Defiant Chief Justice Vows to Keep Ten Commandments Monument

Great Debates
261

And let me point out (this applies as well to the “Pascal’s Wager” argument with Razorsharp earlier in the thread) that what is being debated here is not the existence of God, the reality of an afterlife, or the truth or falsehood of any other religious or philosophical position. We’re talking about government support for these things. Opposing government endorsement of a religious or philosophical ideal need not be a concession that that ideal is wrong or untrue–I don’t want the government to endorse the ideals of secular humanism which I believe to be good and true.

As Thomas Jefferson said “It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”

262

I don’t know. The government pays for thousands of chaplains for the military. These chaplains are on every Navy ship and with every group of soldiers. Are you suggesting we do away with them. I can’t see much difference.

It is true they come from differing religions, but there was only one chaplain on a destroyer, so you had to take what you got.

I don’t know why atheists think they can remove all religious symbolism from a country founded on religious freedom.

Judge Moore is being hailed as a Hero down in Alabama, Warrior for God, Greatest Man in Alabama, are some of the things being said about him. One media analyst said: “Moore could run for any office in Alabama and win by a landslide.”

Actually I believe he set the whole thing up to do just that, and the atheists fell for it. I truly believe you guys are very predictable.
Very gullible.

God Bless America

263

I don’t know why lekatt keeps lying about what supporters of church-state separation want.

264

lekatt: An honest look at the military’s chaplains would show you that they have a tad more to do than just preach. Actually, they’re not there to convert anyone to their particular faith. They’re in the service to assist both those of their faith in their worship and also to assist those of all faiths (including those of no faith) in a number of morale and welfare programs, especially at sea. A very fine example of this is that the shipboard library is run by the Chaplain’s Department.

I now await for your dishonest take on what I just said.

265

Leroy, we’re not talking about military chaplains. There are certain issues with them, but I’m not well versed in the rationale behind their existance. We’re discussing one, well known example, prayer in school.

So, you’re telling me that a public school paid for a chaplain, Leroy? That person was an authority figure, leading prayers, paid for by government money. Wouldn’t you call that an establisment of one religion to the exclusion of others, by the government?

266

Thanks for the lesson, Apos. Obviously I misunderstood.

So, no one knows if the three lawyers were Christian or not? I’ll give it another day and then head over to GQ with it. I want to know for a letter to the editor of the Post-Gazette when they inevitably publish the comments of someone as confused or dishonest as lekatt.

267

Didn’t Lekatt once remark that “Logic doesn’t apply to the real world.”?And yet here he claims that he turned away from church in a fit of logic?!?

268

Don’t fall into the trap of trying to make sense of lekatt’s seemingly contradictory statements, because after a few minutes blood will start to shoot out of your eyes. :smiley:

269

This idea has always troubled me because the rabidly religious try to use it to defend government sponsorship of religious symbols, as in the present case, school staff lead prayer in school and all sorts of governmental entanglement with religion. Their religion of course.
I think the phrase “founded on religious freedom” is easily shortened by some to “founded on religion” and that isn’t supported by the history.

The first British colony was the Virginia Colony which was a flat out commercial venture.

The next was The Massachusetts Bay Colony which started as a commercial venture that was taken over by the Puritans.

This is usually cited as having been a case of their looking for “freedom from religious persecution.” Well, yes and no. They didn’t want others to persecute them, but the were perfectly willing to persecute others.

This cite outlines a bill of indictrment of the governors of the Massachusetts Colony. One of the items was that the governors forced members of the Church of England to attend Puritan meetings and banned all other meetings as unlawful assemblies. As a result of their high-handed actions and persecution of other religions they lost their charter which had allowed them relative independence from Britain and were brought under the Crown.

It has been said that the Massachusetts Colony’s religious intolerance was responsible for the formation of more states than any other single cause. This cite gives a short resume of the founding of all 13 of the colonies

Included are:

(1636) Rhode Island - Roger Williams was driven from Massachusetts for espousing religious and political freedom. After spending the winter with the Indians he finally bought land from them in what is now called Providence.

(1636) Connecticut - After being driven from Massachusetts, Clergyman Thomas Hooker and his followers arrived in Hartford and declared freedom from all save Divine Authority.

and:

(1638) New Hampshire - John Wheelwright, banished from Boston, founded the colony of New Hampshire.

So the Pilgrim Fathers didn’t leave England to establish religious freedom at all. They did it because they wanted to make the rules.

I’ve read over the Declaration of Independence and none of the reasons for declaring independence involves religion.

The framers of the Constitution wrote a Preamble which stated the specific reasons for the establishment of the United States under the Constitution. If they had intended that support and furthering of religion was one of the reasons, this would be the place for it. And you know what? It isn’t there. Not a word.

So I think the Judge is entirely wrong in his claim that religion is the basis for the US, in addition to being a sort of a nut case.

270

Yes. the ‘warrior for God’ set it up. It was a great, cheap, hollow publicity stunt (and nothing more). And the poor voters of Alabama will fall for it.

271

Depends on whether you call the church the real world.
I don’t think most of you do that.

272

NO, not any more than the chaplains of the military. There are mainly there for the same reasons.

Quite a few of the children’s dads would be killed in the war, or come home badly injured.

Chaplains are there to talk about death. What it is? What is beyond it, and the hopes of the future. People who are about to die, or have loved ones that are dying need this support.

Very few people can discuss death and dying without considering their own mortality.

I can’t see how atheists can help in this.

273

So prayer in school is there to talk about death in wartime?

I’m sorry, Leroy, I don’t think you’re making much sense. We are not discussing chaplains. We are discussing school prayers. Led by a priest. Of what denomination was the priest, Leroy? Did they ever bring a rabbi or a medicine man in?

Do you consider prayers led by an authority figure of a specific religious denomination, in a governmental facility, on school time, promotion of a specific religion? If not, why not? If the principal brought in Captain Coca-Cola to tell all the kids to drink Coca-Cola every day before school, would you consider that a promotion of that beverage? If not, why not?

274

Lekatt claimed that the lawyers suing originally to have the statue removed were atheists. After I asked Lekatt to provide proof, he went on ignoring such a request. Lekatt also has given a couple other unsubstantiated information in this thread and has yet to give cites to support his claim. So I’m calling Lekatt to show proof of his claims (and the proof can’t come from a self-promoting non sequitor about a near death experience).

275

See no reason to consider this post sincere.

276

I will just leave this big mistery up to you, the one with the answers. I don’t answer anything under conditions.

God Bless America

277

I will just leave this big mistery up to you, the one with the answers. I don’t answer anything under conditions.

God Bless America

278

Stephen Glassroth, the original litigator, is jewish.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34182

Melinda Moore is a “Catholic Girl.” Beverly Howard is agnostic.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atheistempire/message/11116

Isn’t it great when people of such diverse faiths can work together to accomplish something?

No, I’m not kidding. That really kind of boggles the mind. Yes, I know the location of the cites are a bit odd, but it was hard to find references.

279

Thanks for finding those E-Sabbath . My favorite part is out of the second article though:

Nice Lekatt, it now appears that your claim here:

Has been proven wrong. None of the three people are atheists thusly making your accusations baseless and your lies apparent.

280

I hate to interrupt lekatt, well, actually I don’t mind in the least, but I do have to clear up some misinformation has been put out there.

This is incorrect, as a matter of law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that if the governmental action promotes one religion over another, or over non-religion, it is a violation of the Establishment Clause. In fact, one of the main tests the Supreme Court uses to determine if there is a violation of the Equal Protection clause is whether or not the governmental action promotes a religion. Merely because the First Amendment does not contain the word “promote,” does not make {b]Razorsharp’s** conclusion correct.

I’m not sure I can help explain it any further than I already have, but the issue is WHO is doing the “expression” in these cases, not what is being “expressed.” You can exercise your free speech rights by walking with the Ten Commandments around your neck, or by putting a huge monument of them on your front lawn. The problem in this case is that by Moore placing it in a public building, it takes on the color of state action.

Are you proposing the argument that since the state action in this case is not “making law” it couldn’t violate the First or 14th Amendment. I’ll assume not because that would be a baseless argument. Instead, I think you’re trying to argue that the action didn’t amount to an “establishment” of religion. I just want to point out that the decision dealt with that issue also. Once again, I’ll suggest you read it. It explains these issues much better than I could.