Separtion of Church and State

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

George Washington dressed as Zeus and seated upon a throne? That's goofy. What was the agenda? Pagan?!?!?!

 

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.

 

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)

 

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.

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.

 

d'oh!

 

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.

 

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

 

I prefer this one...

 

lmao! Some of us like consistencies.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.