I'll make this short. I support the judge. The country's founders did not intend for religion to be absent from our public institutions. Not at all.
I object to thuh freak's (and other's) characterization that one has to be a fanatic to agree with the judge. I'm a Christian, but no evangelist or fanatic, that's for sure.
The line of his that made me twitch, in reference to being compared to Alabama Governor George Wallace: "Wallace was about exclusion. We are for unity."
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.
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?
I hate to tell you this, but the country was still founded by Christians.
Surprise! Our country was founded by Freemasons. The same ones that believe in a Supreme Being (aka God). Take a look at the Great Seal, that thing on the back of a dollar bill, with the Eye of God at the top of the pyramid. While you're at it, translate the Latin: "He has favored our undertakings for a new order of the ages".
George Washington was sworn into office on a Bible from the New York state Grand Lodge. Like every President since (being sworn in on a Bible). If you don't like it, lets have a vote. Democracy rules!
Lets settle this whether America is a nation for God once and for all! Who's willing to pursue this?
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.
No, the point I was responding to was that this country was founded by Christians. It wasn't.
There were many 'religious' persons that thought they could develop a more structured and more faithful-to-the-word sect (not all 'Christians') in a newly formed Commonwealth. They tried, and they succeeded to an arguable extent.
So, SDW, do you object to a statue of Zeus next to a giant Buddha next to a statue depicting something important in Islam next to an upside down cross next to a torah next to a golden calf next to the ten commandments in that courthouse?
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
From:
The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY)
Oh, and HERE IS THE KICKER!
1797 TREATY WITH TRIPOLI
by Gene Garman
Was and is the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli an official treaty of the USA? Yes, all 12 articles as printed in English. See Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America , Hunter Miller, ed., 2:349-385:
?Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796, . . . and at Algiers January 3, 1797, . . . . Original in Arabic. Submitted [in English] to the Senate May 29, 1797. (Message of May 26, 1797.) Resolution of advice and consent June 7, 1797. Ratified by the United States June 10, 1797. . . . Proclaimed June 10, 1797? (p. 349).
?Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary? (p. 364).
?Article 11. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries? (p. 365).
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion
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?
Because they don't have 1/10 the wisdom or foresight of the men who wrote the original documents?!?
Your claim was that God was specifically in the Constitution. Nowhere does 'God', 'Christianity' or anything else appear in the Constitution, other than the above word... 'religion'. Period. Any religion. Period.
Now you claim that God is in the Bill of Rights. Unsure of your facts, perhaps? See... that Amendment you quote is *IN* the Bill of Rights.
Ah... maybe you meant the Declaration of Independence...
Quote:
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.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
That's it. That's all there is. One use of 'Nature's God' (sounds pretty, um... what's that word... oh yeah, pagan), and one of 'Creator' (nice and non-specific).
So explain to me again where it states that putting a monument to one, specific, isolated religion in a *place of public law* is *NOT* in any way, shape or form, endorsing a religion? Sure, you could argue that it isn't a law passed by the legislative body, but it sure rides an awfully fine line in my book. No, in fact, it runs roughshod right over it.
The Alabama Chief Justice is letting his own narrow-minded short-sighted self-righteousness get in the way of his legal thinking. Sad.
Reading over some of the posts here I notice some with anger issues. I mean really.
DiscoCow said:
Quote:
I'm so fücking sick of this. It's all I hear about in the news; Judge Moore this, ten commandments that (I happen to reside, at the moment, in Alabama.)
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.
I think DiscoCow you might consider trying to come across less as a bigot filled with hate to spare.
It is my wish that you can help yourself.
I add to what two other Christians said here about the context of the "poll" in this thread being bent. It is a sad reflection.
As some of you know I was in Boston as of late and here is a guy that is not from the "south" DiscoCow
Samuel Adams and his words:
Quote:
The right to freedom being the gift of the Almighty...The rights of the colonists as Christians...may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutions of The Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.
I find it a bit sad that so many will fight to prevent expression of religious belief. I support the Chief Justice in Alabama.
The argument the ACLU forwards is that the Ten Commandments send the "wrong message". Quite frankly many things send messages and to some one thing is offensive and to another person something else is taken as offensive. Hooters is a restaurant in the US that offends some women etc. The old pictures of Aunt Jamima pancake syrup logo offended some african americans. The fact is that we all take offense to different things. Do people out there really think we need to sterilize the entire world of "ANY" thing in the world that could be taken as offensive to "SOME" body out there????? I drive down the road and see bumper stickers that I certainly disagree with but I do not think we need to pull people over and cane them and remove their "messages" as they "may" offend someone. The fact is that we have no control over what a judge believes be he or she a Christian or an Athiest. You could be taken to task in court one day and you have NO control over what is the mindset of each juror on the bench. To go around restricting freedom of expression even in public buildings will lead to a society less able to accept his neighbor and a world with more hate and bigotry.
It's an illusion. Even if we take down all the marble engravings and don't utter the word God anywhere in government proceedings, you will NEVER be able to take the religious views of politicians and separate them from policy-making. Even if they don't bring it up, it of course will have an effect as it has defined who they are all along.
You think that judge is going to stop applying his religious beliefs to the legal rulings and decisions he makes, just because the marble thing is gone?? Ha!
It's naive concept except where it pertains to protecting the Republic from the Churches themselves. No country, state, county or city should ever be subject to rule by religious authority obviously... but I hardly think that's a threat these days. Name a country that's run by a church.
Doesn't fly anymore. Least of all in a country this diverse. Rule by church isn't even a possibility except maybe in very small rural towns where all the people are members / might allow it to happen.
It is a representative, in fact, *the* representative, of the judicial branch of the state of Alabama. He is not a private citizen placing a monument on his own property, he is a government official placing a religious icon on public property.
Huge difference.
If he were doing this with his *own* money, in his *own* yard, then you know what? I'd vehemently *support* his right to do so.
The fact is, this is state funds (ie, public monies) being used to raise a monument to *one* religion on state property. That, in my opinion, is wrong. The state (state or State) has zero business promoting one religion over another.
Frankly, if he wishes to raise a monument to the basis for our law, he should look to English Common Law, and the Hammurabi Codex. The latter inspired much of Greek law, which was in turn inspiration for much of what the founding father wrote, using the English Common Law as a base. That I would support. It would be interesting, and, god forbid, educational to the public.
But trying to wrap a religious icon in a thin layer of obfuscation is wrong, and frankly, it's disrespectful to Christianity. It's no better than someone who uses the American flag to sell cars.
Comments
I object to thuh freak's (and other's) characterization that one has to be a fanatic to agree with the judge. I'm a Christian, but no evangelist or fanatic, that's for sure.
Originally posted by bunge
I hate to tell you this, but not our original eight or so presidents.
I hate to tell you this, but the country was still founded by Christians.
Originally posted by Kickaha
The line of his that made me twitch, in reference to being compared to Alabama Governor George Wallace: "Wallace was about exclusion. We are for unity."
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.
OMFG.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
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?
Couldn't have said it better.
Originally posted by Aquafire
So can anyone here actually list the ten commandments...
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
Originally posted by SDW2001
I hate to tell you this, but the country was still founded by Christians.
Surprise! Our country was founded by Freemasons. The same ones that believe in a Supreme Being (aka God). Take a look at the Great Seal, that thing on the back of a dollar bill, with the Eye of God at the top of the pyramid. While you're at it, translate the Latin: "He has favored our undertakings for a new order of the ages".
George Washington was sworn into office on a Bible from the New York state Grand Lodge. Like every President since (being sworn in on a Bible). If you don't like it, lets have a vote. Democracy rules!
Lets settle this whether America is a nation for God once and for all! Who's willing to pursue this?
Didn't think so...
Originally posted by CosmoNut
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.
No, the point I was responding to was that this country was founded by Christians. It wasn't.
There were many 'religious' persons that thought they could develop a more structured and more faithful-to-the-word sect (not all 'Christians') in a newly formed Commonwealth. They tried, and they succeeded to an arguable extent.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I hate to tell you this, but the country was still founded by Christians.
Deists, christians, what's the difference really?
Originally posted by BR
Deists, christians, what's the difference really?
Same game, different name.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Democracy rules!
Ooh, let's also vote that black people are really gorillas and don't deserve to be treated as human beings! Democracy Rules!
Ooh, let's vote that all homosexuals are to be tied to fenceposts and beaten with branches wrapped in barbed wire! Democracy Rules!
Ooh, let's vote that we bomb France to rubble! Democracy Rules!
There is something called tyranny of the majority that our constitution was designed to protect against. Try again buddy.
Originally posted by 709
Same game, different name.
Not really.
de·ism P Pronunciation Key (dzm, d-)
n.
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
From:
The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY)
Oh, and HERE IS THE KICKER!
1797 TREATY WITH TRIPOLI
by Gene Garman
Was and is the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli an official treaty of the USA? Yes, all 12 articles as printed in English. See Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America , Hunter Miller, ed., 2:349-385:
?Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796, . . . and at Algiers January 3, 1797, . . . . Original in Arabic. Submitted [in English] to the Senate May 29, 1797. (Message of May 26, 1797.) Resolution of advice and consent June 7, 1797. Ratified by the United States June 10, 1797. . . . Proclaimed June 10, 1797? (p. 349).
?Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary? (p. 364).
?Article 11. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries? (p. 365).
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion
Black and white.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tripoli1.htm
Originally posted by BR
Not really.
Sorry. You're absolutely right.
I've been dealing with this crap for almost 40 years now, and I involuntarily knee-jerked. My apologies to any deists I might have offended.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
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?
Because they don't have 1/10 the wisdom or foresight of the men who wrote the original documents?!?
Your claim was that God was specifically in the Constitution. Nowhere does 'God', 'Christianity' or anything else appear in the Constitution, other than the above word... 'religion'. Period. Any religion. Period.
Now you claim that God is in the Bill of Rights. Unsure of your facts, perhaps? See... that Amendment you quote is *IN* the Bill of Rights.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall...of_rights.html
Ah... maybe you meant the Declaration of Independence...
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.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
That's it. That's all there is. One use of 'Nature's God' (sounds pretty, um... what's that word... oh yeah, pagan), and one of 'Creator' (nice and non-specific).
So explain to me again where it states that putting a monument to one, specific, isolated religion in a *place of public law* is *NOT* in any way, shape or form, endorsing a religion? Sure, you could argue that it isn't a law passed by the legislative body, but it sure rides an awfully fine line in my book. No, in fact, it runs roughshod right over it.
The Alabama Chief Justice is letting his own narrow-minded short-sighted self-righteousness get in the way of his legal thinking. Sad.
DiscoCow said:
I'm so fücking sick of this. It's all I hear about in the news; Judge Moore this, ten commandments that (I happen to reside, at the moment, in Alabama.)
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.
I think DiscoCow you might consider trying to come across less as a bigot filled with hate to spare.
It is my wish that you can help yourself.
I add to what two other Christians said here about the context of the "poll" in this thread being bent. It is a sad reflection.
As some of you know I was in Boston as of late and here is a guy that is not from the "south" DiscoCow
Samuel Adams and his words:
The right to freedom being the gift of the Almighty...The rights of the colonists as Christians...may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutions of The Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.
From
This Link
I find it a bit sad that so many will fight to prevent expression of religious belief. I support the Chief Justice in Alabama.
The argument the ACLU forwards is that the Ten Commandments send the "wrong message". Quite frankly many things send messages and to some one thing is offensive and to another person something else is taken as offensive. Hooters is a restaurant in the US that offends some women etc. The old pictures of Aunt Jamima pancake syrup logo offended some african americans. The fact is that we all take offense to different things. Do people out there really think we need to sterilize the entire world of "ANY" thing in the world that could be taken as offensive to "SOME" body out there????? I drive down the road and see bumper stickers that I certainly disagree with but I do not think we need to pull people over and cane them and remove their "messages" as they "may" offend someone. The fact is that we have no control over what a judge believes be he or she a Christian or an Athiest. You could be taken to task in court one day and you have NO control over what is the mindset of each juror on the bench. To go around restricting freedom of expression even in public buildings will lead to a society less able to accept his neighbor and a world with more hate and bigotry.
Fellowship
In God We Trust, remember?
It's an illusion. Even if we take down all the marble engravings and don't utter the word God anywhere in government proceedings, you will NEVER be able to take the religious views of politicians and separate them from policy-making. Even if they don't bring it up, it of course will have an effect as it has defined who they are all along.
You think that judge is going to stop applying his religious beliefs to the legal rulings and decisions he makes, just because the marble thing is gone?? Ha!
It's naive concept except where it pertains to protecting the Republic from the Churches themselves. No country, state, county or city should ever be subject to rule by religious authority obviously... but I hardly think that's a threat these days. Name a country that's run by a church.
Doesn't fly anymore. Least of all in a country this diverse. Rule by church isn't even a possibility except maybe in very small rural towns where all the people are members / might allow it to happen.
It is a representative, in fact, *the* representative, of the judicial branch of the state of Alabama. He is not a private citizen placing a monument on his own property, he is a government official placing a religious icon on public property.
Huge difference.
If he were doing this with his *own* money, in his *own* yard, then you know what? I'd vehemently *support* his right to do so.
The fact is, this is state funds (ie, public monies) being used to raise a monument to *one* religion on state property. That, in my opinion, is wrong. The state (state or State) has zero business promoting one religion over another.
Frankly, if he wishes to raise a monument to the basis for our law, he should look to English Common Law, and the Hammurabi Codex. The latter inspired much of Greek law, which was in turn inspiration for much of what the founding father wrote, using the English Common Law as a base. That I would support. It would be interesting, and, god forbid, educational to the public.
But trying to wrap a religious icon in a thin layer of obfuscation is wrong, and frankly, it's disrespectful to Christianity. It's no better than someone who uses the American flag to sell cars.