1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Ten Commandments Display Removed

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by RRedline, Nov 18, 2002.

  1. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    Separation of church and state is a very hot issue for me. Stories like this one usually get a lot of people all worked up, though. I happen to agree with the judge who ordered the Ten Commandments display removed, and I'm sure that's no big surprise to most of you. One of the last good, long debates we had over at the "other place" before being silenced by the post nazi was a similar issue regarding the teaching of creationism along with evolution in our public schools.

    Here are a few news stories:
    <a HREF="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,70719,00.html">Fox News</a>
    <a HREF="http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/18/ten.commandments.ap/index.html">CNN</a>

    People often argue that our country was built upon Christian principles. Well if that's the case, then why is it perfectly legal to use the Lord's name in vain? Why aren't people arrested when they are caught cheating on their spouses? Why do the states(and sometimes even the federal government) execute people? I just listed three glaring examples of how our laws do not necessarily reflect the Ten Commandments. Why, then, would it belong in one of Alabama's judicial buildings?

    To those of you who argue that this ruling is wrong, what if the judge had instead ordered a two and a half ton statue of Buddha? How about something from the Qur'an? One thing I am wondering is who paid for this display???
  2. HaYwIrE

    HaYwIrE Banned

    All I know is that if there is a God, Hell is knocking at the door and society is answering it with open arms.

    Many things such as this are blatantly predicted in Revelations and a few other books of the Bible saying that these are signs of the beginning of the end. Whether you want to believe it or not, shit like this is really kinda scary.
  3. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    I again caution those who favor the complete removal of religion from our society to make very certain you have something positive to replace it with.

    As regards this particular case, the Ten Commandments are the foundations of much of our civil and criminal law. I ask, what difference is there between a law that prohibits the killing of another human being and a simple statement from the Bible that reads "Thou shalt not kill"?

    That's right, there isn't any difference.
  4. tke711

    tke711 Oink Oink Staff Member

    I've always found these stories interesting. Basically, a segment of the population (not the majority) doesn't want to have to see the Ten Commandments on the wall. Well, my answer, don't look at it!

    Unless there is some statute I'm not aware of, people are not required to read the Commandments upon entering the building or anytime during their visit to the building. If they don't agree with the Commandments, don't read them.

    How is this really any different then a radio station or TV station playing a song you don't like? You simply change the station. Oh, that's right, it's that nasty thing called religion so it's completely different.

    I would have a problem with the Commandments being in a state facility if they required people to view them as this would be an obvious violation of the separation of church and state clause. But since it's just a plaque on a wall that people can either choose to look at or choose not to look at, I really don't see the big deal.

    I honestly think people have too much free time. Why don't we worry about the bigger things in life and not sweat the small stuff. At the end of the day is it really going to hurt someone permanently if they caught a glimpse of the Ten Commandments?
  5. HaYwIrE

    HaYwIrE Banned

    That's the way society is deminishing itself... a little at a time. Then, every 10 or so years, we can look back and see how religion and morality are being replaced with hate, hypocrisy, Liberalism and immorality.

    It's not about right and wrong anymore. It's all about "<i>I want! I want! I want!</i>" and "<i>Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!</i>" and "<i>Well, if they can do it and get away with it, then why the Hell can't I?!?!</i>"

    The world's goin' to Hell in a hand basket, my friend. Hell in a hand basket. And like I said, people are welcoming it with opens arms like a bunch of greedy fucking idiots.
  6. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Well Done, Greg! Great post.

    Amazing how religious Citizens are supposed to put up with pornography blatantly displayed if it offends them, but that doesn't apply to others with religious things that are so displayed.
  7. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Displays of religious matter at churches and bulletin boards in the market and almost anywhere don't bother me at all. When I take exception is when my tax dollars are spent favoring any religion or expressing any religious belief. That, of course means my government is expressing those beliefs.

    Many are quick to point fingers at agnostics, atheists or just those who believe in separation of church and state as wanting to restrict their expression of their religion. BS and crap. Who is forcing the religion into every phase of my life, using my tax dollars, in opposition, I believe, to my Constitution? I have never asked any religious person to not believe or to express non belief. Why do the religious feel the need to display their belief every time they turn around? Why do they feel the need to have the other religions or non-religious express their beliefs as in the pledge?

    The funny part about this imposition of religion is specious arguments used to defend it. It is the basis for our government. Then let's put the Torah as the symbol because surely as Christianity is the basis for our government Judaism is the basis for Christianity. How far back do you want to go?

    One of the big reasons for the formation of our country and its government was freedom to believe as we wish. Using government money to endorse any form of any religion is anathema to the principals our country was formed upon.

    And the question nobody wants to answer, when the muslims or the Hindus become the majority will it be okay for them to change the Ten Commandments to a symbol of their religion? Ya, right. It is okay for the majority to decide as long as you are in the majority.
  8. drslash

    drslash It's all about the beer

    The establishment clause of the 1st ammendment is the part of the Constitution where the "seperation of church and state" springs from; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". That seperation, IMO, only extends to written laws directly professing some sort of religious statement of inclusion or exclusion as it would pertain to any citizen. The posting of the 10 commandments, IMO, is allowed by the free excercise clause; "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and freedom of speech. Want to include symbols of tenets of other religions? No problem by me.

    A strong argument can be made that the 10 Commandments are a basis for many laws and those that concern areas not specifically addressed in laws (adultery, coveting) are viewed as common sense norms of behavior for society. While giving someone the finger is not illegal, it is frowned upon by most common sense people as bad behavior.

    These types of rulings are nothing but legislating by judicial fiat and tyranny One of the smallest minorities in this country, declare by using legal mumbo jumbo what is law or not. The views of those cloaked in robes (and I don't mean ministers) declare things illegal that clearly do no harm to the smallest minority of one (me, myself and I) and are clearly a preference by the majority. This is the definition of tyranny. Tyranny is what our ancestors fled from.

    Suppose myself and another person went and stood in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol and I recited the 10 commandments for 12 hours and the other person stood there with his middle finger in the air for 12 hours. Besides this being a collossal waste of time, I would bet that we could come back day after day and continue our activities with no legal jeporday. So protected free speech that gets written on a plaque and hung on a wall suddenly becomes unconstitutional speech?

    Just saw a story on Fox News that said that the U.S. Postal System is preparing an "In God We Trust " banner that will be hung in all 38,000 post offices in the country. Go here for the full story.
  9. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Weak, very weak. Websters defines tyranny as follows:
    Main Entry: tyranny
    Pronunciation: 'tir-&-nE
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
    Etymology: Middle English tyrannie, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin tyrannia, from Latin tyrannus tyrant
    Date: 14th century
    1 : oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man -- Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>

    By insisting that all citizens have the right to pledge their allegiance without professing faith in a deity, by insisting that all citizens can go into their halls of government and not run into religious beliefs counter to their own they are tyrannical? I have seldom seen that twist done so adroitly by does not fly. Obviously the tyranny is when one group forces another to follow their beliefs. When my money is paying for the government to put one faith ahead of another that is tyranny. Again, nobody is making you or asking you to deny your faith.

    The tyranny is in insisting that the only way one can say the pledge is to profess a faith they do not feel. The tyranny is putting a religious saying on the walls of government and on our money.

    And I do not believe for a minute the fine citizens of Alabama would let the majority rule if the majority wanted the Torah or the Koran displayed in the halls of justice.

    I find it unbelievable the number of people who are all for religious freedom as long as their religion can dominate. Such shallow belief in other people's rights and the ease with which the majority dismiss them is the basis for Ashcroft's actions and sets the precedent that will make it easy one day for you to lose your rights. Remember, taking away rights is okay as long as the majority want it.

    But hey, any excess is fine if in the name of religion, right?
  10. drslash

    drslash It's all about the beer

    My dictionary's definition of tyranny is: A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly.

    As in the absoulute power of the judicuary. There have been many examples of states writing laws by ballot referendum, i.e. by the people for the people, only to have those laws struck down by one judge or a small group of judges. What part of that is not tyranical? The overturning of a law expressly voted for by the people of a sovereign state of this country and it is overturned by a single federal judge. Not tyranny? You are losing touch with reality if you think that is not tyranny. The community at large want the 10 commandments posted and a judge says no. What part of that is not tyranical? One imposing their view on the unwilling many.

    There is no constitutional protection to not be offended. If the pledge, your currency, the banner in the post office, or the ten commandments posted in a public place offends you then don't read any of it. Don't recite the pledge. You won't be flogged if you don't. Give all of your currency to me if the core of your belief is to say that God should not be on it. Put your money where your mouth is. Send me a PM and I will give you my mailing address.

    I have no interest in any religion dominating anything. I am standing up for the free excercise of religion as expressly protected by the constitution. Your indignation about the free excercise blinds you to the way things are and should be. The 10 commandments posted in a public place paid for by pubic funds does not infringe upon any of your constitutional rights. It may infringe on your temper and send you in to a conniption fit, so try to calm down and look at things rationally. I'll admit I get a little upset at things like the term "seperation of church and state" since it appears no where in the constitution but is used as a trump card by judges to prohibit my right of free excercise.
  11. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    The ability of the majority to push their religion on the minority is wrong. I know it. You know it, the intelligent people of the country know it. The judiciary will eventually make it law. Twist the word tyranny all you want.

    Remember, when you ask for the majority to have the final say regardless of the feelings or rights of others you may get your wish. And you will not always be in the majority.

    I will now let others have their say, if any so wish.
  12. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Since the idea of the whole exercise was to protect the Churches and their membership from being oppressed by the government. Funny from a country that had church sevices held in the House of Representatives and Senate, when the Republic was first founded would object to the Ten Commandments being on display there. Or how about the whole concept of "a wall of Seperation", by Jefferson which was from a letter Jefferson wrote to a Pastor Friend of him assuring that the government would not select a national church. Well we have a national church and it is called athiesm, a belief system based on the fact that they do not believe in a Divine Being that no one else should too.
  13. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    Nobody has suggested the removal of religion from society. All I and many others suggest is its removal from government. I would never support legislation to shut down churches or stopping people from praying in their own homes. Let's not blow this out of proportion! :)

    No, there sure isn't, but that doesn't make the Ten Commandments any less "Christian." And as I've already pointed out, our own government kills by way of executions! It is also legal to cheat on one's spouse, and it is perfectly legal to use the Lord's name in vain. Some of our laws certainly go against the Ten Commandments!

    I understand that the intent of the display is a good one. However, it clearly is an endorsement of religion. Why not post some of Alabama's laws instead of laws which the state does not recognize? And again, who paid for this 5,000 pound display?

    Many think that this is some sort of victory for atheists, but I beg to differ. It is the silent majority in this country who follow other beliefs - some of them pagan(that means non-Christian, right?). When the Christian majority starts to fade more and more, and people of other faiths become a larger portion of the population, all Tartarus is going to break lose. I foresee a battle of the religions taking place in the future if we do not enforce a complete absence of religion in government. How many times must history repeat itself before we realize that too many people are not comfortable around unfamiliar religions?
  14. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    No offense, but that's like plastering pornography all over the walls, then telling the people that they don't have to look at it if they don't want to. It's hard not to notice a 5,000+ pound display in the rotunda of this government building.

    And yes, to some people, the Ten Commandments is a nasty thing. It is just as nasty as Buddha or the Qur'an is to a Christian.

    As for somebody getting hurt over something like this, well yes, I do foresee it happening. That's the nasty thing about religion. How many victims has it claimed over our recorded history?

    How about this: If you WANT to see the Ten Commandments displayed in the open, go to church. Why must it be in a government building? You guys are acting like Satan is running around the country burning all the churches down. Please, just go to church. I would rather not see religious displays in court rooms, post offices, town halls, etc.
  15. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    Did you accidentally post this in the wrong thread? You lost me with this misplaced, anti-liberal rant.

    So not allowing a religious display in a government building is akin to hate and immorality? And how dare you mention hypocrisy after I listed three of the Ten Commandments which are not laws of this land! THAT IS HYPOCRISY! Did you start smoking the funny stuff again?
  16. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Red - Can't you see Athiesm is just another Belief System/Religion of its own, to deny is to try and prove a negative. When even the positive hasn't been proven. How about having many sources of information such as the Ten Commandments, Five tenets of Islam, or other things similiarly displayed to spark us to learn more about are neighbors rather than pretend they don't exist?
  17. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    Last time I checked, there was no reference to pornography in the Constitution. And in what government establishment have you seen displays of pornography? And if you have seen it, why not just stop looking at it? Oh, it offends some people? You mean like a 5,000 pound chunk of hypocrisy(see my previous post in response to HaYwIrE) might offend a non-Christian? ;)
  18. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Jamming, we don't pretend they don't exist. The irony is that many atheists have studied more religion than the religious. We just feel their study, their display, does not belong in a hall of government paid for by all tax payers or even as a gift.
  19. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Didn't say anything about it in government buildings or not, Red. Neither was the post talking about how offensive the Ten Commandments were at the time, not that is an assumption you are free to make and that you particularily did. However, how about the tons of other hypocrisy that we have had to see in the Halls of Government. If people said things against they were accussed of being hateful and mean-spirited. Funny only Church Hypocrisy is the one being addressed. If it truely is a wall of separation then why does the government interfere in religion, by giving them or removing them from non-tax status based upon what their beliefs are. Like when the IRS threatened the Mormon Church and then the IRS with Congress' help at the time revoked certain non-tax status from certain church properties. Seems this wall of separation is designed to only be a wall for one side.
  20. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    That is a very weak argument. I am an athiest, so I should not use money with "God" on it? You don't seriously think it is hypocrisy to do so, do you? Keep in mind that neither Shiny nor I put the motto on our paper bills. It was Congress in the late 1950's who decided we must combat the threat of godless communism. They declared it our national motto, and they ordered it placed on our currency. Gee, I wonder if most, if not all of them, were Christians?

    It's just like Shiny pointed out. It's all good as long as you are in the majority. Once there is no longer a majority, it is going to get ugly.

Share This Page