Moore monument case: Are Separationists not getting the right message out?

[DigitalChicken]

Hi,

I have read numerous articles, heard talk shows, read message boards and seen TV reports regarding the Moore 10C Monument case.

It strikes me that C-S Separationists are not getting the correct message across.

In particular, those speaking int he media are not emphasizing a few key things.

1) C-S Separation benefits Christians as much as anyone else. Mixing religion with government, as Moore is doing, does not advance Christianity but instead hurts it.

2) That "God" or "Nature's God" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and elsewhere is not the Christian God but the God of Deism. This is an important point when countering the "moral foundations of law" argument.

I'm sure are a few more but that's the obvious ones I have been noting.

DC

[Raydo97]

Bingo! Digital Chicken is DEAD ON!!

I haven't heard this point made anywhere, either. But, it's true that government neutrality in religion is beneficial to EVERYONE.

Christians seem to be so caught up in their persecution complex that they aren't stopping to think about what they're saying. They want Christianity to be endorsed by the government and recognized as the law of the land. But, it's not that simple.

It's true that Christianity is, by far, the majority religion in the United States and they do have some very powerful lobbies, not to mention untold millions of supporters at the grass roots level. I'm not worried about this actually happening, but for the sake of argument and to make a point, let's say that someday they actually win this battle and establish a government endorsement of Christianity.

This endorsement would result in the "Ten Commandments" being posted in every courthouse in the country, along with a multitude of other government institutions. Prayer would not only be welcomed back into public schools, but students would actually be led in prayer services by their teachers.

This probably sounds like a great situation for Christians, who show no concern for other religions who don't recognize the so called "one true God," but let's break it down:

First, excluding all of the obvious problems you would have in this scenario with people who follow other religions, look at the problems and disagreements you would have SOLELY AMONG THE CHRISTIAN POPULATION.

Christianity consists of dozens of different sects, each with different teachings. A "Christian" can be anything from a Baptist to a Catholic to a Mormon. Yes, they all believe in Jebus, but they each also maintain an assortment of other beliefs and teachings in addition to their faith in Jebus.

So, if the government were to one day cave and endorse Christianity, which branch would it endorse? Catholicism? Methodists? Pentecostals? What if the sect of Christiantiy being taught to your children at your local public school is not the version you follow? Do you want your Baptist child being led in prayer by a Catholic?

What's worse, a teacher who leads your child in prayer and teaches a different belief from the one your family follows, or a teacher who remains neutral and does not attempt to influence the child one way or the other? People seem to think that it's OK for the government to endorse religion as long as that religion is Christianity, but the truth is that government endorsement of Christian prayer and worship would open a whole new can of worms and give people a lot more to complain about than the current "lack of religion" in government.

What really infuriates me about this issue is the repeated Christian mantra, "they took prayer out of our schools." I even had a Christian explain to me that, "in this country, a child can be arrested for saying the name of our Lord in a public school."
That is absolute nonsense and the CHRISTIAN LEADERS know it. They just muddy the water and tell their ignorant flocks these types of incindiary things to prompt them into activism. If they can convince their followers that Christianity is truly "under attack," they will be able to motivate them to defend Christianity with more vigor and that will result in a greater attempt to "witness to potential converts" and a bigger haul in the collection plate.

My wife is a school teacher and I can tell you with absolute certainty that PRAYER IS NOT ILLEGAL IN ANY SCHOOL IN THIS COUNTRY. The kids in her school have bible clubs and even meet in the mornings to pray around the flagpole. And it's all perfectly legal. What ISN'T LEGAL is for TEACHERS to lead the children in prayer because that would be government endorsement of a religion. The students, on the other hand, are free to pursue any religion they want... or no religion at all.

What's wrong with that? It certainly seems logical to me.

I don't understand why CHRISTIANS can't understand that the current system is the only logical system. Right now, everyone is free to believe as they wish and the goverment doesn't choose sides. No one is stepping on anyone's toes.

I'm telling you, if Christians ever get their way and establish Christianity as the law of the land, that's when all hell will break loose among their ranks because they can't agree even among themselves on the proper way to worship Jebus.

Now that I think about it, that might actually be kind of entertaining! Maybe even more entertaining than those idiots in Alabama lying in front of the courthouse and screaming, "put it back" with sweat and spittle all over their faces.

[gravitybow]

I'm very frustrated at the performance of "our side" in this fracas. Not only are they "not getting the correct message across," they're letting distortions and lies go unchallenged. What I've heard in the past few days:

"The American judicial system is based on the Ten Commandments."

"American was founded on Judeo-Christian principles/ the Ten Commandments."

"The scuplture of Moses in the Supreme Court proves Judeo-Christian principles are the foundation of our laws."

"Judeo-Christian principles are the root of English common law."

"Those people want to erase God from public life."

"The Ten Commandments hang directly over the head of the justices of the Supreme Court."

"pro-God versus anti-God forces"

...and others that escape me at the moment. The pro-Commandment side comes across as energetic, passionate, quick -- and factual. Our guys sound dull, legalistic, and sometimes evasive. In defense, how much can you say when moderators on O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, and Scarborough Country cut you off before you're even partly into an explanation, usually to ask another inane question? And why aren't we challenging the stupid questions? (Would you object to a statue of Venus outside a courtroom:yes or no?)

Can't we find a spokesman with some passion, with factual sound bites of his own, who won't let the other side get away with false assertions? The other side has all the sex appeal, and we have cardboard cutouts. Don't the AU and ACLU understand the emotional power of television? Hey, guys, work on your charisma a little! Don't get me wrong: we've got sound constitutional principle working for us. But in the court of public opinion, we stink.

We're not getting the message out because, frankly, the version I'm hearing is uninspiring and lackluster, and our points aren't "packaged" in television fashion. And if I feel that way, what does the average person think?

And worse, when we let assertions go unchallenged (see above list), it is easy to interpret that as agreement, which in turn makes us look like unprincipled hypocrites fishing for a "Yea, but in this instance..." Who's going to believe us? Today, I heard an ACLU lawyer wholly agreeing with the "America founded on Judeo-Christian principles" without elaboration or objection! No mention at all about the principles of the Enlightenment or any other influences. After that exchange, I was "convinced" that America wasn't founded on anything else! "So why can't the Ten C's stay? Hmmm?" Dismal, I tell ya'.

YOU guys have more complete answers and quicker responses than ANYTHING I've heard our side say so far.

Any volunteers?

[Toto]

Who was that ACLU lawyer?

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Let us look at a pair of relevant facts.

Between 60% and 80% of the people support Judge Moore.

Television companies depend on ratings for their income.

What TV news executive is going to organize their broadcast that will drive 60% to 80% of the viewing public to change channels?

One may be tempted to argue that honor and integrity should drive the individual to report the issue more honestly. But the honest broadcasters with integrity will soon be out of work. Besides, they would not have very many viewers anyway, given the large numbers that would switch to channels that tell them what they want to hear.

This is a structural problem.

[gravitybow]

Originally posted by Toto
Who was that ACLU lawyer?

I recalled her position incorrectly, Toto, trying to keep all the players straight. Her name is Deborah Lauter and she is the Southeast Regional Director of the Anti-Defamation League. I wrote her name dowm at the end of that pathetic interview, but not her position, so I was remembering it incorrectly.

[ImGod]

I think they make good arguements but they are edited down to the typical soundbites.

I watched NBC news yesterday and they interviewed a minister from the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The only way you knew he was a minister was the "Rev." before his name. All they showed of the interview was an obviously edited section were he said there must be a "Seperation of Church and State".

Out of 5 minutes they gave one side of the issue one line. You would think they would at least let them plug their book:

Why The Religious Right Is Wrong About Separation Of Church And State (http://www.au.org/whythereligiousrightiswrong/)

In summary. The media sucks.

[BibleBelted]

Originally posted by ImGod

In summary. The media sucks.

You can say that again. Even Mr. Hardball,Chris Matthews, doesn't seem to get it. The ACLU and SPLC are putting their heads on the block to defend our individual liberties against these fringe nutballs, and we are the ones being portrayed as a bunch of whiny, nitpicking God-haters. These reconstructionists are, at heart, fascists - and they are being given a pass by the media because they wave a Bible around.

This may be the most intellectually impoverished political movement since the Dark Ages, and still it's allowed to fester out of the public spotlight.

It's depressing.

Sometimes I think maybe the media is just waiting for this story to "ripen" . . like they need it to become much worse before they feel they can afford to bump coverage of Kobe or Laci. They had the cameras there last night for the fundy rally, but reported little on what was actually being said, or what kind of people were in it.

Where's Edward R. Murrow when you need him? Maybe I'm a hopeless optimist, but I feel that public support for this gaggle of idiots would implode overnight if people really saw them for what they are, and understood the real issues at stake.

[Buffman]

gravitybow

Could that have been the last 15 seconds of Nadine Strossen's interview on Crossfire? I know it certainly caught my attention when the show went off the air with the claim that she had just agreed with keeping God in the "public" square...as though supporting the kooks.

http://www.aclu.org/About/About.cfm?ID=9320&c=187

[DigitalChicken]

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe
This is a structural problem.

It's more than that.

I've seen or heard live discussions on the subject. In a live discussion there is no opportunity to do editing.

One case was Colmes (of Hannity and Colmes) radio show where he had represenatives from each side. The CSS rep did not challenge the Declaration of Indepedence claim nor did he point out that benefit for Christianist of CSS and the harm that can be done without it.

In fact, another live broadcast was on FOX of all places where the CSS had the camera for a good 5 minutes without opposition. The interviewer asked "Is this just to benefit atheists?" The person did not take the time to reply properly but instead said No and then attacked Moore.

There was no time for spin in these and other live broadcasts.

BTW, I think our culture contributes to these problems. We call the other side "fundies" and participate in dehumanizing them as well. All you have to do is search these message boards where you can read people saying they wouldn't mind seeing demonstrators arrested in Alabama. This is not exactly the attitude that fosters the kind of understanding that is needed.

DC

[gravitybow]

Originally posted by Buffman
Could that have been the last 15 seconds of Nadine Strossen's interview on Crossfire?

Buffman,

No. it was Hannity and Colmes. Sean Hannity asked Deborah Lauter (Southeast Regional Director of the Anti-Defamation League) something like, "You're not one of those nuts who's going to tell us that America isn't based on Judeo-Christian principles?" So I was surprised when she agreed that it was and left it at that.

That's a killer, isn't it? Both sides are arguing an issue, and both are in the dark about how we got from point A to point B.

[Buffman]

gravitybow,

After listening to what people for the secular side have been saying in the media, I think that they should all be invited to become members of this forum and read the information found here before ever speaking in public...if that's what it can be called. Very disappointing representations.

Just look at the question you posted. "You're not one of those nuts who's going to tell us that America isn't based on Judeo-Christian principles?"

Just think of the power of a response like, "The only nuts I have observed are those that don't realize that positive social Principles and Laws were around long before there was a Judeo-Christian Bible. I hope you aren't one of those historically challenged types that think Americam laws are only based on the Code of Hammurabl." (Or something that might get the listening audience to start asking themselves exactly what the "Principles" are to which he is referring...and thus help to surface the religious establishment problems with the first four commandments.)

Maybe just the simple question, "What do you think those principles are, Sean?" would have been sufficient.

[Godless Wonder]

It strikes me that, with the gazillion channels on cable (so I've heard, I don't actually have cable) there would be room in there for the niche of a "good" news channel. Sure, most of the people are tuning in to the latest crapola served up in bite sized pre-digested morsels, but enough people complain about the situation that you'd think there'd be room for the "real" journalists to manage to conglomerate into a real nice little cable channel. Well, maybe the money just isn't there. Maybe the internet is where they conglomerate. I don't know. It just seems like when Walter Cronkite was on the news, it was just taken a lot more seriously, "it" being the duty to report things truthfully and completely. OTOH, I'm not really old enough to remember when Walter Cronkite was on, so maybe my impressions are warped. I don't think so though.

The BBC seems pretty good sometimes. Pathetic that Americans have to rely on British news though. </rant>

[BibleBelted]

Originally posted by Buffman
Maybe just the simple question, "What do you think those principles are, Sean?" would have been sufficient.

This is the million dollar question. The one we can never, ever get answered.

Equality, individual liberty, consent of the governed, self-evident rights (or any rights at all, for that matter) - none of them are from the Bible.

Pursuit of Happiness? Forget it.

Their whole argument hinges on perpetuating the misconception that the Creator and Nature's God from the DOI is Jesus & Co. That and the date on the Constitution reads "Year of Our Lord."

How hard is that to knock down, given half a chance.

[scombrid]

Originally posted by DigitalChicken
Hi,

I have read numerous articles, heard talk shows, read message boards and seen TV reports regarding the Moore 10C Monument case.

It strikes me that C-S Separationists are not getting the correct message across.

In particular, those speaking int he media are not emphasizing a few key things.

1) C-S Separation benefits Christians as much as anyone else. Mixing religion with government, as Moore is doing, does not advance Christianity but instead hurts it.

2) That "God" or "Nature's God" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and elsewhere is not the Christian God but the God of Deism. This is an important point when countering the "moral foundations of law" argument.

I'm sure are a few more but that's the obvious ones I have been noting.

DC

I imagine that the separationists are trying to get these points out but they aren't making their points in sound bight worthy fashion. The media, it seems ABC in particular, is more interested in showing the Christian viewpoint and shortchanging the separationists. This morning they managed to let several Christians speak stating that they felt their 1st Ammendment rights were being violated (good sounding at face value before any thought was applied). ABC had one sound bight from a separationist.

The Ten Commandments are out. It's all over but the shouting.

That's it. That's all that was said from the separationist side in a 2minute piece.

That really paints a poor picture of the separationist position and plays right into the fundy idea that we are just out to get god and persecute those poor believers.

[scombrid]

gravitybow:

and our points aren't "packaged" in television fashion. And if I feel that way, what does the average person think?

And worse, when we let assertions go unchallenged

We definitely need to improve our “sound-bite-ability”.

I have an undergraduate degree in natural resource management, managing public resources for diverse often divergent stakeholders. We were required to take a class in Human Dimensions in Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences. This included an entire unit on dealing with the media, particularly when your position may not be popular with the public. If your position is unpopular, the media will mis-represent your position in sound bites every time, especially if your answers are wordy and complex. You have to have pre-packaged snippets ready to order when interview time comes.

This is tough with an issue as complex as Church/State separation.

If I watch or hear another interview where the separation side says (or is quoted as saying) nothing more than "We've got to have separation of church and state" I might explode.

Godless wonder:
there would be room in there for the niche of a "good" news channel

I thought that was the Daily Show

[DigitalChicken]

Originally posted by scombrid
I imagine that the separationists are trying to get these points out but they aren't making their points in sound bight worthy fashion. The media, it seems ABC in particular, is more interested in showing the Christian viewpoint and shortchanging the separationists. This morning they managed to let several Christians speak stating that they felt their 1st Ammendment rights were being violated (good sounding at face value before any thought was applied). ABC had one sound bight from a separationist.

How does this explain numerous live media opportunities where the message was not emphasized properly?

DC

[Buffman]

Nothing here is really new to most folks posting in this forum. However, here are some URLs for those who might wish to find some useful responses (and create some Favorites) to the allegations of the pro-10 Commandment crowd as posted bygravitybow. (Though the majority are anti-Commandment, I have presented some pro-God positions to aid in better understanding the reasoning and passion behind that position.)

"The American judicial system is based on the Ten Commandments."

WRONG

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1984/2/84.02.08.x.html

http://furst.bigwhoop.org/biblit2.pdf


"American was founded on Judeo-Christian principles/ the Ten Commandments."

TRUE, in as much as Judeo-Christian "principles" are reflective of established ethical norms worldwide and America attracted people from around the world who, in order to claim the land for themselves, merely had to remove or kill the people who had been living on it for thousands of years./WRONG
(Research the above URLs)


"The scuplture of Moses in the Supreme Court proves Judeo-Christian principles are the foundation of our laws."

WRONG

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/courtbuilding.pdf

(NOTE: The sculptures prove just the reverse....many law givers contributed to the foundation of this young nation.)


"Judeo-Christian principles are the root of English common law."

WRONG

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/joestor4.htm

http://www.biologyoflaw.com/content/Expansions/EXC16a.htm

http://www.biologyoflaw.com/content/Expansions/exc18.htm


"Those people want to erase God from public life."

WHICH PEOPLE ARE THOSE? ERASE FROM "PUBLIC" LIFE OR GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS WITH TAXPAYER FUNDING? TO ERASE FROM "ALL PUBLIC LIFE" WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AND REQUIRE THE TOTAL ELIMINATION OF SUPERNATURAL BELIEF SYSTEMS FROM ALL OF HUMANITY...NOT A REALISTIC, ALBEIT RATIONAL, GOAL. :D

http://starbulletin.com/2002/10/06/editorial/special.html#jump ...(Pro)

http://starbulletin.com/2002/10/06/editorial/special.html#jump2 ...(Con)

"The Ten Commandments hang directly over the head of the justices of the Supreme Court."

WRONG

http://www.usscplus.com/info/building.htm

(Extract)
Too often, visitors do not see the corresponding pediment and columns on the east front. Here the sculpture group is by Herman A. McNeil and the marble figures represent great lawgivers, Moses, Confucius, and Solon, flanked by symbolic groups representing Means of Enforcing the Law, Tempering Justice with Mercy, Settlement of Disputes Between States, and Maritime and Other Functions of the Supreme Court. The architrave bears the legend: "Justice the Guardian of Liberty."
(End Extract)

(NOTE: The current Supreme Court building didn't even exist until 1935. Therefore neither Moses, nor the 10 Commandments, were there for the first 146 years of our federal republic.)


"pro-God versus anti-God forces"

ALMOST TRUE

(It is the supernatural believers versus the natural believers. The faith versus fact believers. Ancient superstitions versus modern verified knowledge.}

[Some of the propaganda pieces that have flooded the media and rewritten history to benefit supernatural beliefs.]

http://www.frii.com/~gosplow/crstking.html

http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=37&RELATED_ITEM_ID=24

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/AlabamaPaperAug-03.PDF

http://www.pbc.org/dp/stedman/misc/govern.html

[And a warning that was not heeded.]

http://www.pbs.org/now/commentary/moyers15.html

[DigitalChicken]

Originally posted by Buffman
"The Ten Commandments hang directly over the head of the justices of the Supreme Court."

WRONG

http://www.usscplus.com/info/building.htm


Wrong but wrong for the wrong reasons.

Inside the main chamber (I believe its the main chamber. Gravitybow will help me out here) is what I believe is a frieze. It is two tablets with roman numerals I through X on them. These are mistakenly believed to be the ten commandments but in actuality Adolph Weinman, the artist who created them, claims them to represent the Bill of Rights.

GravityBow should speak up here as he is done some terrific research in this area.

DC

[lpetrich]

Let us not forget that "Christianity" is far from a unified front. I'm sure that most Protestants, and especially most fundies, would not enjoy praying to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Also, we ought to think of good state-church separation soundbites. Here are some:

Jesus Christ stated that we ought to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's -- he didn't say that Caesar and God were one and the same.

It's dangerous for government to be taking sides in religious issues.

Politics and religion don't mix very well -- look at the Middle East.

Where in the Bible are elected leaders? Did the Senate get its name from the Bible?

And we ought to find people who believe various religions who are willing to support state-church separation -- and who are willing to come up with catchy sound bites supporting their position.

[Buffman]

DigitalChicken

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/east&westwalls.pdf

[DigitalChicken]

Originally posted by Buffman
DigitalChicken

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/east&westwalls.pdf

You'll need to be more specific. What I am discussing is not discussed here althugh I believe the frieze is shown here.

DC

[Daggah]

lpetrich, with all due respect I think your sound bites are a little too argumentative.

I think perhaps what should be emphasized are the founding fathers' reasons FOR wanting the separation of church and state in the Constitution in the first place. Don't argue whether it's there or not...we all know it's there. The more we argue the more they resist.

What should be made clear is that the founding fathers were not atheists wanting separation of church and state to repress the believers. They were believers - whether deist, Christian, Jewish, or whatever - wanting separation of church and state to PROTECT believers.

I agree completely with DigitalChicken. I think at this point, for the "wall" to be maintained, the support of America's Christians is vital. The strategies being used now make it far too easy for the Religious Right to distort and misrepresent, and that strategy is WORKING.

[gilly54]

A series of spots with celebrities that understand and realize the importance of CSS would be great.

"Hi, I'm Michael Jordan. No religion should be "established" above any other. That's what the First Amendment in the Constitution says. Keeping church and state separation is a slam dunk."

"Hi, I'm Tom Hanks. Our service men and women fought, and fight, to preserve our way of life, our rights, as established in the Constitution. Read the first amendment and realize the importance of keeping church and state separate."

"Hi, I'm George Carlin. I'm a comedian, but the incursions of religion into our goverment is no laughing matter. Read the First Amendment. Keep church and state separate."


I wouldn't think any high profile Congressperson would do it. They are too spineless and would be hypocrites after their votes and grandstanding for "under God' in the Pledge.

Hey, dangin, got any connections?

[Buffman]

D.C.

You'll need to be more specific. What I am discussing is not discussed here althugh I believe the frieze is shown here.

The second paragraph of that page states that they are the first "ten amendments." Now I'm confused. Help!

[DigitalChicken]

Originally posted by Buffman
D.C.
The second paragraph of that page states that they are the first "ten amendments." Now I'm confused. Help!

I missed it.

The paragraph you quoted in your earlier message didnt mention that. When they make the claim "The Ten Commandments hang directly over the head of the justices of the Supreme Court" they are specifically talking about that image.

DC

[gravitybow]

Originally posted by DigitalChicken
Wrong but wrong for the wrong reasons.

Inside the main chamber (I believe its the main chamber. Gravitybow will help me out here) is what I believe is a frieze. It is two tablets with roman numerals I through X on them. These are mistakenly believed to be the ten commandments but in actuality Adolph Weinman, the artist who created them, claims them to represent the Bill of Rights.

GravityBow should speak up here as he is done some terrific research in this area.

DC

Thanks for the praise, DC. This has been another time-consuming topic for me, but a labor of love. I'm really going to have to start a new thread on this to do it justice. Unfortunately, I'm a bit strapped for time at the moment. Let me whet your appetite:

The Supreme Court's official site says that the single rectangular tablet, with Roman numerals and a sunburst at the top, in the center of the east frieze (directly over the heads of the justices of the Supreme Court) is the Bill of Rights.

They cite an unspecified letter from Adolph Weinman (the sculptor) to Casss Gilbert (the architect) as the source of the claim. It took me almost four months to acquire a copy of the letter from the Smithsonian, and then I received TWO letters, one dated September 17, 1932 and the other dated October 31, 1932.

These letters are a primary source that show what Weinman, creator of all four friezes in the chamber of the Supreme Court, was thinking. They confirm that the tablet is the Bill of Rights and suggest a possible source for the Ten Commandments/Ten Amendments confusion. There is also a very interesting detail (at least to me) missing from the first letter. Anyway, I couldn't find a single link to these letters on the Internet. I'll have to transcribe and triple-check them completely before posting. But it's going to be some time before I can get to it. Sorry.

[Buffman]

D.C.

The paragraph you quoted in your earlier message didnt mention that. When they make the claim "The Ten Commandments hang directly over the head of the justices of the Supreme Court" they are specifically talking about that image.

I fumbled that one. I was locked in on where Moses (and his tablets) was actually located...not over their heads. The Majesty of Law and Power of Government aren't mentioned in the bible...even though they, too, are human creations. :D