government should muck around in anyone's religion. We should all be free to practice whatever religion we wish, or have no religion at all. Supporting the government in posting monuments etc. that favor one particular religion is anti-religious, IMO, since it implies that this is government is "by the religion, for the religion, of the the religion" and implies that other religions, or lack thereof, are not welcome.

And my belief is that the government should be secular and neutral towards religions, not that the government must be atheistic.

[Grumpy]

Originally posted by Mageth
Who here claimed that atheists want to post such signs in Gov't buildings?

Actually, in reading the PDF of the Trial Court opinion, I see an atheist group, probably American Atheists, requested that Moore install an atom symbol in the rotunda. It was denied (as well it should have been, being for the purpose of getting under Roy's skin) on the grounds that it didn't match the "Moral Foundation of Law" theme.

Further, the written opinion reminds me of something which has been lost in the hubbub surrounding the removal of the rock itself. To wit:

...[T]he court does not hold that it is improper in all instances to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings;... Rather, the court's limited holding... is that the Chief Justice's actions and intentions in this case crossed the Establishment Clause line between permissible and impermissible.

Emphasis mine. I want to take back my remark about Moore's honesty, because of what he said today: 'It's not about me.' No, Roy, it is about you. It's because of your stated positions (spoken honestly, I'll grant) that your monument was an affront to our secular government.

[Toto]

Originally posted by Keith
... We can't have a meaningful discussion about justice unless we understand what justice is and what it is not. The concept of justice presupposes that human beings have God-given inalienable rights. On the atheistic assumption, human rights, if they exist at all, are derived only from their national and/or regional governments.

So how do you characterize the American experience? You have the ceremonial deism of the Declaration of Independence, plus the assumption that governmental legitimacy is derived from the consent of the governed.

In any case, the purpose of this forum is not to discuss the abstract concept of Justice. It is to discuss church state separation.

If a government can legitimately grant certain rights to its citizens, then it can legitimately take away those rights any time it sees fit to do so.

Take out the word "legitimately."

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

In a democracy, we are the government. If we lose our rights, we have to look to ourselves to restore them.

If atheism is true, human beings have no basic inherent "human rights." What they have, at best, are "government-granted rights." If human rights only come from their government, then justice is a totally meaningless human contrivance. But everything about human experience proves that we all understand, and actually take for granted, the concept of justice.

Your human experience is very limited. For most of history, humans have lived under godly theocratic governments, and have had no rights whatsoever. You will not find American-style Constitutional rights in any Christian theocracy on record.

[The Other Michael]

Hello Keith,

If you cruise through the topics in the Moral Foundations & Principles forum you should find numerous threads that deal with the sources of human rights/morality/ethics. Even if you don't find the material convincing, it should be quite educational for you.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P moderator

[Keith]

Originally posted by Toto


"Strict separation" is not anti-religious. Many people who take religious seriously want the government to neither aid nor hinder religion, and want Judge Moore to keep his religious symbols on private property."

I don't have a problem with the idea that our government should be neutral to which Christian religions are being advocated in government buildings. But to insist on a non-theistic stance for our government is no different than advocating an atheistic government. And that would not only be anti-religious, it would be anti-God. It would also be the exact opposite of what the authors of our constitution wanted to accomplish.

[Mullibok]

Originally posted by Keith
But to insist on a non-theistic stance for our government is no different than advocating an atheistic government.

An atheistic government would teach that there is no God, like the USSR. A secular government does not say there is one and does not say that there isn't. How can anyone with a straight face say that these two things are the same?

[Keith]

Originally posted by Mageth


"And my belief is that the government should be secular and neutral towards religions, not that the government must be atheistic."

If you just omitted the word "secular" then your view would resemble my own view.

[Toto]

Originally posted by Keith
I don't have a problem with the idea that our government should be neutral to which Christian religions are being advocated in government buildings. But to insist on a non-theistic stance for our government is no different than advocating an atheistic government. And that would not only be anti-religious, it would be anti-God. It would also be the exact opposite of what the authors of our constitution wanted to accomplish.

Did you conjure up the authors with a ouija board to get that outrageous statement?

Do you equate Christianity with belief in God? Do you think that the government can discriminate against non-Christians (Jews, Deists, Unitarians, Buddhists, etc.)?

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Keith
I don't have a problem with the idea that our government should be neutral to which Christian religions are being advocated in government buildings.

So you would have a problem if they advocated non-Christian religions in government buildings?

But to insist on a non-theistic stance for our government is no different than advocating an atheistic government.

Bullshit. Forgive the French, but that's the best word to describe this statement.

And that would not only be anti-religious, it would be anti-God.

A secular goverment operating under the limitations of the First Amendment is not anti-religious, nor is it anti-God. It is religion-neutral and God-neutral. It makes no postitive or negative laws and takes no positive or negative actions regarding religions and gods at all. It allows the citizens to freely choose and worship their religions and gods without encouragement or restriction by the Government.

In a sense, that is pro-religion, not anti-religion, as it allows freedom to practice the religion of your choice, or to practice none at all.

It would also be the exact opposite of what the authors of our constitution wanted to accomplish.

There is nothing, I repeat nothing, in the Constitution at all that indicates the founders had any intent of any sort of theistic or religious slant to the government. In fact, the exact opposite is true - their intent was clearly to establish a secular, religion-neutral government.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Keith
If you just omitted the word "secular" then your view would resemble my own view.

By "secular", I mean something along the lines of "not controlled by a religious body or concerned with religious or spiritual matters." I would hope you would think that applied to our government.

[Selsaral]

Originally posted by Mullibok
An atheistic government would teach that there is no God, like the USSR. A secular government does not say there is one and does not say that there isn't. How can anyone with a straight face say that these two things are the same?

Exactly.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Mullibok

"An atheistic government would teach that there is no God, like the USSR. A secular government does not say there is one and does not say that there isn't. How can anyone with a straight face say that these two things are the same?"

Well, lets compare the atheistic government of the former USSR to an American secular government that many atheists hope to see.

1. In terms of their stance on the existence of God, they were/are both supported mainly by atheists.
2. They both have made the assumption that freedom and human rights can exist and be preserved without reference to God.
3. They both are intolerant of God and religion in government.
4. They both assume that JUSTICE is an intelligible concept without reference to God.
5. They both lack a moral foundation for recognizing even the most basic human rights.

[Mullibok]

Originally posted by Keith
Well, lets compare the atheistic government of the former USSR to an
American secular government that many atheists hope to see.

1. In terms of their stance on the existence of God, they were/are both supported mainly by atheists.
2. They both have made the assumption that freedom and human rights can exist and be preserved without reference to God.
3. They both are intolerant of God and religion in government.
4. They both assume that JUSTICE is an intelligible concept without reference to God.
5. They both lack a moral foundation for recognizing even the most basic human rights.

You do realize that 5 is an assumption on your part that others here can beat you into the ground with, right? And if 5 is false, 2 and 4 pose no problems either. 3 misses the point entirely, the US is also intolerant of anti-religious views in government, i.e. teaching that there is no God. 1 is partially true but the ACLU never seems to have too much problem finding some ministers to back them up when they take their big cases to court.

I ask you, do you think there is a difference between not saying anything about God and saying specifically that there is no God? Would the US be worse in your view if it did the latter, or would it be the same?

[Keith]

Originally posted by Toto

"Do you equate Christianity with belief in God? Do you think that the government can discriminate against non-Christians (Jews, Deists, Unitarians, Buddhists, etc.)?"

I believe that all humans on some level have a knowledge of God, but the mere awareness of God doesn't make a person a Christian.

Our government can't discriminate against non-Christians just for being non-Christians.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Mullibok

"I ask you, do you think there is a difference between not saying anything about God and saying specifically that there is no God? Would the US be worse in your view if it did the latter, or would it be the same?"

To the first question, if it becomes the offical government policy to no longer tolerate any references to God and religion in government, then I see no difference. Intolerence of religion in our government (not letting the government say anything about God or religion) is by itself speaking loudly about God and religion.

To the second question, it follows that if there is no real difference (both are advocating atheism) then one is not necessarily any worse than the other.

[Mullibok]

I don't like this post, rethinking.

[Mullibok]

You know what, I just had a thought. Let's say, in theory, that I want the government to say that there's no God. The government refuses, saying it won't take that position. Now I complain about it being official government policy to not say religion is wrong, and that intolerance to areligious views in the government speaks loudly about how the government is endorsing religion!

I used the same methodology you did and reached the exact opposite conclusion.

[Mullibok]

Originally posted by Keith
Under an atheistic government human beings would naturally be seen as no more 'special' than ants, rats, or even bacteria.

Humans tend to look after themselves more than ants, that would be rather simple survival instinct. If you want to debate this, go here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1147678#post1147678)

[Keith]

Originally posted by Mullibok

"Ok, having rethought:

Do you see no difference in having no religious monuments on government buildings, and having big monuments that say "THERE IS NO GOD"? Do you see a difference between public schools teaching that there is no God, instead of neither saying there is or isn't? I guarantee you those atheistic government stances would create one hell of a lot more objection than anything that's been seen so far."

If it became the government's policy that God and religion have no place in government buildings and in all government matters then the government might as well be saying offically and on government property "THERE IS NO GOD."

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Keith
I believe that all humans on some level have a knowledge of God, but the mere awareness of God doesn't make a person a Christian.

I have knowledge of god concepts, true, but have no knowledge of God, if you get what I mean, no matter what you believe.

I could just as easily claim that all humans on some level have a knowledge that gods don't exist. I don't, but perhaps that will illustrate to you the emptiness of your statement.

Our government can't discriminate against non-Christians just for being non-Christians.

Placing the Ten Commandments in the entrance to a State Government building, and thus endorsing the Ten Commandments, discriminates against non-biblical theists and atheists. Read the First Commandment again - it explicity discriminates against non-biblical theists, in particular, and by extension discriminates against atheists (who don't have any gods).

[Buffman]

Is there some purpose to three identical posts? A waste of band width?

[rock_hard_cox]

Justice is defined on an individual basis. I might think that cutting a thief's hand off is justice while you may be in favor of a prison sentence. Hence, there is no true justice and there is no standard for determining what is truly just.

Please refrain name calling -- Thanks. Jewel, Moderator CSS&SA

[rock_hard_cox]

my apologies

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by Keith
If it became the government's policy that God and religion have no place in government buildings and in all government matters then the government might as well be saying offically and on government property "THERE IS NO GOD."
You need to stop pretending you didn't see Mullibok's post:You know what, I just had a thought. Let's say, in theory, that I want the government to say that there's no God. The government refuses, saying it won't take that position. Now I complain about it being official government policy to not say religion is wrong, and that intolerance to areligious views in the government speaks loudly about how the government is endorsing religion!
If the government also prohibits the posting of monuments or documents that proclaim, "There is no God," then your position that there is a strict dichotomy is an excluded-middle fallacy. "There is no God," must be representative of some philosophical position related to theism, presumably atheism. Your claim that "the government, and its agents, shall not promote religion" is also atheism is patently absurd.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Philosoft

"You need to stop pretending you didn't see Mullibok's post:
If the government also prohibits the posting of monuments or documents that proclaim, "There is no God," then your position that there is a strict dichotomy is an excluded-middle fallacy. "There is no God," must be representative of some philosophical position related to theism, presumably atheism. Your claim that "the government, and its agents, shall not promote religion" is also atheism is patently absurd."

You haven't understood what I'm saying concerning strict separation. If the government adopts the policy that the people have no rights to religious expression inside of government buildings and at government events; if government must be areligious and atheistic, then the government is not neutral with regard to God and religion. I don't see how it is possible for any government to be neutral regarding God and religion.

But don't get me wrong...I don't feel any sadness about the hopelessness of a neutral stance by governments on the issue of God. It seems perfectly natural that God, being the one necessary being, could only be an 'all-or-nothing' kind of being. The word "neutral" just doesn't fit with the nature and character of a truly awesome God.

[Ronin]

You haven't understood what I'm saying concerning strict separation. If the government adopts the policy that the people have no rights to religious expression inside of government buildings and at government events; if government must be areligious and atheistic, then the government is not neutral with regard to God and religion. I don't see how it is possible for any government to be neutral regarding God and religion.

Keith, the people have every right to religious expression inside government buildings and at government events.

The people can show up in court wearing the religious accoutrements to their heart's content.

The government cannot express religion to the people in the form of preferential promotion inside government buildings and at government events.

The government can be neutral regarding God(s)ess(s) and religion by allowing each individual their own perspective so that all can be free...and remain a strict forum for the people to redress grievances.

The Church cannot be neutral...and that is precisely where religious icons belong.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

This is not meant for Keith, who isn't listening anyway. But meant for others who are participating, in suggesting a new way to spell out the distinction to those who will listen.



Atheistic statement: There is no God
Theistic statement: There is a God

Neutral statement: Silence

There should be no prohibition on a person inside the government making a personal statement about their belief in God.

However, statues and plaques placed on walls of public buildings are not instances of a person making a personal statement. They represent a government adopting an official state position.

Moore: "I believe in God" -- No problem.

Moore; "The official position of this Court is that Thou shalt have no God but my God" -- Not good.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Ronin


"The government cannot express religion to the people in the form of preferential promotion inside government buildings and at government events.

The government can be neutral regarding God(s)ess(s) and religion by allowing each individual their own perspective so that all can be free...and remain a strict forum for the people to redress grievances."



This all sounds good, fair and nice, but it is simply assuming the exact point under dispute--that governments can somehow be neutral toward God and religion.

Is it possible for an individual to be non-theist and theist at the same time? Of course not. Why would you think the law of contradiction can only apply to individual human beings but not to governments?

It is self evident that governments don't just happen to exist and no representative government can exist merely for its own sake. Governments exist for a purpose. If a government exists to facilitate 'the good' of society as in seeking to promote justice, then it will by necessity, advocate Christian theism even if it refuses to acknowledge the Christian God in any overt manner.

[Mullibok]

Originally posted by Keith
Is it possible for an individual to be non-theist and theist at the same time? Of course not. Why would you think the law of contradiction can only apply to individual human beings but not to governments?

Because a government doesn't believe things, as it's not a concious entity. Governments express things.

Let's take a song, like oh I dunno, Hey Jude by the Beatles. Does this song say there's no God? Hardly. Does it say there is a God? Nope. So it being theist and non-theist at the same time? If something created by humans such as a song can be neutral, then something else created by humans such as a government can be neutral.

This conversation is getting tiresome.

[Shake]

I know Alonzo just tackled this, but since Keith seems to have great difficulty differentiating between "anti-" and "neutral" let me put it in mathematical terms:

Promoting or for an idea, religion, etc.: +
Being "anti" the above: -
Being neutral: 0 (that's the number zero)

Zero is neither positive nor negative, and is most certainly not the opposite of positive (or negative). Secular is the equivalent of zero in this thread.

Keith, you also are somehow still missing the excellent, obvious points being made by Toto, Mageth, Alonzo, etc. Perhaps you need to read a little more carefully here.

[JCS]

If a government exists to facilitate 'the good' of society as in seeking to promote justice, then it will by necessity, advocate Christian theism even if it refuses to acknowledge the Christian God in any overt manner.

I know that is what you think, but what can you offer that would make me think that it is a true statement. From my experience Christian theism is not about justice, it is about proper belief.
(A belief that even christian theists cannot agree on.)

[Buffman]

Keith,

Which of the 33,830 Christian denomionational theistic philosophies is the one in which you vest your specific and complete supernatural faith/beliefs? Do you agree with all of their interpretations/rules/regulations/dogmas? Do they all agree with yours? Which one of them should our secular government support? Obviously if we are going to practice Christian justice in our government, that government can only decree one set of denominational rules/regulations/tenets ...laws...as legal and enforceable. Isn't that right?

Here! Study these and pick out the ones that you think are the only truly Christian ones. Thanks.

http://www.adherents.com/

(Extract)
New Barna Poll shows wide diversity in levels of religious activity among different denominations... New edition of World Christian Encyclopedia published: tabulating 10,000 distinct religious groups, including 33,830 Christian denominations Gallup releases latest polling data on U.S. religious affiliation
(End extract)

http://grid.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/jm4/writings/memor.htm

(Extract)
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
(End extract)

[Leah]

Theist.......non-theist .... Government buildings .... neutrality ....

personally, I couldn't care less what people display where, as long as it dosn't influence people negatively. The ten commandments are anyway not being followed by christianity. Just think of all them statues of apostels or Mary that are being worshiped within the churches, rather unlike
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
.5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, ..."

But it does seem a bit pathetic to me when America of all Countries in the world, claims to obey or even participate with those ancient commandments.
Whether we go back in time, when white man set foot upon that land, or whether we think of nowadays, the following commandments are hardly respected in US:

"Thou shalt not kill. "
"Thou shalt not steal"
" Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's" (how about they neighbour's country???)

But who knows, seeing the ten commandments on a regular basis, might have some kind of influence on American society, politics, and therefore consequently World politics.

I doubt it, though.

[Buffman]

IMHO this pretty well sums it up:

http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/10command.htm

[Jewel]

Excellent article, Buffman!

The author uses a nice analogy:

To sneak around the First Amendment many have adopted the tactic of calling it an "historical document" and "the basis for our system of law", often trying to post it as part of a larger display with historical documents. To me, this is like trying to make a marijuana plant legally acceptable by planting daisies and gardenias around it and calling it a botanical display.

[Daggah]

Originally posted by Keith
If it is true that Christians need not post signs saying "The Christian God exists" to be advocating their religious views, then it is likewise true that atheists can be advocating their atheism without posting signs saying "There is no God." The atheist anti-religious attitude concerning strict separation is self evident proof of their belief that government must be atheistic.

To make the analogy relevant, one would have to compare the posting of monuments/signs displaying Christian scripture with the posting of monuments and signs displaying atheist scripture.

Only one problem with that: there's no such thing as "atheist scripture."

[Daggah]

Keith, to be consistent with previous statements in this thread I highly suggest you begin railing against the Constitution, our founding document...after all, the Constitution is an "atheist" document (according to you, anyway), as it contains not a single reference to God.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Keith
This all sounds good, fair and nice, but it is simply assuming the exact point under dispute--that governments can somehow be neutral toward God and religion.

Which they can, and preferably should. You sure haven't demonstrated how they can't.

It is self evident that governments don't just happen to exist and no representative government can exist merely for its own sake. Governments exist for a purpose. If a government exists to facilitate 'the good' of society as in seeking to promote justice, then it will by necessity, advocate Christian theism even if it refuses to acknowledge the Christian God in any overt manner.

How so? I'll repeat something I previously said:

The core "morals" of our government are most definitely not Judeo-Christian. Provide support for yourassertion by finding in the bible where democracy, elected officials, trial by jury, separation of powers, equal rights for women, abolition of slavery, free enterprise, etc. are described as foundations for a government.

About the only thing I can think of in the Bible that you might find to support your assertion is that Jesus seems to favor separation of church and state, the very thing you seem to be arguing against.


So what about Christian theism are our governments supposed to be advocating, then? I don't see much if anything in the Bible to base a government on, at least not one I'd want to be under.

[nogods4me]

I think we may have a double problem here. Apparently, not only has Keith not read the Constitution and many of the fine examples of case law quoted above, but if he thinks the bible and justice have much in common, it is pretty clear that he hasn't really read the bible either.

[ScumDog]

If we derived rights from the bible, namely the OT, children would not have any rights in this country, and would be treated very harshly.

http://www.fathermag.com/interviews/hodges-interview.html

Second, one must recognize that the authoritarian forces that imposed the dogma of desert religions on Westerners did so by suppressing native Western values and attitudes towards children, and what they could not suppress they absorbed and claimed as their own innovation. For example, prior to the imposition of Christianity on the West, our society accorded children their human rights. Christian administrations rewrote Roman law. They stripped children of all their legal rights and made them the chattel of their parents or of those who had bought the children from the parents. After the French Revolution and the declaration of the Universal Rights of Man, the West is slowly returning to the idea that all humans regardless of age have human rights by virtue of their humanity. Many ethical organizations have sprung up to lobby for greater protections of children's rights. The anti-circumcision movement in the United States is one example of such movements. Now, Christian organizations are appropriating the fruits of the labors of these secular Western groups and claiming that Christianity is in favor of children's rights and that the human rights progress that has occurred in recent years is a Christian program. The Christian hierarchy has evidently learned after 2,000 years that it can no longer attempt to suppress our native values in this respect, and so they appropriate what they cannot suppress and thereby attempt to maintain control.

[Jewel]

Heads up folks, I am going to split a sizable chunk of this thread off to MF&P. Please do not post anymore until this task has been completed.

Thanks,
Jewel
Moderator CSS&SA

[Jewel]

Ok folks, carry on.:)

-Jewel
Moderator, CSS&SA