Yet Another Fanatical Christian
for no apparent reason i decided to uncharacteristicly go to nyt.com today. i don't normally check non-geek news, but i said to myself, "i wonder if they are back up after that damned power out." well, of course they are, it was a week ago, but i saw a very funny (as in ridiculous) story.
Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama's supreme court was overruled (use appleinsider/appleinsider, if you dont have nyt acct) by 8 of his co-justices in regards to displaying a lavish marble version of the Ten Commandments. He has the display in his courthouse and was ordered to take it down by midnight (last night, I think). He says that the secular law in America is based on Judeo-Christian tradition. "To do my duty, I must acknowledge God."
The article has a pretty christian-leaning feel to it. The whole thing seems really ridiculous to me. Moore is trying to say that the first amendment, that which requires congress to make no laws establishing or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, guarantees him the right to put the display up. The US Supreme Court has ruled in the passed that such religious displays cannot be put in public view, on government land, unless part of a larger historical (and, assumedly, less-biased) display. Several figures from Alabama mentioned in the article side with Moore on legal grounds, but nearly everyone (save his devout followers) oppose his move to keep the display, because the courts ruled against him. To me it seems glaringly obvious that he is violating the first amendment, when he uses his governmental power to promote this Judeo-Christian symbol. When the court ordered the building manager to put a cover over the 10 commandments, he threatened him and several others with jail if they didn't take it back down. I know its not too common in Alabama, but I would be afraid of going before him in court as a non-christian. His bias seems overwhelming.
Thoughts?
Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama's supreme court was overruled (use appleinsider/appleinsider, if you dont have nyt acct) by 8 of his co-justices in regards to displaying a lavish marble version of the Ten Commandments. He has the display in his courthouse and was ordered to take it down by midnight (last night, I think). He says that the secular law in America is based on Judeo-Christian tradition. "To do my duty, I must acknowledge God."
The article has a pretty christian-leaning feel to it. The whole thing seems really ridiculous to me. Moore is trying to say that the first amendment, that which requires congress to make no laws establishing or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, guarantees him the right to put the display up. The US Supreme Court has ruled in the passed that such religious displays cannot be put in public view, on government land, unless part of a larger historical (and, assumedly, less-biased) display. Several figures from Alabama mentioned in the article side with Moore on legal grounds, but nearly everyone (save his devout followers) oppose his move to keep the display, because the courts ruled against him. To me it seems glaringly obvious that he is violating the first amendment, when he uses his governmental power to promote this Judeo-Christian symbol. When the court ordered the building manager to put a cover over the 10 commandments, he threatened him and several others with jail if they didn't take it back down. I know its not too common in Alabama, but I would be afraid of going before him in court as a non-christian. His bias seems overwhelming.
Thoughts?
Comments
Originally posted by thuh Freak
Thoughts?
I often wonder what the connection is between south and fanaticism (in religion). The US has its bible belt, which is, from the sound of your article, still thriving in the weirdest (!?) of places. Europe's south (Spain, Italy for example) are arguably the most religious, church-going places on the continent (except maybe for Ireland). Further south, the maghreb belt, if you can call it that. Mexico and other latin-american countries have a very hands-on approach as it comes to christianity (worshipping all flavors of saintlihood for a variety of reasons). Scandinavians, as well as der Kopf, meanwhile, dwell in wide valleys with their feet in solid blocks of ice, thinking of the void that God left when he died. There ARE churches, but hardly any people taking it as far as your average Alabaman judge. And televangelists still haven't made it onto my television.
America is full of contradictions.. This is just another example...
You should scrap all your coinage and notes that have the words " In God we trust "..
Ironic ain't it. that the greatestt power in the world demands the secularization of everything except when it comes to warfare..
then its.....
" God is on our side "
Just like all those other idiots killing in the name of Allah or Krishna or Jehovah...
Originally posted by Aquafire
Just like all those other idiots killing in the name of Allah or Krishna or Jehovah...
YES!! I shall formally propose to the UN that, from now on, members only send out their killing squads IN THE NAME OF DER KOPF!
He states that his state's constitution demands that he swear an oath to state and the almighty God and any dereliction of said oath would, ultimately, be a sin and an abomination (pretty much his words, but not exact).
The problem that I have with this statement is the automatic assumption that "God" only refers to a "Christian" God. This, to me, is the ultimate form of arrogance and that is why I cannot support his position.
Before the finger-wavers start pounding this thread and ultimately hijack it into another "liberals are ruining the world" debate, I want to make one thing perfectly clear about my position as a liberal: everyone has a right and the freedom to practice their religion pretty much anywhere and everywhere they wish. However, the only request liberals ask is that EVERYONE can call this their home, too. If a non-Christian walks into a court of law, a supposed unbiased institution, and sees a Christian bibilical document presented in the entrance how are they not to feel as though they're somehow at a disadvantage?
Last night on "Hannity & Colmes" Sean Hannity went on a tirade about this case being the last hold-out, the Alamo if you will, of the continued dismantling of all religion from our society. What? Is this guy joking?
The last time I checked our country was still full of churches, church goers spending their Sunday morning's at mass and IHOP, Christian rock music is still being sold on infomercials, Christmas and Easter are still national holidays, Mormons and Jehovas are still knocking on my door Sunday mornings and on and on and on. Just because we've asked that public events and buildings be free of any one religion so that we, as a society, are polite and respectful of ALL our neighbors doesn't mean ultra-conservatives have the right to use scare tactics and "the sky is falling" rhetoric to get their way. Imposinig your religion, regardless of the mandates of said religion, is just plain wrong, assumptive, arrogant and oppressive.
For those unfamiliar with the AmeriKKKan South, well, there's still alot of folks there that are pretty immobile in their stances.
For example:
Blacks (Niggers) are bad and should all be put on a bus to Detroit where they are welcomed by those damn Northerners.
God? is Good. Anybody who says different will either be ostrasized or lynched (see above).
The South is God?'s land. We are here to defend the right of All? and to kill any peace-lovin'-tree-huggin'-faggot we deem fit for that threatens that God? given freedom.
Oog. I was born in America and left when I was 15. I moved back and still see the same old hatred (but more glossy, as times and advertising has changed). I'd like to stay, but probably won't, and watch the US from afar as it implodes on its 'holier than thou' attitude.
In a perfect world, I'd like to see religion completely seperate from politics. No God, no Allah, no Nothing. Religion should be the choice of the people, not the voice of the people in charge. Let things go as they are, and we are finished as a race.
it should be in aramaic or hebrew...
The presence of anyhting jewish would probably freak them out though.
As a christian fanatic, I agree with him,...
WHY can't people at least try to write unbiased polls?
I'm a Christian, and I agree with him. In no way, however would I consider myself a "fanatic." I know I was supposed to choose the closest to my opinion, but you could've certainly dispensed with the bias.
Hate to tell you this, but this country was founded by Christians and the populous was Christian. Only since then have other religions come into the picture. When the Constitution says that Congress shall make no establishment of religion, it means that you won't be indebted to the government for your religion. Congress may not tax you for your tithes, force you to go to Sunday morning worship under penalty of law, or jail you for believing other than authorities.
Oh crap, now I'm a right-wing conservative. Where'd my hood go?
http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm
Uh... right, the unity of *Christians*, all else be damned. Literally.
Exclusion is exclusion. Period. And this guy is so blinded by his own self-righteousness that he can't, or won't, see that.
Here's a quick test: if state and church are separated, and if the 'God' on our money, etc, is truly universal... then replace it with the word Allah. It shouldn't matter, right? Try it out: "In Allah we trust" "Allah is with us" "One nation, under Allah..."
Better yet, try it with 'Zeus', how about 'Ra'?
Yeah, thought so. Now you know how every non-Christian in the country feels.
'God' is *not* inclusionary, no matter what these bigots think.
And settlers came here to escape religious persecution and imposed beliefs... it's hypocritcal as country to then impose the christian version of "god" on anybody.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I find it funny that a reproduction ot the 10 commandment tablets is in english...
it should be in aramaic or hebrew...
Shouldn't it be in Greek?
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Hate to tell you this, but this country was founded by Christians and the populous was Christian. Only since then have other religions come into the picture.
You are unbelievable wrong. This country was founded by the religiously oppressed. By the 'oppressed' Puritan standards, we should be at church every day...tithing, praying, giving...whatevering, all in the name of The Lord?. These people were obsessive about God for Chrizzakes. EVERY DAY had a place in His? plan. I doubt you are as 'Chrstian' as the founders were...and for the sake of us all I hope you aren't.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Hate to tell you this, but this country was founded by Christians and the populous was Christian.
I hate to tell you this, but not our original eight or so presidents.
I'm so fücking sick of this state.
I'm so fücking sick of the goddamned south.
I'm so fücking sick of America.
I'm so fücking sick of Christianity.
My head is about to explode, I need to take a walk.
Originally posted by 709
You are unbelievable wrong. This country was founded by the religiously oppressed. By the 'oppressed' Puritan standards, we should be at church every day...tithing, praying, giving...whatevering, all in the name of The Lord?. These people were obsessive about God for Chrizzakes. EVERY DAY had a place in His? plan. I doubt you are as 'Chrstian' as the founders were...and for the sake of us all I hope you aren't.
What about your statements is contradictory to what you quoted of mine? You expounded on what I said. I don't disagree that I'm not as religious as this country's founders.
So my question is: What was your point? You agreed that the U.S. was founded by religious people and that religion was a part of their everyday lives. That's MY point.
There are a couple of ten commandment lists in the OT.
One of the ten commandments includes this little gem..
" Thous shalt not seethe a kid in it's mother's milk "
Deutronomy : Chapter 14
Can some quote the First Amendment where this is mentioned? From what I remember, that phrase about "separation" was a court decision, and the framers of the Constitution were more concerned about preventing the govt from telling the people what religion to believe.
Otherwise, why is God mentioned in the Constitution? And why does Congress still say a prayer every morning? (Even though schools are not allowed.) And for that matter, why hasn't anyone protested the mention of his name on our currency? Isn't it about time to put this thing to a referendum in America? After all, every other third-world piece of crap country can ram it's religion down the throats of its citizens. Like those Islamic terrorist countries that slammed planes into the World Trade Center for Allah! Last I checked, the former Soviet Union was the only offical atheist state out there (maybe Red China, but I dunno).
Find me where God is mentioned.
Originally posted by Kickaha
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut....overview.html
Find me where God is mentioned.
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.
You're right! There is nothing in there about separation of church and state. Just something about Congress not being allowed to establish a religion!
You got a link for the Bill of Rights? One of those old scraps of paper has something about God... otherwise, why else would Congress pray?