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.
I could say the same thing about the Electoral College, but it seems a lot of people have a problem with that process as well. And there's also the California recall - no majority involved there, so it must be a good thing! Or are we to pick and choose when democracy suits? I could go into some emotionally charged vote propositions, but such things could never fly, so they are a non-issue.
Which is it, democracy or dictates of the elite?
And why is it "tyranny" when one doesn't agree with the majority? One could say that Al Gore tried to impose "tyranny" on the US because he got the majority of the election - but I'm sure you didn't mean what you said.
If you have a problem with each individual expressing their opinion in a democracy, that's fine. But lucky for us we have a system of govt that was founded by people who allow us to vote on issues.
No, Christmas is not. It's based on Santa Claus, something that has nothing to do with Jesus.
It's based on a belief, hence a religion. Don't tell me there aren't Christians that don't believe in Xmas and that go to church on that day. Historical information about Xmas has nothing to do with the belief system. Usually, facts have nothing to do with any belief system.
So, again, why do our govts support these religious holidays?
Who is ready to get rid of them?
Time to take a stand, people, for what you believe in.
Well banning Christmas would also violate the constitution... the governament can acknowledge a citizens right to worship.
Thanksgiving is a National holiday... religious and non-denominational... I'm sure some will say Thanksgiving is CHRISTIAN!
I think if the christians want the 10 commandments to stay they should alao let a Buddah be erected... the Jewish version and catholic version of the 10 commandments be erected... I don't know very much about the Muslim religion but I'm sure they have something that would make a nice monument for a court house too.
Is it about inclusion and loving thy neighbor? or is it about cultural supremacy and marking your territory?
(another country effectively "run" by a "church" if we take Wahabism and Sharia at face value)
invocations to Allah are most of the script on their flag, and the architectural detail of many doorways
sadly, courthouses are less common than one-handed thieves, and the government doesn't seem to mind executing or torturing the innocent (great deterrent value if we go medieval even on those who didn't do it)
and, of course, gender equality is a non-starter in much of the Middle East
Well banning Christmas would also violate the constitution... the governament can acknowledge a citizens right to worship.
I think if the christians want the 10 commandments to stay they should alao let a Buddah be erected... the Jewish version and catholic version of the 10 commandments be erected... I don't know very much about the Muslim religion but I'm sure they have something that would make a nice monument for a court house too.
Is it about inclusion and loving thy neighbor? or is it about cultural supremacy and marking your territory?
Woo-hoo! Imagine all the religious holidays we would be taking now that the govt would inclusively mandate them the same way as Xmas and Good Friday!
In fact, I'm thinking of starting my own religion and making the govt include its rites and such into everyday life as well. Can't wait for the holidays that I want to show up on everybody's calendar.
And I didn't realize there were so many versions of the ten commandments...
Good to hear that you support the Electoral College and all the other fine points mentioned in it - that is, if I picked the correct piece of old paper?
Hey I need more vacation days... maybe we should lump them all into august and we can take the whole month off.
There are many bad translations of the Bible, and looking at that atheism site, they only point to one set that actually references a Bible. What up with all those other books? My personal favorite was a comment from a woman who said "If the King James Version was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"
Okay, August it is. The holiday shalt be known as The Days of the Dog and, like all US Presidents' birthdays, will always fall on a Monday to start and end on the last Friday.
to the several fanatical christians () who are annoyed at my characterizing them as such: sorry. the poll was intended as a joke. try a little humility.
there aren't many (based on the poll), but i really don't understand people's siding with moore. the clincher for me, is the supreme court (of alabama) said he must take it down. the line of authority in our country, generally runs from the localities, up to the state, then to the lwas of the federal government, and up to the supreme court. within the state, the superior or supreme courts trump everyone else in the state. the supreme court of alabama said moore's commandments must come down. all other arguments are less relevant (i think). sure, maybe, on some off chance, the supreme court of the u.s. will side with him, and allow him to put the display up, but in the mean time, he's been ordered not to. the general populous of the us, and likely of alabama, does not agree with the idea that the christian (or any religion's) god's law should trump our written law. and even if they did, that would clearly be an example of establishing a religion and prohibiting the free exercise of other religions, thence breaking the first amendment.
Also, I think the whole intent of the fore fathers arguments are moot. It's really hard to know just what they were thinking. I don't particularly trust "letters" between them; they could easily have been forged long after their passing. The fore fathers explicitly wrote that congress (and eventually the states) can not establish or prohibit the free exercise of religion. Moore's display does not declare the religion, but it solidifies it on government property. And his refusal to allow other religious displays near by prohibits their free exercise. It mentions in the article, that the US Supreme Court house has a display which has religious characters in it. That one is allowed, because they don't just show off christian characters, or just jewish characters, but many historical religious characters.
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
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!
Well, we can't make laws on people's thoughts, because that would be more wrong than the thoughts themselves (imo). But I don't think its far-fetched, or unreasonable to ask a religious judge/lawperson to respect the will of the people over his religion. If there is a conflict, I think the clearly accepted law, ie the constitution, amendments, bills, etc, should trump the less accepted religious law, bible, ten commandments, etc. We allow disprect for our parents. We allow coveting others' spouses. We allow plenty of things that are in clear disregard for biblical law, because biblical law isn't accepted by the whole; and to have biblic or other religious law come above our constitution would go against the thoroughly accepted first amendment.
Xmas was not started because of Santa Claus, that was something that was added in much later. To go back to your original post, please correct me if I'm wrong, but Xmas DID NOT START BECAUSE OF SANTA CLAUS, and if you can prove that Xmas has its foundation on Santa Claus, and that Jesus was added later, do so.
Xmas was a conversion of a pagan Roman holiday dealing with the winter solstice, although I have heard that even that can be taken further back to somthing else, and when Constatine "found the Lord", he started having all this Christian stuff grafted on to all the Pagan festivals. Look at the word Easter, it's based on "Ishtar" with its eggs and bunny rabbits representing fertility rites.
Even eating ham at Easter was a great way to differentiate the religion from Passover, as Jews don't touch pork.
Good to hear that you support the Electoral College and all the other fine points mentioned in it - that is, if I picked the correct piece of old paper?
People who are unhappy about the Electoral College process don't generally suggest that we ignore it if we don't like it, nor do they try to concoct convenient interpretations of the Constitution so as to pretend the Electoral College doesn't exist. They suggest we change the system to eliminate the Electoral College.
If you don't like separation of Church and State, propose a Constitutional amendment declaring the US an officially Christian nation or some other such highly divisive nonsense. I'll wish you nothing but bad luck with this, but go ahead and knock yourself out if you like.
In the meantime, you and Judge Moore had better get used to the idea that the Ten Commandments (whichever particular version of them) don't belong in a public courthouse any more than a shrine to Shiva or a replica of the Kabah.
Just because our government hasn't been exactly consistent with avoiding things like "In God We Trust" and "One Nation under God" doesn't mean the more violations of separation the merrier. At least this kind of deity-based sloganeering lends itself to very abstract and personal, even merely symbolic or poetic interpretations of the word "God". A monument that purports to list out specific rules that someone's version of God says all of us good citizens are supposed to live by is quite another matter.
As for Christmas, although it has quite obvious religious implications, it has become so secularized that it's even celebrated in Japan by people barely touched by Christian culture. The Church/State separation issues of a Christmas holiday therefore aren't very serious when compared to state-sponsored monument bearing a list of religious codes of conduct.
I could say the same thing about the Electoral College, but it seems a lot of people have a problem with that process as well. And there's also the California recall - no majority involved there, so it must be a good thing! Or are we to pick and choose when democracy suits? I could go into some emotionally charged vote propositions, but such things could never fly, so they are a non-issue.
Which is it, democracy or dictates of the elite?
And why is it "tyranny" when one doesn't agree with the majority? One could say that Al Gore tried to impose "tyranny" on the US because he got the majority of the election - but I'm sure you didn't mean what you said.
If you have a problem with each individual expressing their opinion in a democracy, that's fine. But lucky for us we have a system of govt that was founded by people who allow us to vote on issues.
This deals with discrimination and bigotry, not with simple elections. That's where tyranny of the majority comes in. The last census reported that roughly 15% of all Americans do not practice any religion. Hence, by having In god we trust and under god and the christian ten commandments in the Alabama courthouse, it is clearly stating that you can't be a good American if you don't believe in god, or the right god for that matter.
The original pledge did not have under god in it. It was a 1950s addition. The original motto was E Pluribus Unum, From Many, One. In god we trust was a 1950s addition. Hell, I could object to the ten commandments being there because they are the WRONG ten commandments. I could even say, being technically jewish, that not having the proper translation from the torah is discriminatory.
Come on. You know what the difference is between a simple election and a tyranny of the majority.
The electoral college is a safeguard against it. Does it work very well? Not really because the biggest states are still the important ones but it does ensure that states such as Montana and Rhode Island aren't left totally out in the cold.
Look, I'm no democrat. I'm no republican. I don't like Gore, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Gray Davis, Pete Wilson, and a myriad of other politicians. Get that through your head before you start bringing up these ridiculous Gore arguments. In regards to the California Recall, my problem with that is the undoing of an election with signatures of those who didn't vote in it and it is just going to be used as a purely political tool, now and in the future. I somehow doubt the current situation was what the framers of the California Constitution had in mind.
Woo-hoo! Imagine all the religious holidays we would be taking now that the govt would inclusively mandate them the same way as Xmas and Good Friday!
In fact, I'm thinking of starting my own religion and making the govt include its rites and such into everyday life as well. Can't wait for the holidays that I want to show up on everybody's calendar.
And I didn't realize there were so many versions of the ten commandments...
The government already does. Ever heard of something called Title VII? Ever heard of something called reasonable accomodation?
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?
No, actually. I really don't. Though, that won't happen because the majority of the US population...and Alabama's population, is Christian.
The notion that we have to include every single religion or none at all is fundamentally flawed. Also, our laws are based in part on Christianity. God really cannot be removed from our legal system.
But, in the modern politically correct, hyper-sensitive, "no one can be offended and everyone must be included no matter what" country we live in, things aren;t going that way. The current trend is to exclude God from every aspect of public life. This was absolutley not the intention of the founders of this country, regardless of religious sect. The intention was to prevent the government from establishing an official religion, thereby manadating the practice of said religion...or any religion at all. The Constitution has been grossly misinterpreted in this case, just as it has been with regard to possession of firearms (it is clear the intent was to allow citizens to form a militia....not ride around in SUV's with semi-automatic weapons).
The fact is, there is no such thing as "separation of church and state". It's a myth. Read the amendment.
Comments
Originally posted by BR
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.
I could say the same thing about the Electoral College, but it seems a lot of people have a problem with that process as well. And there's also the California recall - no majority involved there, so it must be a good thing! Or are we to pick and choose when democracy suits? I could go into some emotionally charged vote propositions, but such things could never fly, so they are a non-issue.
Which is it, democracy or dictates of the elite?
And why is it "tyranny" when one doesn't agree with the majority? One could say that Al Gore tried to impose "tyranny" on the US because he got the majority of the election - but I'm sure you didn't mean what you said.
If you have a problem with each individual expressing their opinion in a democracy, that's fine. But lucky for us we have a system of govt that was founded by people who allow us to vote on issues.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
The point is these holidays are based on these religions.
No, Christmas is not. It's based on Santa Claus, something that has nothing to do with Jesus.
Originally posted by bunge
No, Christmas is not. It's based on Santa Claus, something that has nothing to do with Jesus.
It's based on a belief, hence a religion. Don't tell me there aren't Christians that don't believe in Xmas and that go to church on that day. Historical information about Xmas has nothing to do with the belief system. Usually, facts have nothing to do with any belief system.
So, again, why do our govts support these religious holidays?
Who is ready to get rid of them?
Time to take a stand, people, for what you believe in.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
It's based on a belief, hence a religion.
You're calling belief in Santa Claus a religion.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Or are we to pick and choose when democracy suits?
No, the Constitution does it for us.
Thanksgiving is a National holiday... religious and non-denominational... I'm sure some will say Thanksgiving is CHRISTIAN!
I think if the christians want the 10 commandments to stay they should alao let a Buddah be erected... the Jewish version and catholic version of the 10 commandments be erected... I don't know very much about the Muslim religion but I'm sure they have something that would make a nice monument for a court house too.
Is it about inclusion and loving thy neighbor? or is it about cultural supremacy and marking your territory?
(another country effectively "run" by a "church" if we take Wahabism and Sharia at face value)
invocations to Allah are most of the script on their flag, and the architectural detail of many doorways
sadly, courthouses are less common than one-handed thieves, and the government doesn't seem to mind executing or torturing the innocent (great deterrent value if we go medieval even on those who didn't do it)
and, of course, gender equality is a non-starter in much of the Middle East
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Well banning Christmas would also violate the constitution... the governament can acknowledge a citizens right to worship.
I think if the christians want the 10 commandments to stay they should alao let a Buddah be erected... the Jewish version and catholic version of the 10 commandments be erected... I don't know very much about the Muslim religion but I'm sure they have something that would make a nice monument for a court house too.
Is it about inclusion and loving thy neighbor? or is it about cultural supremacy and marking your territory?
Woo-hoo! Imagine all the religious holidays we would be taking now that the govt would inclusively mandate them the same way as Xmas and Good Friday!
In fact, I'm thinking of starting my own religion and making the govt include its rites and such into everyday life as well. Can't wait for the holidays that I want to show up on everybody's calendar.
And I didn't realize there were so many versions of the ten commandments...
Originally posted by bunge
No, the Constitution does it for us.
Good to hear that you support the Electoral College and all the other fine points mentioned in it - that is, if I picked the correct piece of old paper?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c4.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm
Hey I need more vacation days... maybe we should lump them all into august and we can take the whole month off.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
There's 3 versions... how many versions of the bible are there anyway?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c4.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm
Hey I need more vacation days... maybe we should lump them all into august and we can take the whole month off.
There are many bad translations of the Bible, and looking at that atheism site, they only point to one set that actually references a Bible. What up with all those other books? My personal favorite was a comment from a woman who said "If the King James Version was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"
Okay, August it is. The holiday shalt be known as The Days of the Dog and, like all US Presidents' birthdays, will always fall on a Monday to start and end on the last Friday.
there aren't many (based on the poll), but i really don't understand people's siding with moore. the clincher for me, is the supreme court (of alabama) said he must take it down. the line of authority in our country, generally runs from the localities, up to the state, then to the lwas of the federal government, and up to the supreme court. within the state, the superior or supreme courts trump everyone else in the state. the supreme court of alabama said moore's commandments must come down. all other arguments are less relevant (i think). sure, maybe, on some off chance, the supreme court of the u.s. will side with him, and allow him to put the display up, but in the mean time, he's been ordered not to. the general populous of the us, and likely of alabama, does not agree with the idea that the christian (or any religion's) god's law should trump our written law. and even if they did, that would clearly be an example of establishing a religion and prohibiting the free exercise of other religions, thence breaking the first amendment.
Also, I think the whole intent of the fore fathers arguments are moot. It's really hard to know just what they were thinking. I don't particularly trust "letters" between them; they could easily have been forged long after their passing. The fore fathers explicitly wrote that congress (and eventually the states) can not establish or prohibit the free exercise of religion. Moore's display does not declare the religion, but it solidifies it on government property. And his refusal to allow other religious displays near by prohibits their free exercise. It mentions in the article, that the US Supreme Court house has a display which has religious characters in it. That one is allowed, because they don't just show off christian characters, or just jewish characters, but many historical religious characters.
Originally posted by Moogs
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!
Well, we can't make laws on people's thoughts, because that would be more wrong than the thoughts themselves (imo). But I don't think its far-fetched, or unreasonable to ask a religious judge/lawperson to respect the will of the people over his religion. If there is a conflict, I think the clearly accepted law, ie the constitution, amendments, bills, etc, should trump the less accepted religious law, bible, ten commandments, etc. We allow disprect for our parents. We allow coveting others' spouses. We allow plenty of things that are in clear disregard for biblical law, because biblical law isn't accepted by the whole; and to have biblic or other religious law come above our constitution would go against the thoroughly accepted first amendment.
Originally posted by bunge
You're calling belief in Santa Claus a religion.
Lets try this again, follow carefully...
Religion is based on belief systems.
Xmas was not started because of Santa Claus, that was something that was added in much later. To go back to your original post, please correct me if I'm wrong, but Xmas DID NOT START BECAUSE OF SANTA CLAUS, and if you can prove that Xmas has its foundation on Santa Claus, and that Jesus was added later, do so.
Xmas was a conversion of a pagan Roman holiday dealing with the winter solstice, although I have heard that even that can be taken further back to somthing else, and when Constatine "found the Lord", he started having all this Christian stuff grafted on to all the Pagan festivals. Look at the word Easter, it's based on "Ishtar" with its eggs and bunny rabbits representing fertility rites.
Even eating ham at Easter was a great way to differentiate the religion from Passover, as Jews don't touch pork.
Now, why is our govt mandating these holidays?
And who is going to stop this favoritism?
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Good to hear that you support the Electoral College and all the other fine points mentioned in it - that is, if I picked the correct piece of old paper?
People who are unhappy about the Electoral College process don't generally suggest that we ignore it if we don't like it, nor do they try to concoct convenient interpretations of the Constitution so as to pretend the Electoral College doesn't exist. They suggest we change the system to eliminate the Electoral College.
If you don't like separation of Church and State, propose a Constitutional amendment declaring the US an officially Christian nation or some other such highly divisive nonsense. I'll wish you nothing but bad luck with this, but go ahead and knock yourself out if you like.
In the meantime, you and Judge Moore had better get used to the idea that the Ten Commandments (whichever particular version of them) don't belong in a public courthouse any more than a shrine to Shiva or a replica of the Kabah.
Just because our government hasn't been exactly consistent with avoiding things like "In God We Trust" and "One Nation under God" doesn't mean the more violations of separation the merrier. At least this kind of deity-based sloganeering lends itself to very abstract and personal, even merely symbolic or poetic interpretations of the word "God". A monument that purports to list out specific rules that someone's version of God says all of us good citizens are supposed to live by is quite another matter.
As for Christmas, although it has quite obvious religious implications, it has become so secularized that it's even celebrated in Japan by people barely touched by Christian culture. The Church/State separation issues of a Christmas holiday therefore aren't very serious when compared to state-sponsored monument bearing a list of religious codes of conduct.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
I could say the same thing about the Electoral College, but it seems a lot of people have a problem with that process as well. And there's also the California recall - no majority involved there, so it must be a good thing! Or are we to pick and choose when democracy suits? I could go into some emotionally charged vote propositions, but such things could never fly, so they are a non-issue.
Which is it, democracy or dictates of the elite?
And why is it "tyranny" when one doesn't agree with the majority? One could say that Al Gore tried to impose "tyranny" on the US because he got the majority of the election - but I'm sure you didn't mean what you said.
If you have a problem with each individual expressing their opinion in a democracy, that's fine. But lucky for us we have a system of govt that was founded by people who allow us to vote on issues.
This deals with discrimination and bigotry, not with simple elections. That's where tyranny of the majority comes in. The last census reported that roughly 15% of all Americans do not practice any religion. Hence, by having In god we trust and under god and the christian ten commandments in the Alabama courthouse, it is clearly stating that you can't be a good American if you don't believe in god, or the right god for that matter.
The original pledge did not have under god in it. It was a 1950s addition. The original motto was E Pluribus Unum, From Many, One. In god we trust was a 1950s addition. Hell, I could object to the ten commandments being there because they are the WRONG ten commandments. I could even say, being technically jewish, that not having the proper translation from the torah is discriminatory.
Come on. You know what the difference is between a simple election and a tyranny of the majority.
The electoral college is a safeguard against it. Does it work very well? Not really because the biggest states are still the important ones but it does ensure that states such as Montana and Rhode Island aren't left totally out in the cold.
Look, I'm no democrat. I'm no republican. I don't like Gore, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Gray Davis, Pete Wilson, and a myriad of other politicians. Get that through your head before you start bringing up these ridiculous Gore arguments. In regards to the California Recall, my problem with that is the undoing of an election with signatures of those who didn't vote in it and it is just going to be used as a purely political tool, now and in the future. I somehow doubt the current situation was what the framers of the California Constitution had in mind.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Woo-hoo! Imagine all the religious holidays we would be taking now that the govt would inclusively mandate them the same way as Xmas and Good Friday!
In fact, I'm thinking of starting my own religion and making the govt include its rites and such into everyday life as well. Can't wait for the holidays that I want to show up on everybody's calendar.
And I didn't realize there were so many versions of the ten commandments...
The government already does. Ever heard of something called Title VII? Ever heard of something called reasonable accomodation?
Originally posted by BR
The government already does. Ever heard of something called Title VII? Ever heard of something called reasonable accomodation?
Why start injecting reason at this point?
Squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Originally posted by BR
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?
No, actually. I really don't. Though, that won't happen because the majority of the US population...and Alabama's population, is Christian.
The notion that we have to include every single religion or none at all is fundamentally flawed. Also, our laws are based in part on Christianity. God really cannot be removed from our legal system.
But, in the modern politically correct, hyper-sensitive, "no one can be offended and everyone must be included no matter what" country we live in, things aren;t going that way. The current trend is to exclude God from every aspect of public life. This was absolutley not the intention of the founders of this country, regardless of religious sect. The intention was to prevent the government from establishing an official religion, thereby manadating the practice of said religion...or any religion at all. The Constitution has been grossly misinterpreted in this case, just as it has been with regard to possession of firearms (it is clear the intent was to allow citizens to form a militia....not ride around in SUV's with semi-automatic weapons).
The fact is, there is no such thing as "separation of church and state". It's a myth. Read the amendment.
an nice fat smiling buddha greating you at the courthouse would make a nice statement I think...