What can I say? I’m just better than you at everything.
So you’re giving me a circular definition then, yes? The nation can’t be anything but Christian because it’s Christian? I’m aware the House of Representatives is never going to be mostly Jewish. I’m deeply shocked that you missed my point.
I don’t follow. The courts consistently (not always, but most of the time) rule that the government has to stay out of religious matters because America is Christian?
I wasn’t disputing your definition of nation, moron. I was saying you made up your own criteria for deciding America is a Christian nation because the facts don’t bear it out. We all know it’s a fucking nation, it’s the Christian part that we’re arguing about. Everybody knows most of the people in America are Christian. Our laws are secular, and that’s what everybody else except you was talking about. The Constitution contains precisely two references to religion. One is Article 6, Section 3, which says “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” and the First Amendment, which starts " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
The people who wrote it were Christians (unless they were Deists), but somehow I think if they’d been trying to create a Christian nation, they’d have mentioned god or Jesus or the Bible or something related to Christianity when writing the most important document in the nation. Does this make sense, or should I translate my post into simian grunting?
The definition you gave didn’t even relate to my comment, so it seems you didn’t understand what I said. Must be because you’re too smart for me.
You said “insofar as religion was involved in the 9/11 tragedy, well that was because we are a christian nation.” I had to guess blindly at what that means because I don’t speak Numbskull. If I misinterpreted your incomprehensible statement, enlighten me. Do you mean that’s why we were attacked by Islamic terrorists? That doesn’t really fly since the same terrorists are attacking Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia and Muslims in Iraq.
Yeah, that’s it, everybody picks on you because there’s something wrong with them. :rolleyes:
More clearly stated, duffer needed a license because without one a religious marriage ceremony has no meaning in the eyes of the state. Like baptism and communion, you can participate in these church rituals and your official relationship and status in regards to the government hasn’t changed one whit.
First there is a thing called “jude-christian” values. Jews and christian disagree in religion but they share the same ethics.-
Secondly, I agree with you, perhaps: “your country was not founded on any religious values consciously”, after all men are product of their time and of the place where they live. Like it or not, Western Civilazation is marked by christianity, and our institutions are, therefore, shaped after it. To deny it is to close the eyes to the obvious. The american founding father didn’t need to quote the Bible when they wrote their constitution… they didn’t need it after 18 centuries of Christian influence.
Back to the op, why is everyone seeinfg the statue of the ten commandments as a religiuous sybol? After all those laws are to the jewish people what the Hamurabi code and the Twelve Table laws are to the Babylonian and Romans: The first attempt at codification of their national laws, and as that, one of the most important revolution in their country history.
Moses is not only a prophet, he is also a legislator as succesfull as Hamurabi or as the Decemviros.
Speaking as a lawyer, all those three instituions were taught too me in college, they are important event in the history of the law, and as such they have to be conmemorated.-
Why do many see the Teb Commandments as a religious sumbol? Because they are a religious symbol. I through IV are flat out religious. Thats having no other Gods, not making idols, not taking the Lord’s name in vain, and keeping the Sabbath. None of these have been a part of US law.
Now, if those who support the postign of the Ten Commandments in public places were serious about not wanting it there as a religious display, wouldn’t they go for a display of Commandments V-X, thus avoiding the overtly religious ones? Or might it be possible that a secular legal display is not what they are seeking in reality? A similar problem can be seen with the pledge - if this is not about imposing God, and is about patriotism, then no one has yet explained to me why removing the words ‘under God’ would in fact reduce the patriotic element. I’d maintain it would increase it, by allowing more people to take part in the Pledge. The only reason to keep those words in is to make it a religious pledge.
And no, nobody’s picking on me, that is just more of your creative interpretation of my post. Again, try reading the posts and ascribe commonly accepted definitions to the words. Open up a whole new world for you.
The United States as a nation is not defined by Webster. It is, however, defined by the Constitution. Whether you have read it or not, I suspect it is you who lack the intelligence to understand it.
The reason individuals and groups battle in court over what seem to you to be small issues is that if the Constitutional protections afforded people like me from people like you were to disappear you would be the first in line to light the fire at our feet. You’re an ignorant bigot, and you belong to another time – the Dark Ages.
Somehow I doubt county, or others of his ilk, would have the gumption to actually torch us heathens in the Dark Ages.
They would more likely just hang back and smarmily protest the violence while also saying that we brought it on ourselves. After all, we went against the majority!
Of course, the idea that not sharing the majority’s views doesn’t necessarily place one in opposition to the majority has never penetrated county and his ilks’ heads.
How does the physical presence of an object hurt, injure, or otherwise cause distress? Were it offensive to me, I would avert my eyes, essentially doing as I do with the radio dial or TV remote.
Why the big deal over something which has been there for close to a half century?
BTW, can we please stick to argument over the issue, and not reduce ourselves to attacks on the person posting?
That said, I accept your apology Denis. I hadn’t read to the end before returning flame.
The big deal is that it violates the principle of Separation of Church and State. Yes, I can see why many see it as a trivial issue, however, tax dollars of nonbelievers are supporting something in however big or small a way that espouses religion.
If the FOE wanted to purchase tracts of land (HUGE tracts of land! ) and open privately run, but publicly available parks with all sorts of religious monuments on them, I’d say, “More power to 'em.” But this is a publicly funded park, and this monument violates Separation, however trivial it may seem to some, others (me included) find it invasive and offensive.
It is not necessary to show that the object harms anybody, only that it violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The establishment clause does not have an exception for government endorsements of religion that don’t (in your mind) “hurt” anybody. The point is that the government does not have a right to make any official statement about what is true or not true vis-a-vis religious beliefs. This means the government cannot officially declare that Yahweh is the only god ot that I can’t worship idols if I feel like it or say “Jesus Christ Monkey Balls” if I feel like it or work on the “sabbath” if I feel like it. A state endorsement of the Ten Commandments does all those things and that’s why it’s illegal.
Believe me, if there was a monument on state property which declared that “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His prophet,” all the same people who whine about removing the Ten Commandments would have fucking brain embolisms and probably dynamite the thing.
(1) Well, that’s kinda personal but I’ll answer - no, I wouldn’t feel it appropriate.
(2) Yes, white or caucasian. I don’t think capitilazing “White Nation” is appropriate. In fact I think you are trying to imply something, now aren’t you?
I assume you’d be even more unhappy with “In Buddha We Trust” or “In Krishna We Trust”. Pretend they started printing that on our currency. That same discomfort you would feel is what many nonbelievers feel when they see our national motto. We aren’t all evil meanspirited people trying to take your God away from you, we just want the government not to play favorites when it comes to religion.
I think you’re starting to catch on. Calling this nation a Christian Nation is just as offensive to me as it would offend a black person to call this a White Nation. It’s a subtle way of saying those who aren’t Christian aren’t welcome.
And the OP itself shows you don’t understand the First Amendment. The First gives people a right not to have the federal government establish religion, and arguably the maintenance of a monument displaying said text on public land is establishment (through endorsement). This has been incorporated, and applies regarding state action as a result of the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, people have a constitutional basis on which to state that the “10 Commandments Monument bothers [them].”
You, on the other hand, have no First Amendment right to protection from their viewpoints, however objectionable you may find them. The Bill of Rights protects you against government action, not action by fellow citizens. So the fact that they are bothering you is of no importance when weighed against their concern with the potential unconstitutionality of the monument.
You don’t have a right not to be offended by TV or radio. The citizens of this town in PA do have a right not to have this displayed on pubic property. Therein lies the difference.
Just curious, how do the African nations feel that are a Christian majority? Assuming, of course, they aren’t all white African-Americans as Teresa Heinz Kerry is. mmm…Hunt’s Ketchup
I had a really long response typed out and it got lost. I’m not willing to write it all out again but let me say this. Anytime ‘religion’ and ‘history’ are used in the same sentence, well that’s a step in the right direction. (history meaning gone)
I personally would never take up the cause either way but thats because I’m the type who enjoys the benifits of a society where other people are more willing to get out there and do something. Otherwise I might find myself a little bent out of shape.
I think the “piece of rock” should go and that all those who think it should stay are being irrational. But it’s ok if it stayed. After all, three feet is the perfect hight to rest my foot on and tie my shoe.
