I think the majority of the ten commandments are in fact laws in this country, eg. thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, etc. Are the last 8 or so commandment fair game to be posted?
It isn't pushing anything on anybody. The people who typically go to court are big boys and girls and already have their belief systems firmly in place. It would be a big different story if the judge required recitation of the commandments prior to the start of proceedings. In schools...EVERYTHING in the classroom becomes fodder for active teaching or activity. THAT is where the difference lies. Perhaps as an attorney I'd be a little busy worrying about my client's case to even care. The point of this thread was calling for one rule for everybody. It isn't fair to allow religious symbols of Judaism and Islam but not for Christianity. After talking to my wife (a Jew)...I can state that a menorah IS a Jewish religious symbol and NOT a secular symbol.
"10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." Is this the part of the Bible that condemns homosexuality? Anyway, if #10 was made law, it would basically outlaw one of the pillars of our culture: keeping up with the Joneses.
Originally posted by Refman It isn't pushing anything on anybody. The people who typically go to court are big boys and girls and already have their belief systems firmly in place. It would be a big different story if the judge required recitation of the commandments prior to the start of proceedings. In schools...EVERYTHING in the classroom becomes fodder for active teaching or activity. THAT is where the difference lies. That is such bull. We have a right to go on government property and not have religion pushed upon us, regardless of what religion it is. Whether it's the ten commandments, a crucifix, a buddha, the star of david, a bloody goat, or whatever. This is government property and government business. Practice your religion on your own time. Perhaps as an attorney I'd be a little busy worrying about my client's case to even care. Perhaps as students, they should be a little busy passing their courses. Nifty. The point of this thread was calling for one rule for everybody. It isn't fair to allow religious symbols of Judaism and Islam but not for Christianity. After talking to my wife (a Jew)...I can state that a menorah IS a Jewish religious symbol and NOT a secular symbol. The one rule for everybody is that religious symbols don't belong on government property, period.
Posting the commandments that have become basis for American law is certainly more acceptable as a piece of history than the commandments which are simply religious in nature. I doubt anyone would want to post just eight however, this judge in Alabama is clearly trying to exercise his religion in court and isn't just doing a public service to educate origins of law.
you definitely make good points...i still see a clear distinction between having them posted in a courtroom and having them posted in a schoolroom... having said that, if it makes you feel any better, if i were to be elected to serve as judge, i would definitely not hang the ten commandments in my courtroom...
are you making that an absolute rule?? even in teaching about world religions?? don't you think religion has shaped history in many ways?? isn't that worth learning about??
The Constitution guarantees freedom <i>of</i> religion - in other words, free exercise and practice of religion. As others have said, this is not freedom <i>from</i> religion. The phrase "separation of church and state" does <b>not</b> appear in the Constitution. This was intended to protect against such things as students being forced to pray or worship a specific way in school. (If someone else wants to say a prayer out loud, you should be able to deal with it as long as you're not forced to actively participate. There may be many in that classroom who appreciate that prayer and the opportunity to practice their religion.) Face it, religion has always been an inseparable part of culture, and plays a role in history you cannot ignore. Leaving it out of schools is like (warning: overused analogy) ignoring a large elephant that is standing in the room. And the exclusive exclusion of Christian symbols suggests that all religions are <i>not</i> being treated the same way.... the one thing our rules are supposed to prevent, discrimination, is happening anyway.
We can teach about the impact of religion on world affairs without teaching the religion itself. The problem I see with teaching religion in school is that some people will always go over the line and start teaching the religion instead of how it fits into a historical context. And the exclusive exclusion of Christian symbols suggests that all religions are not being treated the same way.... the one thing our rules are supposed to prevent, discrimination, is happening anyway. What about the exclusion of all other religions when the national motto is In God We Trust? It's on currency which has the backing of federal law and in my view promotes Christianity over all other religions. When the government and agents of the government promote Christianity to the exclusion of other religions then somehow that's not wrong. We're about as close to having a national religion as you can get without actually passing a law. The Senate reciting prayers prior to official business and the President saying God Bless America after his national addresses. This judge in Alabama even does a prayer prior to his sessions.
ATTENTION ALL!!!!! According to Timing...ONLY Christians believe in God. That's right...you heard it here first...Muslims, Jews, agnostics...you ALL do not believe in God...because Timing said so. The officials in question happen to believe in God. They prayed of their own volition. nobody made them. Are you suggesting that you'd hamped their freedom of speech just because they're in a publicly owned building? Where? In front of whom? Does he require others to participate? No court ANYWHERE has even tried to restrict one's ability to pray. So long as it is THEIR expression and it is not expected that others will follow...it is very much permissible. You don't lose your free exercise rights just because you hold a certain office or happen to enter into a certain building.
Originally posted by Refman ATTENTION ALL!!!!! According to Timing...ONLY Christians believe in God. That's right...you heard it here first...Muslims, Jews, agnostics...you ALL do not believe in God...because Timing said so. Gee I wonder what God. Must be the Hindu I guess. That's all you've got? Trying to insinuate that In God We Trust isn't a Christian reference? Come back with something stronger than that please. God Bless America is really a Muslim reference, nyuk nyuk nyuk. Nevermind those who don't believe in one god or a god certainly have a right not to have that belief on currency backed by federal law. The officials in question happen to believe in God. They prayed of their own volition. nobody made them. Are you suggesting that you'd hamped their freedom of speech just because they're in a publicly owned building? You can't organize a prayer before a government sponsored function like a high school football game but you can do it inside the Senate chambers 30 seconds before conducting the government's business? That makes sense. The officials in question happen to be politicians and will say they believe in Santa Claus to get votes. Perhaps they should pray before they get to work or a special room can be designated for worship gatherings. Worship and prayer don't belong in the Senate chambers. Where? In front of whom? Does he require others to participate? No court ANYWHERE has even tried to restrict one's ability to pray. So long as it is THEIR expression and it is not expected that others will follow...it is very much permissible. You don't lose your free exercise rights just because you hold a certain office or happen to enter into a certain building. I guess you don't hear much about right wing nutballs on Fox News do ya? He's free to exercise his rights on HIS time, not on the government's time. I'm sure if a judge practiced santeria and wanted to do a little goat sacrifice in the courtroom before each session you might be singing a different tune or maybe it'd be okay as long as he didn't require anyone else to participate. Judge Moore Keeps Prayer, Ten Commandments In Court "Good morning, ladies and gentleman, I think we've got a roomful here today," Alabama Judge Roy Moore said as he greeted the crowd of spectators and prospective jurors packed into his courtroom on February 24. "As we have always done in Etowah County, we're going to be opening with prayer." With that, Judge Moore asked a local clergymen to lead the assembled jury pool in prayer. It was an anticlimactic moment for what, up until two weeks prior, looked to be a clear showdown between Judge Moore and a state court ruling banning both prayer and a plaque bearing the Ten Commandments from his courtroom. "I consider it my duty to acknowledge God," Judge Moore said just after the anti-prayer ruling was issued in January. "To take down the Ten Commandments would be a violation of that duty. To stop prayer would be a violation of that duty. I will not take down the Ten Commandments. I will not stop prayer." http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=133
Actually all the major religions believe in the same God...a creator...the Muslims call God Allah...translated means God. It doesn't take a PhD in comparative religion to figure that one out. Oh here we go...this lame ass argument again. The courts have ruled on this one already...you are on the wrong side of this argument...NEXT!!!! You certainly can...in the lockerroom...in the press box...on the sidelines...just not over the PA system to the entire crowd. Worship? Really? They held a full mass in the Senate chambers? OK...I agree that doesn't belong. Actually as to what does and does not belong in the Senate chamers is completely an animal of Senate rules. The FIRST Senate thought it was a good idea...the LAST Senate thought it was a good idea...and every Senate in between. I wouldn't suggest holding your breath for that one to change. Personally...I thank God that there aren't more people like you out there. In your "honor" I am going to go to court...sit right down...and pray just before trial begins. I'll be willing to bet that nobody will mind.
Actually all the major religions believe in the same God...a creator...the Muslims call God Allah...translated means God. It doesn't take a PhD in comparative religion to figure that one out. Really? What is the one God that the Buddhist and Hindu religions believe in? Oh here we go...this lame ass argument again. The courts have ruled on this one already...you are on the wrong side of this argument...NEXT!!!! Well, hell. I guess when the courts had ruled slavery was OK in the 1800s, everyone should have stopping arguing against that too. I guess arguing against slavery at the time was a lame ass argument too. Since when are our personal beliefs about right and wrong based on what the courts say? Since when are court rulings permanent for the infinite future?
Likening a saying printed on the currency to slavery is at best a reach. I didn't do any such thing. You dismissed his argument on the simple basis that the courts disagreed with him. I countered that what the courts think is irrelevent to what he thinks is right or wrong, and should have nothing to do with whether his argument holds any credibility or not. I gave an extreme example to demonstrate the silliness of the idea that "the courts have spoken and you're wrong" is some kind of counter-statement to any argument.
Major-- If you must liken it to slavery...the courts interpret the Constitution. They did so with the slavery issue. That did not change until Congress amended the Constitution. I suppose there could be an amendment to completely secularize anything having any relation to government...but I wouldn't bet my house on it.
Originally posted by Refman Actually all the major religions believe in the same God...a creator...the Muslims call God Allah...translated means God. It doesn't take a PhD in comparative religion to figure that one out. Now the God is a "neutral" creator? Shall we take a poll? Do Christians believe in a Muslim god? I hardly think they'd say they're interchangeable. Muslims believe in Allah, not a Christian god. Buddhists don't believe in a Christian god. Agnostics don't believe in your god. Atheists don't believe in your god. Jesus is God? The major religions don't exactly believe in the same god but even if they did you're saying that takes precedence over the beliefs that don't coincide? Do we need a doctorate to figure out that the rights of the majority can't be allowed to trample the rights of the minority? Can you at least admit that the beliefs of all Americans aren't served by the motto In God We Trust? The government acknowledging the existence of "God" is in effect establishing religion. Oh here we go...this lame ass argument again. The courts have ruled on this one already...you are on the wrong side of this argument...NEXT!!!! I'm not wrong. The federal government is made up of men who have beliefs, have biases, and make mistakes. You think because a court makes a ruling that it's just inherently correct? Please... The government is partaking in the promotion of God without the evidence that a god even exists. Would they do the same for Zeus? You want to put Santa Claus and frosty the snowman on money too? Courts change and so do rulings. When fewer right wing conservatives like yourself are on the court this will be changed. Mark it down. You certainly can...in the lockerroom...in the press box...on the sidelines...just not over the PA system to the entire crowd. That's right, people can pray on their own but when you try to orgnanize a prayer much like this judge has done and how the Congress does then it's a problem Worship? Really? They held a full mass in the Senate chambers? OK...I agree that doesn't belong. Actually as to what does and does not belong in the Senate chamers is completely an animal of Senate rules. The FIRST Senate thought it was a good idea...the LAST Senate thought it was a good idea...and every Senate in between. I wouldn't suggest holding your breath for that one to change. Praying isn't worship? Semantics are all you have left I guess. Do I really have to get a dictionary and define prayer for you? Geez... The first Senate being as full of Christians as the last Senate might have something to do with what they think is a good idea in regards to prayer. Perhaps when there are Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, and Hindus as well represented as Christians then we'll see what they think is a "good idea". Can I pull a, the FIRST Senate thought slavery was a great idea kind of line? And no I'm not comparing this Senate to that type of injustice but simply showing how as our nation becomes more diverse it becomes more tolerant and accepting of all beliefs. Personally...I thank God that there aren't more people like you out there. That is so Christian of you. Thanks for the kind words. Happy Holidays! In your "honor" I am going to go to court...sit right down...and pray just before trial begins. I'll be willing to bet that nobody will mind. Maybe if this judge sat down and prayed on his own instead of trying to lead a frikken prayer in front of a prospective jury fewer people would mind but nooooo he has to trumpet his faith to everyone because his duty to violate the law and acknowledge God is more important than his duties as a judge and the rights of the people in his courtroom. How arrogant can you get.
I'm overwhelmed by apathy. If the state says public institutions and schools can't support any religion, people have all the rest of the day to profess their faith. Why don't we all stop being so anal and just get along? They're not displaying a nativity scene? That's got people all worked up? Why? Is it so important? Don't you have one at home? Do you need to be constantly shouting your faith at other people? I really, honestly don't understand why it's such an issue. Your faith is your own... others don't need to know about it... your faith is between you and God. The symbols mean so little.
If this judge is praying to himself at the bench I have no problem. If he is in effect leading a prayer in hopes others (attorneys, jury pool, litigants) join in...then I agree with you that it is inappropriate. I disagree heartily as to all other points you have made. All that is left is to agree to disagree.
It isn't that there is not a nativity scene that is the big deal. It is that a nativity scene is BANNED while Muslim and Jewish religious symbols are allowed and encouraged. It's called discrimination.
