Should the 10 commandments be allowed in gov't buildings?

[rmcrobertson]

And funny, too, that people refuse to find out what it is that they're supporting. Hilarious that they are unable to explain, and therefore must try, "if "one" doesn't agree 100% with "ones" point of view than "one" is automatically supporting some extreme right wing agenda." Absurd that they project onto others their own reductionism.

I can provide documentation to back up my claims. Can you?

Please supply an example of any Catholic, mainstream Protestant, Buddhist, Islamic, Jewish or ecumenical group that is pushing the display of religious symbols in public buildings.

Then, try WorldNet Daily's various articles supporting Roy Moore, including:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34192

 

[Tgace]

So EVERY courthouse that posts the 10 commandments is part of an extreme right wing agenda??? And if you are just saying "I dont have a problem with them being in a courthouse." then you are supporting an extremist take-over of the gvt????

I dont recall making any "claim" to support other than saying that our cultures legal history has roots of Christian religious origin, among many others...mostly of Western cultural influence...

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

 

[donald]

Should'nt the citizens of the affected community be the ones who decide if something stands or falls in their community? On the federal level, should'nt we the citizens decide if something should, or should'nt be displayed on OUR(ie.federal) property? Is'nt that how a demacratic society works?

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. I certainly didn't argue that every presentation of the Ten Commandments was the product of some right-wing agenda. That's YOUR fantasy, not mine. I argued that Roy Moore's sneaking a two-ton rock into a courthouse in the middle of the night, and following that up with daily prayer rallies by fundamentalists that were supported by groups like Jay Sekulow's ACLJ, damn sure were right-wing, Protestant fundamentalist events. I also argued that when guys like Savage screech about "religion," they mean only one particular part of one particular religion. Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Buddhists, etc., need not apply.

And oh, by the way, citing a Web dictionary that says "there is some truth in," the idea that we owe our legal system and government to Christian ideals is not exactly overwhelming evidence for your argument.

2. I wish folks would find out what the Constitution actually says, what our legal tradition in the matters has been, and what actually hppened in American history. (I really DO blame teachers for this, but that's another issue....) NO, "the local community," is not free to do whatever crackpot thing they decide would be nifty. UNFORTUNATELY, the history actually says that again and again, this, "state's rights," argument has been used to defend slavery and Jim Crow and segregation, book-burning in all its charming variety, and the whole panoply of rightist and wacko ideas. IN FACT, there are Constitutional and legal limits on what citizens can do, and what communities can do.

Roughly speaking, the Constitution actually says that you can't vote away your rights or anybody else's. In this particular case, the Constitution actually says (and two hundred years of legal tradition supports the idea, I might add) that neither the State, nor the federal government, is allowed to push for any particular religion, or for "religion," itself. As far as we can tell, the "original intent," of the Framers was to say that all that stuff is the People's business, NOT the government's. You and I are supposed to decide what we believe, what/who we worship, how we worship, who we get together with to worship. You and I, NOT THE LOCAL JUDGE.

And oh yeah, you and I do NOT get to get together with a mob, or with my sister the mayor, or with the local school board, or even with the Federal government, and start telling everybody else how to believe and to worship. We're Constitutionally barred from this, and the courts have pretty clearly been saying exactly the same thing for the last two hundred years. I don't get to have the school teach my religious views. Neither do you. I don't get to lead school kids is the Prayer to Joseph Stalin (just kidding); you don't get to lead schoolkids in the Lord's Prayer at school. Doesn't matter who's right, who's wrong, who's got the majority on their side.

In fact, the clear intent of the law and the Constitution seems to be that it doesn't matter a damn if ONE person in the tri-strate area worships differently--you don't get to have the government tell them to cut it out.

Just incidentally, this is so because the Framers wanted to protect YOUR rights to worsip as you wish.

Which is why this stuff ticks me off--far from what people seem to think, it's a radical redefinition of the Constitution and American history.

I realize that some of you will just read this as further evidence of liberal evil, or pointy-head intellectualism, or whatever. You may even see it as further proof of whatever pet theory you have about me personally. Fine.

But try to keep a few things in mind: 1) I'm not the one sneaking into the courthouse with the big rock; 2) I'm not the one getting on the radio and the TV and yelling that the ACLU and lesbians are bringing down the Great Punta's wrath on America; c) I'm not the one demanding that everybody recite whatever holy book I believe in every morning before they start school, and I'm not the one demanding that everybody get up and recite some Pledge that me and my buddies rewrote some year when we were making specially wacked-out politicial decisions because we were afraid of Joe McCarthy; d) I'm not the one thumping the Good Book while I run for office and screaming about traitors and flag-haters and everybody's going to he-double-hockey-sticks and anyway who are these intellectuals and on and on and on.

Basically, I want what the Constitution offers: to be left the hell alone by the flag-wavers and bully boys, to have my own religious beliefs without some clown in school telling me they're wrong every five minutes, to have my kids or whatever taught in schools that teach real science and real history, and leave the rest of it to the People.

So explain it to me: why do you HAVE to have the Commandments up everywhere, why do you HAVE to have kids reciting a pledge to your God, why can't you just leave it alone?

And oh yes--have you guys ever actually READ the damn Constitution, let alone an important Supreme Court decision?

Oh well. Me shut up now; taking self too seriously. Have at it.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Ironically, the ten commandments have a Jewish background, not a Christian one, but I don't hear the Jews making much of an issue one way or the other.

Okay - here's The Jew making an issue one way or the other.

No. No. And, no.

Why?

Read Robert's posts which, despite some of the political windmills he tilts at, make perfect sense. The presence of *a big rock* with the Ten Commandments engraved into it displayed in a public place is symbolic of other agendae in this country, as Robert pointed out. In my opinion, it's inappropriate -- and potentially dangerous to (political) life as we know it.

That's why.

 

[Ray]

2. For the umpteenth time: nobody in their right mind is arguing that anybody's rights to believe, or to pray, should be taken or limited in any fashion whatsoever. We're simply going with the Constitution as interpreted by some very conservative people opver the last two hundred plus years: the power of the goevernment, and the money of the taxpayers, should not be used to push fundamentalist Protestantism.

No one here on this web-site is arguing anybody's right to believe. But there have been nights in school when people (profs included) were arguing my right to believe. In more than one class, too. And they started it, not knowing my religious affiliation.

You should have been with my son a couple years ago when a teacher in an elementary school told him he could not give a blessing on his food at lunch time. And we're talking a bowed head, closed eyes and a quiet prayer.

3. You folks would do well to read up on the guys you're supporting...

Dis-include me in that, I am not supporting any of those people. But I don't necessarily believe that a display of the ten commandments is an unconstitutional establishment of religion. A HUGE display is not the right display - the supreme court's display is okay (it doesn't show the text of the commandments).

4. The notion that citing the essence of Islam contributes nothing to the historical understanding of Western law...

I have nothing against quotes from Koranic legislation or Sharia being similarly displayed. And my feelings wouldn't be hurt if there were no display.

Listen up, guys: what you are supporting is not religion, or even Christianity in general....

I support none of those people.

Just be honest about what you're arguing for.

I'm not arguing. You be honest too, there are those on the opposite spectrum-end of the "fanatics" you name that would, if they could, take away my right to pray in public--or to say that (for example, not that I have said it) homosexuality is a sin.

 

[punisher73]

2. I wish folks would find out what the Constitution actually says, what our legal tradition in the matters has been, and what actually hppened in American history

No, what you wish for is that people would agree with your interpretation of the Constitution. I will quote the Bill of Rights for everyone to see that we are all on the same page.

First Amendment:

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.

Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Bill of Rights lays out what the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can or can't do, not what the states can or can't do.

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added

Right from the first paragraph of the Bill. It states the purpose and that is limiting the federal govt' in state matters. It wasn't uncommon for states to authorize public land to support various churches. Also, in relating to the 1st amendment Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1804, "While we deny that Congress has a right to control the freedom of the press, we have ever asserted the right of the States, and their exclusive right to do so".

Some states (Viriginia, Rhode Island, and New York) only ratified the new Constitution with statements that they could voluntarily withdraw from this for fear that the new federal government would infringed on their rights of self-government.

Explain how this is not about states rights?

 

[DuneViking]

So, should we take down the 10 coms displayed in the US congress rotundra?

Seems to me I recall the founding Fathers making refs to God, and what about the Pledge of Allegiance, "one nation under God. . . " ?

Seems to me there was a document written of historical significance about Wed, Mar 4, 1789, that said in article 3 something like

"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 of the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievences"

and that same doc said nothing about separatin' church and state, regardless of the arguments to the contrary, those word do not exist in it, unless I missed something . . ???

 

[Ray]

Seems to me I recall the founding Fathers making refs to God, and what about the Pledge of Allegiance, "one nation under God. . . " ?
QUOTE]Good try, but no. The founding fathers didn't write the pledge. The author did not put in "one nation under God." It was added by congress during the 50's; terrible fear of atheistic USSR times.

 

[DuneViking]

Seems to me I recall the founding Fathers making refs to God, and what about the Pledge of Allegiance, "one nation under God. . . " ?
QUOTE]Good try, but no. The founding fathers didn't write the pledge. The author did not put in "one nation under God." It was added by congress during the 50's; terrible fear of atheistic USSR times.

My fault for not being clear, FF made refs to god, and the pledge, as you say was made later. I did not intend to infer the FF wrote the pledge.

 

[DuneViking]

Also :
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html


From the Declaration of Independence . . .

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation


While I can't find them at the moment, there are available early drafts of documents with references not only to God, but to eliminate slavery, and other things my senile mind can't recall . . . My point is, there is no separation of church and state clause, and the nation was founded on principles modeled after some of the prevailing christian religious thought, but even then it was a tricky business and most of that type of wording was upgraded to be politically correct.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sigh.

1. The previous poster is quoting the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, which is what's at issue here. It may be worth pointing out that neither document specifically cites Christianity, but refers instead to, "Nature's God," and "Creator," which may very well be at odds with the notion that the Framers were Christians in exactly the sense that, say, Pat Robertson has in mind.

2. At the risk of pointing out what citizrens are supposed to know already, Federal law supersedes State law. We are a republic, not a Confederacy. Moreover, the Constitution specifically supersedes State and local law in all situations where such things as civil rights are at issue. This has been stated againb and again and again in the legal record--and, I might add, it has been stated very strongly indeed with regard to civil rights. It is also worth noting that claims of, "State's Rights," have been, historically, associated again and again with resistance to civil rights and freedoms of all sorts.

3. Obviously, schoolteachers have no right whatsoever to tell children that they may not pray before lunch (not to mention the fact that any teacher who would do so is an idiot anyway). it should be noted that this is for EXACTLY the same reason that schoolteachers have no right to lead children in prayer of any kind whatsoever: the Constution, and 200 years of evolution in Constitutional law, have made it clear as clear can be that employees of the government are not supposed to be enforcing their private religious beliefs, whatever they happen to be.

4. You will find it instructive to get on a few of the Christian Right websites, and look at both their claims about the United States being exclusively (and exclusionarily) a Christian nation, and their insistence that the disappearance of forced school prayer is the cause of the rising crime rate, teenage pregnancy, drugs, the decline of the family, the teaching of evolution, the rise of homosexuality, and Dr. Seuss and Harry Potter and Judy Blume. No doubt when children are again forced by the government to pray to whoever Jerry Falwell thinks appropriate, these things will disappear too.

5. It is not mainstream Christian organizations that are supporting these big rocks with sky-god commandments carved into them. Groups such as the National Council of Churches agree with the Supreme Court; groups such as the Anti-defamation League argue that the rise of these right-wing demands is directly a threat to the Jewish community in this country. Be sure that you want to support the likes of Michael Savage, Ollie North, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggert, Phyllis Schafly, and the rest of this pack of loons that Jefferson would most likely have horsewhipped.

6. While we're on the subject, Jefferson--who pretty much wrote the Constitution--was a Deist, a humanist and rationalist, and apparently a Mason. His central ideas are in opposition to just about everything they teach at, say, Bob Jones University.

 

[donald]

What I believe most of the nay sayers fail to recognize about this issue. Is that these things were at one time permitted with out hesitation. Due to the fact. That at one time this nation was primarily christian in faith, and practice. I know alot of you are going to suggest different actions of our nation in the early years as being blatantly anti-christian. I whole heartedly agree with that assesment, at least in part. That does'nt change the fact that the majority of the population was christian. Therfore, it was smart politics to play at being a christian believer. Things have(to our shame)changed some what since those early days. Back then we would'nt question whether displaying the 10 commandments was right or not. It was accepted as being right. Our common sense has become askewed when we consider displaying God's word as being questionable. It is a list of reminders of what The Lord Jesus has already put into the heart of man, as right, and wrong. Why argue with that?

 

[donald]

. No doubt when children are again forced by the government to pray to whoever Jerry Falwell thinks appropriate, these things will disappear too.

What? Its not who Mr.Falwell says who to pray to. It is who GOD says to pray to. You may argue all you want about the validity of man's words, but GOD'S??!!

 

[michaeledward]

I think 'THOU SHALT NOT KILL' would be appropriate on the Texas Governor's Mansion.

 

[Ray]

At the risk of pointing out what citizrens are supposed to know already, Federal law supersedes State law.

Federal Law is not automatically a trump card superseding every state law that it comes into contact with. When a federal law comes into contact with a state law then the law which give greater protection receives precedence.

Moreover, the Constitution specifically supersedes State and local law in all situations where such things as civil rights are at issue.

Yes, but you believe that your interpretation of the constitution supersedes everyone elses.

Obviously, schoolteachers have no right whatsoever to tell children that they may not pray before lunch (not to mention the fact that any teacher who would do so is an idiot anyway).

Obvious to you and me. But not to extremists who would believe that people who practice religion should do so locked away in the confines of their homes; that there should never be a religious display in public or a religious word spoken. There are those people...I've come acrossed a few.

You will find it instructive to get on a few of the Christian Right websites, and look at both their claims about the United States being exclusively (and exclusionarily) a Christian nation

They have the right to believe that. And you have the right to believe differently.

It is not mainstream Christian organizations that are supporting these big rocks with sky-god commandments carved into them.

I don't know the sky-god, which system of belief are you referring to?

I'm curious: Would you support a gov't funded museum displaying artifacts and writings from different religious backgrounds (Egyptian, Hebrew, Babylonian)? Even more modern display, too? Obviously religion is one of the constituents of history and culture.

Groups such as the National Council of Churches agree with the Supreme Court

I do not belong to the national council of churches. But I will abide by the supreme court's decision; my people always have.

While we're on the subject, Jefferson--who pretty much wrote the Constitution--was a Deist, a humanist and rationalist

Nice to have idols, isn't it?

 

[rmcrobertson]

As always. michaeledward rocks.

Ray, you're probably right. However, what you wrote differs from your earlier claim that states were entitled to abrogate the Constitution.

As for others, "Old Noboddy aloft/Farted and belched and coughed/And said, I love hanging and drawing and quartering/Every bit as much as slaying and slaughtering."

If Freud, "Future of an Illusion," is wrong--and I don't think it is--I pretty much guarantee you that, a) we won't be judged on belief, but on decency; b) any decent Deity would be warming up a special place for the moral imbeciles who think that sticking the Commandments on a rock is the same thing as worship.

 

[ginshun]

I think 'THOU SHALT NOT KILL' would be appropriate on the Texas Governor's Mansion.

For what it is worth, I think that it is relatively well accepted that that is an incorrect translation from the old Hebrew texts, and it should actually say, "Thou shalt not Murder", but I digress.

Back to the point. Please explain again how displaying a statue in a few courtouses is a government esablishment of religion? How does that statue force people into Judao-Christian beliefs? I guess I just don't see the connection.

Also, you seen to love bringing up Jerry Fallwell, Michael Savage, Pat Robertson ect., but I don't remember hearing any of them pushing for the US Government to pass any laws to establish Christianity as a national religion. The people who are bringing this case, are the ones who are against religion, and are trying to change the status quo.

Like I originally said, I could pretty much care less whether they are displayed or not, I think it is just a huge waste of everybodies time (and monley) to go through a lengthy court battle over something that I see as pretty much trivial.

 

[MisterMike]

Does this mean no more swearing over the Bible? Please raise your "right" hand. Are these just silly motions we go through for the hell of it?

I guess that's what's next to be removed after the commandments are gone. But if you're going to lie under "oath", why should the 10 commandments bother you?

 

[raedyn]

Please explain again how displaying a statue in a few courtouses is a government esablishment of religion? How does that statue force people into Judao-Christian beliefs?

It doesn't force anyone into Judao-Christian beliefs. But it does contribute to creating an environment hostile to divergent viewpoints. If you are not Christian and you walk into a public building with a Cross prominently displayed on it, and Christian writings are given a special place of prominence, and they force you to take an oath that you seal by touching THE Christian book... Do you think that's an environment that is welcoming and open to everyone?

Also, you seen to love bringing up Jerry Fallwell, Michael Savage, Pat Robertson ect., but I don't remember hearing any of them pushing for the US Government to pass any laws to establish Christianity as a national religion.

Well they aren't stupid. That would get shot down pretty damn quickly. But they do try and get all the laws changed to be in accordance with their interpretation of Christian teachings. They do try and have children required to participate in Christian prayers in school, Christian creation stories taught with the same weight as scientific theories, abstinance-only sex education, bible quotes displayed in public buildings, pulling funding for sexual health clinics that offer abortions, not paying for abortions in any circumstance, formally declaring marriage is only between two people of the opposite sex, etc etc.

So in a way, I guess you're right ginshun. They're not asking the government to formally declare "We Are A Christian Nation", but they are asking the government to make it a Christian nation in everything but name. (And with this president, they are on their way)

The people who are bringing this case, are the ones who are against religion, and are trying to change the status quo.

Wrong. It's the Christian fundamentalists that 'snuck' in with the big rock with the Commandments inscribed on it. "Status quo" was that there was no big rock there.

I think it is just a huge waste of everybodies time (and monley) to go through a lengthy court battle over something that I see as pretty much trivial.

Obviously not everyone sees it as a trivial issue.