There's trouble in this here city!

Here in Ohio, I heard about the recent proposition to put the Ten commandments in some sort of monument or something on the Statehouse lawn. That’s fine. Just peachy.

While you’re at it, put up a statue of Buddha, a miniret for the Islamic community, a Pentagram for Satan (because everyone knows that Satan worshippers have just as much right!), standing stones for our Wiccans, some stars of David for the Jewish population, a few plain things with nothing on them for our Agnostics, and a shrine to the Invisible Pink Unicorn for our taxpaying Atheists. ON STATE PROPERTY. WITH STATE MONEY. Do these people realize that gasp there are other religions besides Christianity?!? And that gasp again there is a separation between the Curch and state? That the aforementioned phrase doesn’t mean the distance walked between the local church and the city hall? It’s easy. [church]-------------------------------------> [state]. Notice how they aren’t together?

4, or 5 of the TC if you count adultery, actually deal with non-religious things. These we already have LAWS FOR! The other 5 have to do with idol worship, polytheism, etc. Does the state care what you do in your own time with your own religion, as long as you don’t break any laws? NO.

What burns me up is that they are thinking of using state money and state labour to do this.

I personally think it’s horrible that the state would consider doing something like posting the Ten Commandments with its money, instead of paying for abortions for poor women, condoms for high school kids, and free needles for heroin addicts. I also think it’s amazing that everyone gets Christmas and Easter off from work, even state employees. WTF?? Doesn’t everyone know those are CHRISTIAN (i.e. RELIGIOUS) holidays?! When are we going to get Hanukkah or the month of Ramadan off?

Even worse are those Churches (Christian, again) that put crosses on their walls or grounds that can CLEARLY be seen from a public road. Who do these people think they are? How DARE they infringe on my right to worship Pink Unicorns! I don’t care if I’m the only non-Christian in a town of a million people, I have my rights!! What if I had a kid who saw those crosses and got curious about Christianity? Parents can’t be everywhere. He might start reading the Bible when I’m not around. He might even, heaven forbid, come across the TEN COMMANDMENTS and think they were a good idea!! I know I would want my son to decide for HIMSELF whether he should covet his neighbors wife in the privacy of his own home, or worship the Refigerator God.

I think instead of wasting time on the Ten Commandments the state should take the money it would’ve spent on said project and use it to give a tax break to a large multinational corporation. We’d all be better off that way in the long run. Oh, and cancel all welfare and student aid. That’s helping the poor, a CHRISTIAN (i.e. religious) ideal. We can’t have the government following that, can we?
Better yet, lets institue a caste system, like Hinduist India. Let’s throw away this farce that all men are created equal (another CHRISTIAN concept that has invaded our very system of government). It’s obvious that only people who eradicate every trace of religion from public life really know what separation church and state really means, so they are the only ones smart enough to govern. No one else should be allowed to even speak their mind without permission. We don’t talk about it much, but we all know that there’s a lot of people who just shouldn’t be allowed to speak up, because we all find it so inconvenient, right? If we stop following this CHRISTIAN doctrine that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator (monotheism-another CHRISTIAN concept!) with certain inalienable rights, we can finally get rid of those pesky groups that make life so unpleasant for people who don’t agree with them, like blacks, gays, feminists, Jews, Christain Fundamentalist, the KKK, environmentalists, etc.

And since nobody should be taking those CHRISTIAN holidays Easter and Christmas off, we’ll have even more time in the year to supress these annoying groups.

Drainthelizard, fuck you you stupid piece of monkey-felching shit.

There’s a big fucking difference between religious institutions putting crosses on buildings and the STATE putting up the Ten Commandments with STATE money.

Perhaps if you had a fucking clue about how things work in this country you would also find it unnacceptable that a state government support the rediculous and outdated “moral” standards of a specific religious institution. You would further find it unnacceptable that the state government use tax money to do it.

No, you will never find this unnacceptable, because you are a fucking stupid religious moron with a little mind completely unable to comprehend the basic principles upon which this country was founded.

My bible is the Constitution. The only rules I need are embodied in that document, and they work pretty fucking well by themselves, thank you.


these quote made me laugh. Oh well, I guess one of the other christian concepts that has invaded our society is the right to be an ignorant dumbfuck.
Go learn some history drain.

** drainthelizard: ** go find a wall, and bang your head into it a few hundred times, until some sense arrives.

We have separation of Church and State for a reason. If you want that reason, I suggest you read the history of all of Europe.

Oh yeah, because only Christians support helping the poor. Damn, I must be a heartless bastard who kicks every homeless guy I meet. Ironic, huh, how the Christian right supports candidates who want to eliminate or cut these programs?

You do not have a monopoly on this country. First off, putting the Ten Commandments up on state grounds with state money is, and should be, unconstitutional. Do you realize that some of those commandments are actually downright offensive to a number of religions? Hello Hindi–nice graven image you got there. Oh, what’s that? There’s only about a billion more of you than there are of Christians? Well I’ll be.

Funny how so many Christian churches do now, or have in the past, discriminated against all these groups. Maybe we should just let them have their way…

You ignorant pigfucker.
If those things are put up there, it is and illegal and offensive use of my tax money. So I don’t get to be represented in this government because I’m an atheist? Or how about my Hindu and Buddhist friends? They all pay their taxes.

If you don’t see why we have separation of church and state, then you are supporting state-sponsered discrimination. I’m frankly a little sick of Christians who seem to think they have special rights. There are plenty of Christians on this board who can, and maybe will, tell you why this is wrong.

You missed this one, oldscratch!

Obviously dtl hasn’t been exposed (or it hasn’t sunk in) to other religions and philosophies.

Don’t worry, i caught that one… :slight_smile:

That’s true. Cause you know, Atheists are never philanthropic. They are all just out for themselves. To really care for the poor and downtrodden, you have to be a Christian. Just ask George Bush Jr.

I noticed that nobody took issue with me stating that nobocy should have Christmas and Easter off, because they are religious holidays. So I take it everyone thinks that’s a good idea?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” My how this phrase is misrepresented! Until the Supreme Court arbitrarily extended the power of the amendment over the states in the 20th century(you can clearly see it says CONGRESS, not “Congress and the States”) putting the Ten Commandments in front of the Statehouse would have been perfectly legal. All you half-wits can rant and rave about “the principles on which this country is founded” all you want, but you clearly aren’t too familiar with what those principles were originally intended to mean.
When the Constitutional Convention of 1787 made the above statement part of the Constitution they were thinking of the Anglican Church of England. The Anglican Church was part of the English state. Priests were paid with tax money, and the government enforced Church doctrine. Why? For the simple reason that the King was both the head of state AND the head of the Church. This situation came about when Henry the VIII desired a divorce from his wife (I believe it was Ann Boylen) but the Pope would not grant him one. Henry broke away from Catholicism and made his own Church, with himself as its head. Since he was King, religious and secular power overlapped. The situation stated that way in Great Britain ever since, although nobody takes the monarch that seriously anymore. In the 1700’s it was quite different. The Kind still had real power to go with his supposed spiritual power. It was THIS situation that the founding fathers wanted to avoid. If you had told any of them that the First Amendment would someday used to ban things like public prayer or display of the Ten Commandments they would’ve been aghast. There’s a big difference between a law mandating a religious thing or institution and the public simply undertaking it spontaneously. Only a legal fiction dreamed up by the Suprem Court keeps states from erecting shrines to Allah or God or my left nut. (Which you all can kis, by the way.)

Oh, and Myrr21, as someone who used to work with homeless people I know firsthand that most government programs to “help the poor” are really just revolving doors. It’s a well-known fact in the social-wiork community that the most well-run and effective charities are those with some religious affiliation. I’ll give you a hint, there ain’t too many Hindu, Buddhist, or Islamic charities. Americans give more to charity per capita than any other people on Earth. They are also considered among the most religious (with the vast majority being Christian) on Earth. Coincidence? I don’t think so. And what history of Europe were you referring to? The one that says the Roman Catholic Church was the only institution of any kind to maintain the knowledge of reading and writing for almost 1000 years through the Dark Ages? It fits the political purposes of a lot of people to criticize the RC Church, but the fact is we’d be A LOT farther behind today without it.

And oldscratch, I noticed you didn’t produce ONE SHRED of evidence that “all men are created equal” is not a Christian concept. If you’re such a history expert, I’d like to see you find that concept in the teachings of Hinduism, Buddism, or any other religion. As for atheists and their philanthropy, well, when they do as much to help the poor as the Roman Catholic Church, then we’ll talk. Hell, when they do as much to help the poor as MORMONS we’ll talk. In fact, with his plane that delivers doctors and medical equipment to poor people worldwide, I’m willing to bet Pat Buchanan does more to help the poor BY HIMSELF than every atheist in the U.S. COMBINED.

So in summary, it’s pretty obvious to me that I’m the only one here who went to college. Or ever studied religion or REAL history (as opposed to the popular version you see on TV) or has ever had any contact with the indigent. It’s tough educatiing those who think they knowq better, but I’m always willing to try.

drainthelizard: The reason Christmas and Easter are federally recognized holidays is because people would take them off anyway, and yes, the majority of the people in the United States are Christian. It’s a matter of convenience.

By the way, in New York, it’s mandatory for employers to grant a specific number of religious holidays to employees if they work on Christmas and Easter. This allows for Jews/Muslims/Whatever to be treated fairly.

This means, quite simply, that Congress does not have the power to make laws with respect to the dogma of a religion, it does not have anything to do erecting monuments to the Old Testament, as so doing is likely not an act of Congress.

The notion of seperation of church and state is based on the Church of England, like you said. This notion, which has been upheld several times by the Supreme Court, is there to protect American citizens from two things:

  1. Religious persecution
  2. The use of tax money to finance a religious establishment or include religious dogma in any governmental institution.

The proposed action of spending tax money to put up the Ten Commandments in a state institution violate the second item.

Guess what numbnuts? There’s also a little bit in the Constitution thatgives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution. So when they say “there’s a separation between church and state, and this applies to the states as well as the federal govt”, that * is * the Constitution.

And by the way, I don’t give a flying fuck what the Founding Fathers intended–they were just people who came up with a pretty good system of government. It got modified to protect us from idiots like you. If they didn’t think the First Amendment protected me from state-sponsered religion, * I don’t care what they thought. * I care what is the law in this country.

Oh, and now that you mention it, I do have an issue with having Christmas and Easter off. Except that I didn’t; I’ve worked both those days–though obviously not as state employee. But in case you haven’t noticed, many employers/schools no longer give you “Christmas break”, you get “winter break”; it’s at the same time of year so as not to disrupt people’s scheduals.

Oh, and as for your “charity takes care of the homeless, govt doesn’t”, here’s a link for you.
Oh, and as for your claims about the Church and charity, I’ve got news for you:
If you go to that site, they point out that, yes, churches do collect the most charitable donations, but not the majority. Oh yeah, and religion is a good way back in the list in Hawaii, apprently–look here Moreover, as the former points out:

And there’s plenty more there.

Oh yeah, and here’s a list of Islam charities. In case you don’t notice, it’s quite long.

Or how about looking at this which points out that many of these Christian charities are almost entirely funded by the government anyway.

Oh, and as the son of a buddhist–and temporary convert myself–I can tell you that Buddhism was observing the equality of people long before the Catholic Church existed. And do you happen to notice that much of Christianity * still * doesn’t apply that to gays or–in some cases–women?

As if there aren’t a million non-religious charities that do this.
Oh yes, and Pat Buchanan–the man who cashed Michael Moore’s checks from the “Satanists for Buchanan” and the “John Wayne Gacey Fan Club”. Don’t even think about bringing him into this–you’ll sink yourself more than you already have.

Oh, and here’s a kicker for you:
Doctors Without Borders

Hmm, and they’re not affiliated with any church…wow. In fact, the scientific and medical communities are rife with atheists. Looks like (gasp) you’ve just made an ass of yourself. Twit.

Ummm…holding up roman catholicism as your saviour might not be such a good idea. Claiming homage to Pat Buchannan is even less wise. And, since I can only interpret your reference to the CJCLDS as some thing other than christian, your bigotry is even more evident.

Oh, please. Naturally, anyone who does not agree with your opinion needs educatiing(sic) and doesn’t knowq(sic) better, and is just plain ignorant. Uh-huh. Yeah, sure. Whatever.

One thing for damn sure. I don’t want you or any of your ilk telling me what I have to believe. I’m sure you don’t knowq why; too bad you never understood any of that REAL history you studied or you would comprehend why it has to work that way.

*Originally posted by Myrr21 *

Myrr21, you are a piece of work. You obviously believe in the “shotgun” approach to debate, as in “If I throw out enough BS that sounds relevant, maybe I’ll sound like I know what I’m talking about.” Unfortunately, beginning your post with something that can be PROVEN untrue doesn’t help your cause. I assume you are talking about the power of “judicial review.” Well guess what, dumbfuck, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives this power to the Supreme Court. Not one single solitary line.

And you don’t care what the Founding Fathers thought? Hmm. Then maybe maybe we should do away with that whole freedom of the press thingy that allows you to post to this board.
The Constitution has been amended 17 times since it was written, not counting the Bill of Rights. How foolproof is that? It’s just a piece of paper. But you know what’s interesting? A lot of the people responsible for writing it also signed a document called the Declaration of Independence. That document states that “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” You know what that means? GOD gave us the rights in the Constitution. I can assure you that’s what THYE were thinking when they signed both documents. Of course, if you don’t believe in God, or think religion has no place in public life, from whence do you derive these “rights”?

I’ll just ignore your ramblings about Doctors without Borders and charities, since they have no real bearing on anything I said. And are pretty much irrelevant. I guess you ignored the part where I said I was talking about RELIGIOUS charities. DWB has nothing to do with anything.

friedo- Like I said, a legal fiction. I agree with #1, but number 2 was invented after the fact. And you glossed over the fact that this was originally written to apply to Congress, not the states.

Oh, and as for your wonderful history knowledge, here’s a little tidbit for you:
The Massacre of the Albigenses
An entire culture was essentially wiped out. And here’s alittle quote for you:

Hmm, secular power–that sounds an awful lot like the Church using State power. In this example, the Pope promoted the wholesale slaughter of every man, woman, and child in the towns that opposed him.

Gee, sounds like they were sure sittin around protecting knowledge to me.

Article III, Section2:

This clearly states that they have the power to judge Constitutional cases brought before them, and if they are to decide on the cases, they are going to have to interpret the document. Go read it–you can find the full text on any search engine.

Listen you flaming moron, * you’re * the one who brought charity into this. You can’t handle having the evidence thrown back in your face, deal with it.

And in case you can’t read, I said * I don’t care what the founding fathers thought. * I care about the sustem that they created, not what their powdered little heads were thinking when they did it. And the fact that it allows for itself to be amended, well, that only shows that what was on the paper was useful, not what they were thinking.

God, never thought I’d find myself defending America…


Considering the fact that I work for a comapny that provides floating holdays, I don’t have a problem with this. The company is mainly Jewish owned, our department has two Hindus, some Christians, and assorted atheists. Know one has had a problem yet getting their respective holidays off.

However, I do take issue with Christmas being overtly celebrated in schools. Yes, I did see it have negative effects on some of the Jewish kids. They didn’t participate in some of the activities and the other kids, following the mob mentality, made fun of them for it. We need to find a more inclusive way to celebrate the holiday season in our public institutions.


This battle has been fought on a state to state basis, and guess what, it has been found unconstitutional in several states. Similar court battles have been fought over the teaching of creationism in schools. That’s why evolution is optional in Kansas, but no where else (thus far).

So, contrary to what you assume, states do follow the “Separation of Church and State” tenet.


Do you mean the principle that states everyone is equal? Hey, I’m all for it. That’s why I want the government to stop treating Christianity as being more equal than equal.


You state the case for the need of Church and State quite eloquently. We don’t want the government to support one religion more than another, or to endorse one and no others. That will only descend into the Anglican situation, where church membership became law and not meeting your religious duties, then fines were levied.


How is school prayer spontaneous? Having children stand up each morning and recite a prayer is defined as mandatory the last I heard. If you want to have a graduation bendiction. Fine, but allow other students to “spontaneously” say prayers that refelct their religions as well. I assume praying to Allah is just as acceptable as praying to Jesus Christ, right?


As you like to point out, a majority o the people in this country are Christain. Therefore, it would stand to reason that a majority of the charities would be Christian? Just because you don’t personally deal with the charities of other faiths, doesn’t mean that religion doesn’t hold those values.


Do you have a cite for the poll that finds Americans to be the most religious?

I also have no doubt that we give the most per capita, considering that we are the wealthiest nation on the face of the planet. What do we have? Something like 90% of the world’s wealth? It should stand to reason that we’d have more free cash to give away.


I wasn’t aware that Islam gave up reading and writing for a 1000 years. And who the hell kept Sankrit alive and well for that 1000 years? If no one was writing it, why is it still around?


I have not seem much evidence that it is a Christian concept. Or did I imagine reading the diaries of Jesuits who found all non-Christians to be “savages” or “infidels”.

Spanish Inquisition

All committed either with papal support or with Biblical justifications.


Ok, I’d like to see someone jump in here. I thought Buddhism did have egalatarian ideas. Unfortuantely, I don’t know enough to state that with any certainy.


And I assume you have studies that show atheists or those of other faith give much less that Christians. Or is that just your own assumptions speaking?


I have a BA in history from a church sponsored school. Funny how we each matriculated with such varying world views.

Something occured to me in between postes…
We’re always told, from 1st grade up, that the American legal system is based on the idea that “it is better to let 10 guilty men walk free than to wrongly imprison one innocent person”. The quote varies depending on where it comes from.

This can be applied to separation of church and state. As already cited, there are numerous instances of churches abusing state power. However, it is true that churches do a lot of good. Therefore, the quote can be modified as such:

“it is better to prevent 10 acts of good from a church-affiliated govt than to allow 1 act of evil/abuse of power”

Which is why we must keep religion out at every level, no matter how small. Moreover, as I mentioned, some of the commandments–particularly graven images–are actually offensive to other religions.

FTR: as I noted, Buddhism is very egalitarian. I wish I had some source texts on me, but they’re all on the other side of the country for the summer.

Gee all the troubles in the world and this is what gets you up in arms. btw, seperation of church and state was meant to benefit the church… not the state.


I would like to contrast your quote above with one that I originally posted in Mr Zambezi’s “You don’t have a “right” to be given anything.” thread.

FYI - Rights are agreed upon by people.
The Declaration of Independance and the Constitution merely documented this agreement ( and furthered it ).
If they hadn’t gotten the support of enough people, then they wouldn’t have survived.