1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Separtion of Church and State

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by giddyup, Mar 2, 2004.

  1. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    Very well said.

    Giddy, the point is that someone with an agenda puts out these false emails and sends them on to people to try to convince the cattle that the claims are true. I don't believe that you are cattle, so I would just suggest that you at least make an attempt to vet the information you post. If you do not even make that attempt, then lots of people will see you as one of the sheep and berate you as such.

    It goes to whether you have the capacity to question.
     
  2. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    35,057
    Likes Received:
    15,232
    While I do love snopes.com and do often use it to check the authenticity of things I come across on the web, I would point out that the site does have a somewhat anti-Christian slant to it -- to an extent that I don't find it particularly trustworthy when it comes to religion, or religion in government.

    In this example, the doors to the Supreme Court that has 2 tablets with Roman numerals might be a reference to the Bill of Rights, but the imagery employed (in using tablets, and a pair of them, no less) clearly draws a parallel to the Ten Commandments. Mikkelson attempts to obscure that by pointing to the next part about the frieze on the wall. I'm not surprised that she'd do that in order to make her point. If the piece was instead about how we needed to expunge religious symbolism from our courts, I'm sure the doors would be on the list.

    Point being, the original piece is silly, Snopes is a good site, but you must be careful with that site when she starts talking religion.
     
  3. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,209
    I did not know that the Bill of Rights existed when humans wore togas!

    I'm not sure what you're referring to here... but I assume you're making reference to the Roman Numerals used on the tablet?

    (1) The Ten Commandments existed well before roman numerals, so use of them wouldn't really indicate a reference to the ten commandments.

    (2) Roman numerals are, on the other hand, used in referencing amendments in the Constitution.

    If anything, use of roman numerals would point to the bill of rights over the commandments, if these were the only two options.
     
  4. rimbaud

    rimbaud Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 1999
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    676
    George Washington dressed as Zeus and seated upon a throne? That's goofy. What was the agenda? Pagan?!?!?!

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  5. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,864
    Likes Received:
    41,391
    That's fine and dandy, but with respect to the stuff that appears up on snopes alongside of kentucky fried rats and other urban legends, while it may not be 100% inaccurate, the very fact that large portions of it are obvious and documented lies, fabrications, and distortions pretty much kills it as a legitimate piece of scholarship and subject of debate

    Particularly this is true when there are so many legitimate sources of subject material on the same issue, such as Jefferson's famous "Wall of Separation" letter:

    as well as the writings of Madison, Franklin, Thomas Paine, and the rest, rather than trying to make silly judgments as to what the Roman numerals that some painter put on a painting meant.
     
  6. Dubious

    Dubious Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,318
    Likes Received:
    5,090
    Snopes is a site where skeptics debunk myths. If this is anti-religion, maybe the problem is with veracity of religious myths.

    (every truth is dependent on the perspective of the beholder)
     
  7. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    35,057
    Likes Received:
    15,232
    Could be. Or it could be that Mikkelson is overzealous in her attempts to debunk Christian mythology. I don't deny that her research is valid and valuable nor that most of what she debunks is erroneous, even in religious issues. I have also noticed, however, a strong vein of atheism in her work and that it sometimes influences her interpretations of her sources. She also seems somewhat ignorant in some aspects of Christianity which occasionally becomes an issue in some of her articles. In many places, her skepticism is well justified, but sometimes it is overwrought. That's all.

    From my perspective, that's not true at all. :p

    And, Sam, don't worry; I'm not defending the original piece, which is fairly indefensible. I was just addressing the issue raised later about the amount of faith people put in snopes. She, like everyone else, is occassionally wrong. I was just pointing out one way that I find her reasoning flawed. I'm not supporting the argument that our main federal buildings are littered with Biblical references. Actually, I don't care at all whether they are or not. I don't like people letting snopes' argumentation supplant their own.
     
  8. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    35,057
    Likes Received:
    15,232
  9. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,864
    Likes Received:
    41,391
    That's fine, but like I said, arguments which consist of lies and half truths that are so easily deflatable as to be up on snopes, in my view, don't even deserve a substantive response.

    It would be one thing if the subject matter were a column by William Safire or George Will trying to spin Iraq evidence or even that of a liar like Bil O'Reilly or Ann Coulter, but as far as anonymous chain email garbage like this that is substantially fabricated, apparently for the purpose of convincing various sheep to stick to the cause, whatever that may be, as far as I'm concerned, Snopes is all I need.
     
  10. Cohen

    Cohen Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    :D

    May I ask, who else would like to join the B-Bob Fan Club?
     
  11. Mulder

    Mulder Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 1999
    Messages:
    7,118
    Likes Received:
    81
    I prefer this one...

    [​IMG]
     
  12. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    Dude, if this thing originated before 1935, your whole rejection of the thing just went up your hind end!

    I'm not so sure what the creator's agenda was: he's the guy that put the BIll of Rights in the hand of a guy wearing a toga. I've heard of the Boston Tea Party but no Toga Party! It smells like backtracking to me. Snopes doesn't catalogue that do they?

    I'm g.ad you're so comfortable in accepting Snopes as the truth even though it carries some consistencies with it. I'm so relieved to know that Snopes is infallible. GULP.
     
  13. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    35,986
    Likes Received:
    36,840
    lmao! Some of us like consistencies. :)
     
  14. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    You have the two images confused.

    The text pertaining to the figure I'm talking about reads: "The wall "right above where the Supreme Court judges sit" is the east wall, on which is displayed a frieze designed by sculptor Adolph A. Weinman. The frieze features two male figures who represent the Majesty of Law and the Power of Government, flanked on the left side by a group of figures representing Wisdom, and on the right side by a group of figures representing Justice... According to Weinman, the designer of this frieze, the tablet visible between the two central male figures ( <b>unnamed</b> ), engraved with the Roman numerals I through X, represents not the Ten Commandments but the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, collectively known as the Bill of Rights."
     
  15. AroundTheWorld

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2000
    Messages:
    83,288
    Likes Received:
    62,281
    Not related to the topic of this thread, but did anyone else scroll up and down to see if there was a dead pixel on their monitor?
     
  16. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    Oops. Make that inconsistencies... :D
     
  17. mrpaige

    mrpaige Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2000
    Messages:
    8,831
    Likes Received:
    15
    I was just confused as to which one you were talking about. It wasn't entirely clear to me from your post.

    The point was, though, that it doesn't say that there's no religious imagery. Moses is there, if not in the room itself.

    But you should go check it out. It's always fun to see snopes debunked. If the story in the email is even remotely true, there should be something out there that backs that up.

    Where you won't find any back up is at the Supreme Court, though. The Supreme Court website backs up snopes: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/courtbuilding.pdf

    But they could be wrong, too. They make reference to a letter from the sculptor to the architect which mentions the roman numerals on the frieze as referring to the Bill of Rights. But they do not provide a copy of the letter on the website. Perhaps the national archives has it.
     
    #37 mrpaige, Mar 2, 2004
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2004
  18. Mulder

    Mulder Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 1999
    Messages:
    7,118
    Likes Received:
    81
    Nobody on here has stated that snopes is the end all be all. What snopes does do, and which you in regards to these posts have not, is look at things to see if they are factual. So, next time Rush sends you an email, don't bother posting it so that we can "discuss it" until you research it. You don't have to use snopes if you don't want to.
     
  19. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,209
    Dude, if this thing originated before 1935, your whole rejection of the thing just went up your hind end!

    First off, the rejection was not only on one item. As you can see from the rest of the thread after my first post, the majority of these things were debunked.

    Regardless, if this thing was written before 1935, then the guy who wrote it has basic addition/subtraction problems too...

    <I>How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is NOW - suddenly wrong and unconstitutional? </I>

    If the country started in 1776, then the earliest this thing could have been written is 1996. Nice try, though. Next bizarre rationalization, please.

    I'm not so sure what the creator's agenda was:

    And yet you have no problem with the email turning Roman Numerals into the Ten Commandments. Oh wait, you just posted the email without any comment on its reliability. :rolleyes:

    I'm g.ad you're so comfortable in accepting Snopes as the truth even though it carries some consistencies with it. I'm so relieved to know that Snopes is infallible. GULP.

    Show where Snopes is wrong - the site gives you its sources. Your posts are easy to debunk with documented facts. Debunk the Snopes facts and the rest of us will be happy to listen.

    Until then, if I have to pick between listening to your forwarded-email rubbish that can be documented false, or facts that are documented through solid sources, yeah, I'll pick the latter.
     
  20. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,864
    Likes Received:
    41,391
    Major I suggest you let this silly thread die rather than subject us to giddyup trying to administer the jaws of life to his credibility, which, I can assure you, will continue for many, many pages regardless of what it entails.
     

Share This Page