[MODERATOR HAT ON]
Pashley, I have removed the copyrighted article which you posted without attribution. We do not allow posting copyrighted articles in The Straight Dope, with or without attribution. This is an Official Warning. You can lose your posting privileges should you continue this practice.
Lynn
[MODERATOR HAT OFF]
Grrrr!
Just yesterday, a similar bill was signed into law here in Kentucky by our poor-excuse-for-a-Democrat Guvnur. Same horseshit reasoning–“historical document”, blah blah blah, Christian nation, yadda yadda, Founding Fathers, bullshit bullshit.
The telling moment in the debate was when Kathy Stein, my state rep, mentioned that she is the only Jew in the General Assembly. Another representative, in open session, asked her, “Do you believe Jesus Christ is the son of God?” 1.) No, you ignorant fuck–she’s a Jew! 2.) If you’d pull your head far enough out of your ass to understand something outside your pathetic redneck bubble, you’d know that Jews believe in the Ten Commandments as well.
That’s another thing that flogs my goat–why do the Fundies want the Ten Commandments? Why not the Sermon on the Mount? I thought the whole idea of the Sermon was that morality and goodness are not based on laws and platitudes. I guess if it takes more than a few minutes to read, it isn’t worth considering.
Since this is the Pit, and I won’t be able to say it in my letter to the Herald-Leader–miserable pigfuckers.
Dr. J
“Seriously, baby, I can prescribe anything I want!” -Dr. Nick Riviera
Just how the hell will posting the Ten Commandments accomplish that? “Gee, that thing on the wall says “thou shalt not kill”, I’d better not shoot anybody.” Pure bullshit.
Teaching ethics is more than a matter of putting something on the wall, especially something that deals with only the most basic moral ideas (don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t murder, don’t commit adultrey, honor your parents). Anyone who doesn’t understand such basic concepts probably has issues that can’t be solved simply by reading the Ten Commandments.
People who argue that this issue has anything to do with teaching ethics are either arrogant (or stupid) enough to think that the Bible somehow has the ability to somehow persuade anyone who reads it to follow it, or trying to disguise their effort to establich their religion as the “right” one as something the general population won’t mind.
Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.
Hey folks, there is another great* thread on this over in GD (where this perhaps belongs).
*blushes modestly
For those who think it’s a good thing to post the Decalogue in the public schools, please enlighten the rest of us on how you propose to have the little tykes follow all of them when:
(a) The parents might be living together but unmarried, &
(b) The Decalogue says to honour the parents.
Hmmmm…you’re telling the child to honour someone not following all of those “guidelines.”
I submit, yet again, that this issue of the 10C getting posted is naught but a foot in the door. Your agenda is too obvious. Take it back to church and let the schools do their job of teaching without a religion dictating how that teaching should be done!
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”
-John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli
Matt:
As much as I think that statement is true in a general sense, what you are specifically quoting from is an Urban Legend of sorts.
I could dig up a debunking link about it if you wish, but I assure you that it is false.
Yer pal,
Satan
http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two weeks, one day, 12 hours, 27 minutes and 53 seconds.
620 cigarettes not smoked, saving $77.59.
Life saved: 2 days, 3 hours, 40 minutes.
Uh, Satan, old bean, the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli most certainly does contain the statement quoted by matt. You can see the ACTUAL document here: http://members.icanect.net/~zardoz/document.htm
Joel Barlow, the American diplomat and counsel to Algiers, actually wrote the document; he was also responsible for the negotiations. President John Adams signed it after it was approved by his Secretary of State and ratified by the Senate. That story can be read here: http://members.icanect.net/~zardoz/Tripoli.htm
I’m sorry jab1, but that is not the case.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#usanot gives more than enough reasons to doubt this - between the fact that it probably wasn’t in the original Arabic, the translator was a noted anti-Christian, and most importantly, the ratified version of the Treaty did not contain Article XI, it seems most unlikely.
I agree with this in principal, mind you, and I can (and have) discuss the Separation of Church and State issue using a lot of amunition, but this would not be amongst that ammo.
Yer pal,
Satan
http://homepages.go.com/~cmcinternationalrecords/devil.gif
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Three weeks, 18 hours, 34 minutes and 47 seconds.
870 cigarettes not smoked, saving $108.87.
Life saved: 3 days, 30 minutes.
Well, according to the website I linked, Joel Barlow didn’t merely translate the treaty, he actually wrote it. And it looks like that site provided images of the original, English-language version, in Barlow’s own hand-writing, whereas the website you cited says that the original Treaty was replaced in 1806 and Article 11 no longer appears. It also states that Article 11 does not appear in the Arabic-language version
I suppose it’s possible Barlow inserted Article 11 when he submitted the English version to Congress. It would have been very deceitful if he had.
Maybe that’s why the Treaty was replaced in 1806? Because there were two versions, rendering the Treaty null and void? And if that’s true, what happened to Barlow? Submitting two different versions of a single treaty would surely be an illegal act.