First of all, exactly!!! With all the trouble in the world, why are state and their insitutions so bent on posting the Ten Commandments? School systems claim that they will curb student violence and the states…actually I don’t know why states claim we need them posted.
Yes, I’m also aware of that “benifits the churchs” argument. Thomas Jefferson said in one of his speeches that there was a wall that kept the state out of church affairs. However, walls go both way and it should benefit all churches, not just Christian ones. If a state building has a monument that declares that a person is not allowed to have multiple gods or graven images, then how is the Hindu religion being benefitted?
Also, Madison wrote Memorial and Remonstrance in 1785. It was in response to a propsed religion tax. The tax was designed to collect money for the supoort of churches. Those supporting the tax claimed that it was fair because the tax payer indicated which church the money would go to. In response, Madison stated:
So here he’s worried about pushing religion onto those who have no religion and:
He seems to be favoring separation of church and state here.
1st, altho I do not agree with all of it, DtL’s 1st post here was quite good sarcasm.
Next, the 10 Commandments is NOT a Christian document or set of Laws. JC died so we did not have to follow the OT Laws anymore, and altho parts fo the 10C are good moral guidance, they are no longer Christian Laws.
And, I have no problem with posting the 10C in their HISTORICAL context, ie on a wall along with the Code of Hammurabi, the magne carta, code Napoleaon, etc.
Pointing out horrible things someone has done in the name of A Religion does not make that religion wrong, just the doer.
And every major religion has had its share of such things.
freido: your personal attacks on DtL were unessesary & childish. That sort of foul mouth hatred is just what we need less of. Same to you myrr. It is amazing to see DtL here have the moral highground and be the 'adult". if it was not for you two “I can say no-no’s”, this might make for a good great debate.
Look, I threw in a few shots, but I also provided a well-reasoned arguement with cites and responses to his gratuitous and offensive comments. He pretty much claimed that Christianity came up with everything right in the world and the American government. I take exception to that, and I take exception to anybody supporting something that infringes upon my rights. And when they’re being mindlessly sarcastic about it, that doesn’t make it go down any smoother. But then, I’m just an ignorant atheist, so what does my minority opinion matter in this enlightened Christian society?
I also never claimed that the aforementioned examples were resons religion is bad–you might care to note my later post. My point it that they are examples of religious groups abusing state power, which is why they should be kept out entirely, rather than allow for that chance to crop up.
Good point about the 10C, though, not that it necessarily changes the fundamental basis of this argument, but for the sake of accuracy…
No. Seperation of Church and State exists to protect the people. Period. Using taxpayer money to support a religious institution is a violation of that protection.
No, it wasn’t. His sarcasm assumes that if you support Separation of Church and State then one must be hostile to religion. I found his post to be hateful to anyone who does not automatically buy into a state institution promoting reigion. Daniel, I know that you feel like that most people here are bigotted against religion, and that probably colored your reading of his post. I am not hostile towards religion. I want the State to stay out of my religion and my religion to stay out of the State.
**
I asked a friend, who is a reform Jew, as to why I never hear of Jew wanting to post the 10 Commandments. She rolled her eyes and said that was a “Christian thing”. Besides, you know that Christians still look to the Old Testament, whether they are supposed to or not. How many time shave you heard a Christian quote Leviticus on this board.
Technically, it’s not a Christian document, but they treat it like one. Come on, you know that not all Christains are educated in their own religion as you are.
I agree it has nice moral laws, but two of the rules clearly deal with a Judeo-Christian God.
**
Personally, I don’t feel they fit in the same historical category as The Code of Hammurabi or the Magna Catra. However, if someone were to show me that the Ohio state house has a monument built to those docuemnts, then I might revise my opinion. However, it has been my experience that a government agency typical is only interested in displaying the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Ten Commandments.
**
We were not attempting to test the verasity of Christianity. We were merely testing the verasity of drainthelizard’s statements that Christianity has had all that is light and good.
Tell me, how is drainthelizard asserting that only Christians have charitable goodness or an interest in literacy and equality, any less bigotted than an atheist running around calling Christians “fundies”?
Yeah, but he pissed me off with this “I’m Christian, everything good here is Christian; you don’t have rights” approach. Sides, those weren’t real insults…
What I don’t get is how the will of the majority is supposed to become law in this country, but if one or a few or just a minority of any size doesn’t like something they can find a court somewhere to overturn it. Someone posted earlier that Jewish kids were made fun of at Christmas. This is very wrong, and I would never let any kid of mine do such a thing. But we shouldn’t cancel Christmas or any other holiday because some people don’t celebrate it.
I, for one, would support putting the Ten Commandments on the Statehouse lawn even if doing so meant we had to put the eight pillars of Buddhism, the tenets of Hinduism, or the principles of Islam next to them. What I would like even more would be for each locality/village/state to be allowed to decide the issue for themselves. If there are 50,000 Christians in a town and 100 Hindus, then the Christians should get their way. If the proportions were reversed, then let the Hindus have their way.
But the way our system is, EVERYONE must pretend their religion doesn’t exist. Hello? The same people who go to Church/Temple/mosque are the ones voting, judging, and holding office. How can we seperate out sokmething that is a part of us?
You added nothing to the thread, but instead you hijacked it for your own right-wing, tyrranical, “do as I say or don’t do” brand of McCarthyism. Your lack of open-mindedness and acceptance of those unlike you makes me worry for the future of mankind if everyone else were like you.
The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many. If there were 10,000 Satanists, and one God-fearing Christian in your happy little town, do you think the state would let them put a pentagram in the parking lot at city hall?
Take your anti-everything dogma elsewhere. Your tired, weak and crumbling take on these ideas has no place here.
Did you not assert that Christians supported reading and writing for 1000 years, implying that other religions did not? Did you not assert that charity is solely a Christian value? Did you not assert that treating men equal was solely a Christian idea?
You have attributed every good quality and bright idea to being a solely Christian one. That does come across as bigotted. You are free to correct me if I am wrong.
**
Onbly when the will of the majority runs contrary to the Constitutions, federal or state. That is the entire reason the court is there. When the majority opinion is to support Christianity as a de facto state religion, then yes, it’s going to get shot down in a court of law.
**
I posted that and I did not say we should cancel Christmas. I stated that I felt we should find a more inclusionary way to celebrate the holiday season. When the Christian kids are having a Christmas party and the Muslim and Jewish kids are off in the corner working on busy work, then we have a case where the school is acting in an exclusionary matter. It is possible to celebrate the winter holidays in a manner that does not bring in religion.
**
What I don’t see is why the state needs to post anything of a religious nature in the first place.
Ok, I am reading book on the history of the religious right in this country. One theme I see over and over is this fear of living in a godless country and they always point to the Soviet Union as an example of the evils of a Godless state.
Well, the Soviet Union wasn’t a godless state. It was a God-hating state. Religion was outlawed and it’s followers persecuted.
Nor am I advocating that we live in a Godless stae here in the US. I want us to live in a God-nuetral state. Where God is neither acknowledged nor denied by the state agencies. Religion should be between man and God, not between man and the state.
**
Do you honestly think you’d be willing to live in a country where the Hindu religion is favored by the state? Where their holdiays are national holidays, but you have to use vacation days to take off Christmas? Where you kids sing Hindu holy songs in school? Where at Graduation ceremonies they pray to Ganeesha, but not Jesus?
**
I look at it fro the opposite point of view. When the state gets involved in religiuous matters it pretends that all religions other than Christians ones don’t exist.
How is me opposing the posting of Ten Commandments advocating that you ignore that religion doesn’t exist? What is to keep you from posting the Ten Commandments at your home? Waht is to keep you from posting them on your front lawn? Nothing.
Exactly, the same people who go to Mosque and Temple are those who also vote. They are also the ones who are taking issue with the state favoring one religion over theirs.
Though, not always. You are aware, are you not, that the most recent court battle over the Ten Commandments was filed by the ACLU on behalf of a Christian priest?
Christians keeping reading and writing alive? well, we have the Greeks and the Byzantinian Empire would have something to say about that, seeing as they more or less kept Algebra and philosophy alive before Christ was born…
[sarcasm]Interesting that you feel name-calling is more valuable than drainthelizard’s contributions. That really added value far superior to his comments. You shore showed him yuk yuk yuk!! [/sarcasm]
I actually thought that his comments were very interesting and sparked some good, albeit heated, debate.
And come on. Face it. If he hadn’t said that, this thread would just be another bunch of posts like, “Yea, that’s wrong, those fools”, and, “What he said”. So if you want an intelligent discussion about this, then get off your dogpile mentality of flaming the person who dares to disagree with you.
It’s unfortunate that because the 10 Commandments are religious they shouldn’t be displayed by a government who is based on the separation of Church and State. If some guy had just thought them up and said, “Hey, here are some really great suggestions for living a good life”, who could complain? Adulterers, murderers, liars, greedy people, etc. I mean, is anyone really opposed to their content or just opposed to the fact that they were supposedly handed down by GOD? Read them as if they were given to a Muslim, a Hindu, whatever. It seems to me that they don’t hurt or contradict any faith:
Don’t lie
Don’t steal
Don’t commit adultery
Don’t murder
Don’t harbor envy and jealousness for your neighbors
Take a day of rest at the end of every week.
Honor your parents
Honor God
Don’t use God’s name to commit or to speak evil
Don’t honor other Gods
I’m not advocating that they be posted by the State. I just wonder: Does anyone, of any faith, have a problem with what they actually say? Who is hurt if we endorse these “10 Suggestions”?
We have a law to deal with this–at least when it’s done under oath. It’s called perjury. Outside of that, it’s still a good suggestion…
Law already deals with this. Redundant.
Hmm, some people don’t think this is wrong, though I do. Still, this one’s still a pretty good guideline.
Duh. Course, we have a law for that too. Also redundant
Well, again, not a bad guideline, though some people see nothing wrong with it.
Now we start to get into the more objectionable ones:
6) Ummm, no. What if I don’t want to? Should the state be telling me that I should do this? What if they mandate that I do this?
7) Even if my parents are abusive fucks? Good on principle, but not something certain victems of abuse/neglect really want to hear from the govt.
8) Sorry guy, but I don’t believe in any god. Don’t want eh state teslling me to honor him/her/it. And what if I believed in about 20? Which one should I honr–especially since none of them are called “God”?
9) I thought the phrasing was different than that, but there are a number of translations…either way, it’s still offensive to me. If I want to “speak evil”, whatever that means, I don’t see why I can’t. In fact, my right to do so is stated in the very first Amendment to the Constitution.
10) Polytheists of the word, what’s your opinion on this? Cant’t be all to happy with that. And what about me? I’m an atheist. And what about the Buddhists, who have no God in their religion?
So half the Commandments are at least mildly objectionable to people of other faiths, or none at all; some of those are strongly objectionable. A few more are already covered by are laws. Only one or two are non-offensive suggestions…
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by beakerxf *
**Did you not assert that Christians supported reading and writing for 1000 years, implying that other religions did not? Did you not assert that charity is solely a Christian value? Did you not assert that treating men equal was solely a Christian idea?
You have attributed every good quality and bright idea to being a solely Christian one. That does come across as bigotted. You are free to correct me if I am wrong.
[quote]
**
Well beaker, you are wrong, and I’m going to correct you. I’m going to go easy though, since you said I wasn’t a loser.
I’ve been consistently misunderstood on these topics. I guess this is my fault, since I was unclear. What I meant is that Christians (in the form of the Catholic Church) kept reading and writing alive IN EUROPE during the Dark Ages, not worldwide. No, I did NOT assert charity is solely a Christian value. But it IS a more prominent value in Christianity than other religions. I DID assert that reating men equal was solely a Christian idea. I will now partially retract that statement and modify it to mean: Christianity is the only major religion where all men are considered by the deity to be on an equal footing. As I said before, this is where the phrase “ALL men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…” in the Dec. of Ind. came from.
Cecil actually wrote a column where he touched briefly on the subject of the root tenets of Christianity. It’s at http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_248.html
No, I don’t think every good quality and bright idea comes from Christianity. I think things like snake handling and 99% of speaking in tongues is a crock of shit. (Though I think both are possible.) You referred to a nation where Hinduism is supported by the state; what about India? Fact: If a cow lies in the road in India, no one will move it because cows are “holy.” Fact: There are temples and shrines in India devoted to cows, monkeys, and rats. Animals that live in these temples eat better than your average Indian citizen.
And how about Iran, where Muslim clerics can and have had women stoned to death for violating their religious dress code? Or Afghanistan, where women are not allowed to work-at ALL? All perfectly legal.
Compared to all this posting the Ten Commandments on a public lawn somewhere seems pretty damn mild.
“How is me opposing the posting of Ten Commandments advocating that you ignore that religion doesn’t exist? What is to keep you from posting the Ten Commandments at your home? Waht is to keep you from posting them on your front lawn? Nothing.”
It’s not just the Ten Commandments. Nobody anywhere can put anything of a religious nature on a public site, building, whatever. Even if people overwhelmingly wanted it. Of any religion. The state is a manmade institution, composed of individual human beings. It should reflect the people it governs, and who created it and give it life. A God-neutral state doesn’t bear any resemblance to how the people of the United States really are. We are not “God-neutral” people. Have you seen the movie “Contact”? Jodie Foster is an candidate to be the first human to contact extraterrestrials. She is rejected as a candidate initially because she is an atheist, and “98% of humanity believes in some form of higher power.” Therefore, she was not representative of the human race. That’s how I think of a God-neutral government: unrepresentative of myself and most (not all) of the people I know. Whatever the Founding Fathers meant in the First Amendment, I’m sure it wasn’t what we now call “separation of Church and State.”
Of course, I realize that if we start recognizing God in government, the question comes up: whose God? But I already said, let the majority decide the matter. I don’t think posting the TC anywhere is “forcing” anything down anyones throat. The stoplights and courts would still work for Jews and Hindus.
okatym- hey, right on.
red dragon60- Go do your algebra homework. Isn’t it almost your bedtime?
I may be wrong–can we get some of the Muslims in here from GD–but I believe Islam actually requires charity. So much for that prominence. Also, look at the secualr humanists–the basic premise of humanism is to be a good person treat other people well–which clearly includes charity.
**
Hey dumbass, any proof of this, or are you just going to continue making wrong and unsubstantiated claims?
**
PURE AND UTTER BULLSHIT. Budhism, Shitoism, Judaism, Islam, other assorted small relgions and sects. All believe the same thing. Until you learn to stop lying you’ll find that people won’t take you too seriously around here.
**
Fact: In the US if a television preacher comes on TV and says that he has spoklen personally to GOD, dumbshits send him money. Indians tend not to be as guilable.
Fact: There are temples and shrines in the US devoted to celebrites such as James Dean. Animals that live near these temples tend to eat better than your average American Citizen.
