OT: The Ten comandments.

Discussion in 'rec.music.percussion' started by NoSheeples, Aug 28, 2003.

  1. Sean Conolly

    Sean Conolly Guest

    Re: The Ten comandments.

    "Da Parrot-chick" <just@sk.me> wrote in message
    news:b9i3b.6981$Jh2.403@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >
    > "NoSheeples" <n2new@aol.comNsheep> wrote in message
    > news:20030827232529.18419.00000037@mb-m13.aol.com...
    >
    > Just having a plaque there does not violate the constitution, nor
    > > does it impose any religion. There are plenty of things that offend me

    > that are
    > > secular which by the way is a religion in it's self.

    >
    > A two and a half ton chunk of elaboarte;y-carved granit, sitting smack in
    > the middle of the rotunda (nothing else there but tile, walls, and air)?
    > I'd call that an imposition.
    >
    > > The term separation of church and state is no were mentioned in the
    > > constitution, it's a made up term used to bastardize the meaning of the

    > law
    > > congress passed that says they shall make no laws regarding religion.

    The
    > > court ruling was wrong, but because this is a nation of laws we must

    > respect
    > > the decision.

    >
    > The courts were exactly right. There can be no laws favoring one religion
    > over another. If this judge had placed similar tenets from the Koran,
    > Talmud, Upanishads and Rig-Veda, the same type statue, there may well have
    > been no problem.


    However, the Ten Commandments are fundamental to Christians, Jews, and
    Muslims. The same is true of "God" in the phrase "In God We Trust". I don't
    believe it promotes any single religion as much as it recognizes that
    historically America was founded and built by mostly God-fearing people.


    > > The expo-facto law coming from the bench by activist Judges is ten times

    > more
    > > scary then the ten commandments.



    Agreed. Although I believe that the Judge is fundamentally correct in his
    recognition that the commandments are the cornerstone of the laws of this
    country, I also think that he is abusing his position on the court by his
    unilateral actions. If he truly believed that what he was doing was not in
    violation of law, why did he need to sneek the monument into the building in
    the first place? I believe that he didn't want argue whether it was right to
    have the monument, but instead let opponents argue that it is wrong to keep
    it. I also believe personally that he is simply using this situation to his
    political advantage, and I fully expect to see him running for Governer or
    Congress in the near future. I certainly hope he is comtemplating a career
    change; if his religious views are so strong that he must put them above his
    judicial responsibilities, he doesn't belong on the Supreme Court bench. He
    needs to move to a venue where he cannot excercise unilateral power.

    Sean
  2. Re: The Ten comandments.

    Tom the uneducated wrote;

    -- > The term separation of church and state is no were mentioned in the
    > constitution, it's a made up term used to bastardize the meaning of the

    law
    > congress passed that says they shall make no laws regarding religion.


    The phrase "separation of church and state" was written by Thomas Jefferson
    in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. It has been quoted in Supreme Court
    decisions as far back as 1878 and is a well known principle that guided the
    writing of the constitution and the first amendment. All known writings and
    all documents unofficial and official of the founding fathers are
    considered by the Legislative and Judicial branches when it comes to
    decisions that affect the laws of our country.

    The actual wording of the first amendment concerning religion is "Congress
    shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
    the free exercise thereof". It is a very carefully worded double edged sword
    that keeps the government out of religion and religion out of government.
    The reason you , in particular as a Christian, do not want the government
    favoring any religion or even approving religous symbols and documents in
    government buildings, is because it is possible in the future that
    Christians may not be in the majority. If it were a monument to the Islam
    religion you would be singing a different tune , which makes you and
    everyone else who supports this nonsense hypocrites. Any hubbub that any
    religion raises about being recognized by the government willalways be
    struck down because the first amendment was written so that religions can't
    have their cake and eat it too and so that governments can't use religion to
    effect tyranny. The government and religions can work together in harmony
    but there will always be a wall that separates them for the good of mankind
    in this country.

    The ten commandments are not mentioned in the constitution and neither is
    Christianity. The laws of this country were not founded on the laws of
    Moses. They just happen to include the obvious ones about killing and
    stealing which are found in every basic legal code through out history. The
    judge in question accepted the job to enforce the law and then broke the
    law. If he wanted to change the law he should have run for Congress. I am
    embarrassed that there are still such fundamentalist rednecks from my part
    of the country.

    I imagine the next thing to go will be the swearing on the Bible in the
    courtroom which is, of course, just a tradition and not a legal act.


    George Lawrence
    George's Drum Shop
    1351 S. Cleveland-Massillon Road #21
    Copley, Ohio 44321
    http://www.GeorgesDrumShop.com
    http://www.Drumguru.com
    330 670 0800
    toll free 866 970 0800

    "If thine enemy wrong thee,
    buy each of his children a drum."
    -Chinese proverb




    "Doug Fuller" <doug_fuller_62@earthlink.net(remove_underscores)> wrote in
    message news:lWe3b.19061$8i2.12613@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > "NoSheeples" <n2new@aol.comNsheep> wrote:
    > >
    > > What is this society coming to? Are people really that weak minded that

    > they
    > > are afraid an artifact of our nations history with some simple rules

    that
    > are
    > > good to adhere by, will influence them?

    >
    > I don't think that's the case at all.
    >
    > > I have come to the conclusion that
    > > these busy bodies who fight to have this stuff removed are evil. The
    > > commandments likely remind them of their own shortcomings, and they

    can't
    > deal
    > > with it.

    >
    > Objection. Speculative.
    >
    > > Just having a plaque there does not violate the constitution, nor
    > > does it impose any religion.

    >
    > It may not violate the constitution verbatim but it violates the spirit of
    > the constitution.
    >
    > > There are plenty of things that offend me that are
    > > secular which by the way is a religion in it's self.

    >
    > Things that offend you and government sponsored valueless opinions are two
    > different things. Secular means not religious or religiously neutral. Do
    > you mean athesism?
    >
    > > The term separation of church and state is no were mentioned in the
    > > constitution, it's a made up term used to bastardize the meaning of the

    > law
    > > congress passed that says they shall make no laws regarding religion.

    >
    > True, but the spirit is what's important. Plus, freedom of religion also
    > means freedom FROM religion.
    >
    > > The
    > > court ruling was wrong, but because this is a nation of laws we must

    > respect
    > > the decision.

    >
    > The court ruling was right.
    >
    > > The expo-facto law coming from the bench by activist Judges is ten times

    > more
    > > scary then the ten commandments. How much do you want to bet that our

    > currency
    > > is next? The word God is slowly trying to be removed from our society.

    >
    > > Is this really a good thing?

    >
    > Yes.
    >
    > > Does this make us better people?

    >
    > I don't know. Does having it make us good people?
    >
    > > Saying that having the ten commandments in a court room is

    > unconstitutional is
    > > a stretch by anyone's imagination.

    >
    > Then I guess we should go ahead and place quotes from every other

    religious
    > doctrine in the world in every courtroom in the country. That's just

    silly.
    >
    > > It's not so much the fact that the plauqe
    > > was removed that bothers me, it's the insane activisim behind it that is

    > the
    > > threat.

    >
    > Insane activism put it there in the first place.
    >
    > > It's not the like Judge made people read it.

    >
    > If he didn't want people to read it then nobody should have a problem with
    > it not being there.
    >
    > > The way I always looked at
    > > these things, if something offends you then you don't have to look at

    it.
    >
    > Except in the case where MY tax money is involved.
    >
    > > Maybe
    > > im just odd, but having to stand in a elevator with a a 500 pound

    smelly
    > > lardass is way more offense then the ten commandments.

    >
    > Ditto above.
    >
    > > If it were leagle I
    > > would take pleasure in shooting people that are so called offended by

    > everyting
    > > today. This includes everything from names of baseball teams to people

    > wearing
    > > a cross on their neck at work.
    > > I thought of a way to fight back, and that would be telling the jew at

    > work who
    > > displays his beilives to remove the stuff, but then it occured to me

    that
    > I
    > > would just be another low life like the ones who go around doing this

    > stuff.
    > > Why can't people just go about their daily lives and ignore something

    they
    > > don't like?

    >
    > Why can't people just go about their daily lives and keep their silly
    > opinions to themselves?
    >
    > > The answer is because they have none. Im not going to follow up on

    this,
    > and
    > > im not trolling, ok I have some swamp land to. ;o) No really, I was

    just
    > > curious what others thought even if you're athiest, because the athiest

    I
    > have
    > > talked to are not bothered by displays of the ten comandments. I look

    at
    > this
    > > as no different then a nude bar down the street that local judge makes

    up
    > law
    > > to have it removed. That is essentially what was done here.

    >
    > > "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch. Liberty

    > is
    > > a well armed lamb protesting the vote."

    >
    > This I like however ;-)
    >
    > --
    > Cheers,
    > Doug Fuller
    > Boston
    > doug_fuller_62@earthlink.net (remove all underscores)
    > "It's all in the mama-daddies."
    >
    >
  3. SCW

    SCW Guest

    Re: The Ten comandments.

    I don't understand why Athiests are so afraid of
    something they don't even believe in. I'm
    agnostic and am in no way threatened by other
    people's faith.
  4. Re: The Ten comandments.

    Joey wrote:
    -- The United States was founded by Christians, for Christians, and of
    Christians...

    I respect your right to free speech but Christianity is not mentioned in the
    Constitution or any of the legal documents of this country. Also. many of
    the authors of the constitution were Deists, not Christians.

    George Lawrence
    George's Drum Shop
    1351 S. Cleveland-Massillon Road #21
    Copley, Ohio 44321
    http://www.GeorgesDrumShop.com
    http://www.Drumguru.com
    330 670 0800
    toll free 866 970 0800

    "If thine enemy wrong thee,
    buy each of his children a drum."
    -Chinese proverb




    "Joey Furr" <joeyfurr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:CKydnfpeAaQQltOiU-KYuA@comcast.com...
    > My 2¢
    > The United States was founded by Christians, for Christians, and of
    > Christians...with the provision that if you are not Christian you are
    > welcome to practice whatever religion you chose, or none at all, freely

    and
    > without reprisal from the gub'ment.
    >
    > The same goes for the English language. We speak English here, it's what

    we
    > do, it's who we are. You're welcome to come over and speak any language

    you
    > like, knowing that it's your right to do so...but coming here you should
    > know ahead of time that you will be hearing English everywhere you go
    > because it's what we do as a people.
    >
    > Likewise I apply this to Christianity. We were founded a Christian nation,
    > it's what we do, it's who we are. Anyone is welcome to practice any

    religion
    > they like, knowing that it's their right to do so...but being in this
    > country you should know that you will be experiencing Christianity
    > everywhere you go because it's what we do as a people, it's why we founded
    > this nation.
    >
    > The whole idea of 'political correctness', or the attempt to discontinue

    any
    > and all actions that could potentially offend someone is ridiculous. When
    > was the constitution amended to provide for a right not to be offended?

    What
    > kind of nation of over-sensitive wimps have we become?
    >
    > P.S. - if the goverment makes a ruling that the monument must go...it's
    > gotta go, no matter what my feelings on the subject.
    >
    > Keep in mind that I'm not telling you that this is what you should

    believe,
    > this is simply what I believe and I welcome opposing/supporting opinions.
    >
    > Wow...my sig certainly applies to this post! :)
    > --
    >
    > ...Joey
    >
    > "...so hold the mustard on those flames, y'all." - Aaron Draper
    >
    > "Doug Fuller" <doug_fuller_62@earthlink.net(remove_underscores)> wrote in
    > message news:lWe3b.19061$8i2.12613@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > > "NoSheeples" <n2new@aol.comNsheep> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > What is this society coming to? Are people really that weak minded

    that
    > > they
    > > > are afraid an artifact of our nations history with some simple rules

    > that
    > > are
    > > > good to adhere by, will influence them?

    > >
    > > I don't think that's the case at all.
    > >
    > > > I have come to the conclusion that
    > > > these busy bodies who fight to have this stuff removed are evil. The
    > > > commandments likely remind them of their own shortcomings, and they

    > can't
    > > deal
    > > > with it.

    > >
    > > Objection. Speculative.
    > >
    > > > Just having a plaque there does not violate the constitution, nor
    > > > does it impose any religion.

    > >
    > > It may not violate the constitution verbatim but it violates the spirit

    of
    > > the constitution.
    > >
    > > > There are plenty of things that offend me that are
    > > > secular which by the way is a religion in it's self.

    > >
    > > Things that offend you and government sponsored valueless opinions are

    two
    > > different things. Secular means not religious or religiously neutral.

    Do
    > > you mean athesism?
    > >
    > > > The term separation of church and state is no were mentioned in the
    > > > constitution, it's a made up term used to bastardize the meaning of

    the
    > > law
    > > > congress passed that says they shall make no laws regarding religion.

    > >
    > > True, but the spirit is what's important. Plus, freedom of religion

    also
    > > means freedom FROM religion.
    > >
    > > > The
    > > > court ruling was wrong, but because this is a nation of laws we must

    > > respect
    > > > the decision.

    > >
    > > The court ruling was right.
    > >
    > > > The expo-facto law coming from the bench by activist Judges is ten

    times
    > > more
    > > > scary then the ten commandments. How much do you want to bet that our

    > > currency
    > > > is next? The word God is slowly trying to be removed from our

    society.
    > >
    > > > Is this really a good thing?

    > >
    > > Yes.
    > >
    > > > Does this make us better people?

    > >
    > > I don't know. Does having it make us good people?
    > >
    > > > Saying that having the ten commandments in a court room is

    > > unconstitutional is
    > > > a stretch by anyone's imagination.

    > >
    > > Then I guess we should go ahead and place quotes from every other

    > religious
    > > doctrine in the world in every courtroom in the country. That's just

    > silly.
    > >
    > > > It's not so much the fact that the plauqe
    > > > was removed that bothers me, it's the insane activisim behind it that

    is
    > > the
    > > > threat.

    > >
    > > Insane activism put it there in the first place.
    > >
    > > > It's not the like Judge made people read it.

    > >
    > > If he didn't want people to read it then nobody should have a problem

    with
    > > it not being there.
    > >
    > > > The way I always looked at
    > > > these things, if something offends you then you don't have to look at

    > it.
    > >
    > > Except in the case where MY tax money is involved.
    > >
    > > > Maybe
    > > > im just odd, but having to stand in a elevator with a a 500 pound

    > smelly
    > > > lardass is way more offense then the ten commandments.

    > >
    > > Ditto above.
    > >
    > > > If it were leagle I
    > > > would take pleasure in shooting people that are so called offended by

    > > everyting
    > > > today. This includes everything from names of baseball teams to

    people
    > > wearing
    > > > a cross on their neck at work.
    > > > I thought of a way to fight back, and that would be telling the jew at

    > > work who
    > > > displays his beilives to remove the stuff, but then it occured to me

    > that
    > > I
    > > > would just be another low life like the ones who go around doing this

    > > stuff.
    > > > Why can't people just go about their daily lives and ignore something

    > they
    > > > don't like?

    > >
    > > Why can't people just go about their daily lives and keep their silly
    > > opinions to themselves?
    > >
    > > > The answer is because they have none. Im not going to follow up on

    > this,
    > > and
    > > > im not trolling, ok I have some swamp land to. ;o) No really, I was

    > just
    > > > curious what others thought even if you're athiest, because the

    athiest
    > I
    > > have
    > > > talked to are not bothered by displays of the ten comandments. I look

    > at
    > > this
    > > > as no different then a nude bar down the street that local judge makes

    > up
    > > law
    > > > to have it removed. That is essentially what was done here.

    > >
    > > > "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch.

    Liberty
    > > is
    > > > a well armed lamb protesting the vote."

    > >
    > > This I like however ;-)
    > >
    > > --
    > > Cheers,
    > > Doug Fuller
    > > Boston
    > > doug_fuller_62@earthlink.net (remove all underscores)
    > > "It's all in the mama-daddies."
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
  5. Re: The Ten comandments.

    DC wrote:
    The STATE is not only
    not to show favorites - it is not to involve itself AT ALL.

    David, as much of a first amendment supporter as I am, this is not true. It
    is not in the first amendment of the constitution. The first amendment was
    written to allow for the government and religions to work together
    harmoniously as is evidenced by the correspondence between its authors and
    certain religous bodies of the time, but it keeps them from crossing the
    line of one controlling the other. The law allows the government to
    acknowledge the concept of a god and mentions "God" in several major
    documents but not to favor any one religion. That Christians want to think
    that the founding fathers were only concerned about Christians is ok with me
    as long as they keep it to themselves. I think many of these acknowlegements
    like the coins, swearing on the bible, are sentimental traditions that are
    innocuous. They don't bother me. It's the actions of those like this judge
    who try to get the government to condone a particular religion that is
    harmful not only to government but to religions as well.
    --
    George Lawrence
    George's Drum Shop
    1351 S. Cleveland-Massillon Road #21
    Copley, Ohio 44321
    http://www.GeorgesDrumShop.com
    http://www.Drumguru.com
    330 670 0800
    toll free 866 970 0800

    "If thine enemy wrong thee,
    buy each of his children a drum."
    -Chinese proverb




    "David Crigger" <dc@davidcrigger.com> wrote in message
    news:BB732152.3BAA2%dc@davidcrigger.com...
    > in article bikala$i2$1@tribune.oar.net, bjacoby@users.iwaynet.net at
    > bjacoby@users.iwaynet.net wrote on 8/28/03 12:23 AM:
    >
    > > But the atheists are so hot to make their religion the state
    > > religion,

    >
    >
    > No Ben - the point is the law of the land is that there shall be NO STATE
    > RELIGION.
    >
    > Forbidding religious artifacts from court rooms, police stations, - places
    > where individuals are by definition dealing directly with the STATE is
    > essential to the basic premise of Freedom of Religion. The STATE is not

    only
    > not to show favorites - it is not to involve itself AT ALL. "Congress

    shall
    > make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - directly from the
    > Bill of Rights.
    >
    > Have we done this cleanly over the years? Certainly not. For years the

    vast
    > majority of this country have been one sort of Christian or another. So we
    > have long standing traditions like swearing on the Bible, phrases on our
    > money like "In God We Trust", etc. Horrible inconsistencies considering

    the
    > language used in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So I'm not
    > surprised when so many are confused by how these issues are sometimes
    > handled.
    >
    > But I do know people who shouldn't be confused, and that is sitting

    judges -
    > people sworn to uphold the law of the land as absolutely sacred. And this
    > judge obviously feels the law of the land somehow does not apply to him

    and
    > the religion of his choosing, and that IMO is disgraceful. I personally

    hope
    > the man is never allowed to sit in judgement of his fellow American

    citizens
    > ever again - because he has certainly broke every oath he ever swore to
    > become a judge with his recent actions. (And these actions were not
    > necessary to reconcile being both a judge of the land and at the same a
    > Christian as there scores of fine Christians who are judges that make it
    > work just fine.)
    >
    > David
    >
  6. Re: The Ten comandments.

    I am an agnostic and I do not fear religions but I do fear religious
    fundamentalism; 9/11
    Any encroachment on the separation of church and state could lead to a hole
    in the dike that leads to state religions and their fanatics like those of
    the Middle East.

    --
    George Lawrence
    George's Drum Shop
    1351 S. Cleveland-Massillon Road #21
    Copley, Ohio 44321
    http://www.GeorgesDrumShop.com
    http://www.Drumguru.com
    330 670 0800
    toll free 866 970 0800

    "If thine enemy wrong thee,
    buy each of his children a drum."
    -Chinese proverb




    "SCW" <adsl001@verizon.net> wrote in message
    news:Wap3b.35914$081.4086@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
    > I don't understand why Athiests are so afraid of
    > something they don't even believe in. I'm
    > agnostic and am in no way threatened by other
    > people's faith.
    >
    >
  7. Mark Rance

    Mark Rance Guest

    Re: The Ten comandments.

    "Jim" <mesaz00@cableaz.com> wrote in message news:3f4c3f05_1@newsfeed...
    > I am not a xtian and am not offended by the concept of the 10 commandments
    > or displays of it. but I am offended by a judge who acted on his own
    > without the cooperation or consent of his fellow justices. Was this

    proper
    > behaviour? No.


    Why on earth would someone standing up for what they believe, offend you?

    -Mark
  8. Joey Furr

    Joey Furr Guest

    Re: The Ten comandments.

    "Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity... It is
    rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial
    of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an
    usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has
    solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men."
    -Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
    that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
    among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Declaration
    of Indepenance

    "The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were
    the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen
    could Unite....And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general
    Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: . . . Now
    I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general
    Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence
    and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as
    unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System." - John
    Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson

    That's the whole concept of the Constitution, that your rights come from
    God, so men cannot take them away. "All men are *created* equal".

    You're techically correct, where Christianity is mentioned by the founding
    fathers it is outside a legal document, and where faith is mentioned in the
    legal documents, the specific word 'Christianity' is not used...but put two
    and two together and you still get four.

    Your thoughts?
    --
    ....Joey
    "...so hold the mustard on those flames, y'all." - Aaron Draper

    "George Lawrence" <drumguru@ameritech.net> wrote in message
    news:dbp3b.16259$Ih1.5718978@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    > Joey wrote:
    > -- The United States was founded by Christians, for Christians, and of
    > Christians...
    >
    > I respect your right to free speech but Christianity is not mentioned in

    the
    > Constitution or any of the legal documents of this country. Also. many of
    > the authors of the constitution were Deists, not Christians.
    >
    > George Lawrence
    > George's Drum Shop
    > 1351 S. Cleveland-Massillon Road #21
    > Copley, Ohio 44321
    > http://www.GeorgesDrumShop.com
    > http://www.Drumguru.com
    > 330 670 0800
    > toll free 866 970 0800
    >
    > "If thine enemy wrong thee,
    > buy each of his children a drum."
    > -Chinese proverb
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Joey Furr" <joeyfurr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:CKydnfpeAaQQltOiU-KYuA@comcast.com...
    > > My 2¢
    > > The United States was founded by Christians, for Christians, and of
    > > Christians...with the provision that if you are not Christian you are
    > > welcome to practice whatever religion you chose, or none at all, freely

    > and
    > > without reprisal from the gub'ment.
    > >
    > > The same goes for the English language. We speak English here, it's what

    > we
    > > do, it's who we are. You're welcome to come over and speak any language

    > you
    > > like, knowing that it's your right to do so...but coming here you should
    > > know ahead of time that you will be hearing English everywhere you go
    > > because it's what we do as a people.
    > >
    > > Likewise I apply this to Christianity. We were founded a Christian

    nation,
    > > it's what we do, it's who we are. Anyone is welcome to practice any

    > religion
    > > they like, knowing that it's their right to do so...but being in this
    > > country you should know that you will be experiencing Christianity
    > > everywhere you go because it's what we do as a people, it's why we

    founded
    > > this nation.
    > >
    > > The whole idea of 'political correctness', or the attempt to discontinue

    > any
    > > and all actions that could potentially offend someone is ridiculous.

    When
    > > was the constitution amended to provide for a right not to be offended?

    > What
    > > kind of nation of over-sensitive wimps have we become?
    > >
    > > P.S. - if the goverment makes a ruling that the monument must go...it's
    > > gotta go, no matter what my feelings on the subject.
    > >
    > > Keep in mind that I'm not telling you that this is what you should

    > believe,
    > > this is simply what I believe and I welcome opposing/supporting

    opinions.
    > >
    > > Wow...my sig certainly applies to this post! :)
    > > --
    > >
    > > ...Joey
    > >
    > > "...so hold the mustard on those flames, y'all." - Aaron Draper
    > >
    > > "Doug Fuller" <doug_fuller_62@earthlink.net(remove_underscores)> wrote

    in
    > > message news:lWe3b.19061$8i2.12613@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > > > "NoSheeples" <n2new@aol.comNsheep> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > What is this society coming to? Are people really that weak minded

    > that
    > > > they
    > > > > are afraid an artifact of our nations history with some simple

    rules
    > > that
    > > > are
    > > > > good to adhere by, will influence them?
    > > >
    > > > I don't think that's the case at all.
    > > >
    > > > > I have come to the conclusion that
    > > > > these busy bodies who fight to have this stuff removed are evil. The
    > > > > commandments likely remind them of their own shortcomings, and they

    > > can't
    > > > deal
    > > > > with it.
    > > >
    > > > Objection. Speculative.
    > > >
    > > > > Just having a plaque there does not violate the constitution, nor
    > > > > does it impose any religion.
    > > >
    > > > It may not violate the constitution verbatim but it violates the

    spirit
    > of
    > > > the constitution.
    > > >
    > > > > There are plenty of things that offend me that are
    > > > > secular which by the way is a religion in it's self.
    > > >
    > > > Things that offend you and government sponsored valueless opinions are

    > two
    > > > different things. Secular means not religious or religiously neutral.

    > Do
    > > > you mean athesism?
    > > >
    > > > > The term separation of church and state is no were mentioned in the
    > > > > constitution, it's a made up term used to bastardize the meaning of

    > the
    > > > law
    > > > > congress passed that says they shall make no laws regarding

    religion.
    > > >
    > > > True, but the spirit is what's important. Plus, freedom of religion

    > also
    > > > means freedom FROM religion.
    > > >
    > > > > The
    > > > > court ruling was wrong, but because this is a nation of laws we must
    > > > respect
    > > > > the decision.
    > > >
    > > > The court ruling was right.
    > > >
    > > > > The expo-facto law coming from the bench by activist Judges is ten

    > times
    > > > more
    > > > > scary then the ten commandments. How much do you want to bet that

    our
    > > > currency
    > > > > is next? The word God is slowly trying to be removed from our

    > society.
    > > >
    > > > > Is this really a good thing?
    > > >
    > > > Yes.
    > > >
    > > > > Does this make us better people?
    > > >
    > > > I don't know. Does having it make us good people?
    > > >
    > > > > Saying that having the ten commandments in a court room is
    > > > unconstitutional is
    > > > > a stretch by anyone's imagination.
    > > >
    > > > Then I guess we should go ahead and place quotes from every other

    > > religious
    > > > doctrine in the world in every courtroom in the country. That's just

    > > silly.
    > > >
    > > > > It's not so much the fact that the plauqe
    > > > > was removed that bothers me, it's the insane activisim behind it

    that
    > is
    > > > the
    > > > > threat.
    > > >
    > > > Insane activism put it there in the first place.
    > > >
    > > > > It's not the like Judge made people read it.
    > > >
    > > > If he didn't want people to read it then nobody should have a problem

    > with
    > > > it not being there.
    > > >
    > > > > The way I always looked at
    > > > > these things, if something offends you then you don't have to look

    at
    > > it.
    > > >
    > > > Except in the case where MY tax money is involved.
    > > >
    > > > > Maybe
    > > > > im just odd, but having to stand in a elevator with a a 500 pound

    > > smelly
    > > > > lardass is way more offense then the ten commandments.
    > > >
    > > > Ditto above.
    > > >
    > > > > If it were leagle I
    > > > > would take pleasure in shooting people that are so called offended

    by
    > > > everyting
    > > > > today. This includes everything from names of baseball teams to

    > people
    > > > wearing
    > > > > a cross on their neck at work.
    > > > > I thought of a way to fight back, and that would be telling the jew

    at
    > > > work who
    > > > > displays his beilives to remove the stuff, but then it occured to me

    > > that
    > > > I
    > > > > would just be another low life like the ones who go around doing

    this
    > > > stuff.
    > > > > Why can't people just go about their daily lives and ignore

    something
    > > they
    > > > > don't like?
    > > >
    > > > Why can't people just go about their daily lives and keep their silly
    > > > opinions to themselves?
    > > >
    > > > > The answer is because they have none. Im not going to follow up on

    > > this,
    > > > and
    > > > > im not trolling, ok I have some swamp land to. ;o) No really, I was

    > > just
    > > > > curious what others thought even if you're athiest, because the

    > athiest
    > > I
    > > > have
    > > > > talked to are not bothered by displays of the ten comandments. I

    look
    > > at
    > > > this
    > > > > as no different then a nude bar down the street that local judge

    makes
    > > up
    > > > law
    > > > > to have it removed. That is essentially what was done here.
    > > >
    > > > > "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch.

    > Liberty
    > > > is
    > > > > a well armed lamb protesting the vote."
    > > >
    > > > This I like however ;-)
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > Cheers,
    > > > Doug Fuller
    > > > Boston
    > > > doug_fuller_62@earthlink.net (remove all underscores)
    > > > "It's all in the mama-daddies."
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
  9. Re: The Ten comandments.

    Da Parrot-chick <just@sk.me> wrote:

    > <bjacoby@users.iwaynet.net> wrote in message


    > Secular humanism...I haven't heard that term in maybe 15 years. Didn't it
    > spring up when the religious paranoiacs were trying to affix creationism as
    > the method by which the Grand Canyon was carved?


    Nice ad-hominem attack there chickie-poo, but I wasn't talking either
    paranoia nor Grand Canyon carving.

    > You cab practice whatever faith you want, but you can't force it on others
    > who don't want it. That's what the issue was.


    No it isn't. The issue is not *anyone* but that the STATE cannot force
    religion on others. Jehovahs witnesses are free to ring doorbells etc.

    > I'd bet this was a large group blocking the way for others.


    Was not. It's a general policy! Go test it and find out.

    > Religious symbols removed from the offices
    >> of the faithful who work for the state.


    > Not from private offices or cubicles. Just public areas.


    What is a "private" office of a public employee? Nice try?

    > The justices who approved that did so openly, not unilaterally and certainly
    > not under cover of darkness and without telling anybody.


    You have a point. There may be an issue here of exactly who has
    the authority over the display area in question. But I'm not really
    trying to get into the details of the specific case. (I really
    don't know that many of them).

    > Horse hockey. Freedom from religion means no one can force upon you the
    > tenets of their faith.


    First of all the question is of the STATE forcing tenets, not just
    anyone. And so long as they don't break the law, people DO have
    the right to recruit new members. The STATE on the other hand by
    law is REQUIRED to stand above the fray. And that includes making
    laws to inhibit the fray to please your sensibilities.

    > Oh, so you wouldn't mind a group of Hare Krishnas setting up shop on the
    > sidewalk in front of your house or hallway of your apartment building and
    > chanting all day? Let 'em know, Ben. They'd appreciate you not being so
    > insecure as to have a problem with their free expression.


    Hey, I mind the crap coming out of YOUR pie hole! BUT that doesn't
    mean I don't support your or the Hare Krisna's right to flap it.
    This means of course that they can't block traffic nor chant
    at rock and roll levels breaking noise laws, but otherwise,
    the constitution says the STATE can't pass a law to stop them.

    Of course *I* might go down there and say something! But what if all
    that chanting goes into my ear and suddenly converts my brain against
    my will!!!! Gosh next thing you know I've got a long robe and I'm
    playing percussion for their chanting.... Yeah, you are right. Get the
    SWAT team and throw their asses in jail! :)

    Benj

    --
    SPAM-Guard! Remove .users (if present) to email me!
  10. NoSheeples

    NoSheeples Guest

    Re: The Ten comandments.

    >
    >Dear TommyGBombadildo;
    > Goddam that's beatiful...
    >
    > Finnegan's Original WakeupCaller;
    > jmt
    >


    Is this what it takes to make you crawl out of your hole? ;o)

    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch. Liberty is
    a well armed lamb protesting the vote."
  11. Re: The Ten comandments.

    David Crigger <dc@davidcrigger.com> wrote:

    > No Ben - the point is the law of the land is that there shall be NO STATE
    > RELIGION.


    Exactly!

    > Forbidding religious artifacts from court rooms, police stations, - places
    > where individuals are by definition dealing directly with the STATE is
    > essential to the basic premise of Freedom of Religion. The STATE is not only
    > not to show favorites - it is not to involve itself AT ALL. "Congress shall
    > make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - directly from the
    > Bill of Rights.


    The point you are missing is that Atheism, Secular Humanism etc.
    are ALSO religions! They deal with viewpoints of higher powers.
    Therefore when the state adopts the symbols of those religions
    and establishes them by LAW they are establishing a STATE religion.
    The fact that the symbols of these religions is the ABSENCE of
    religious symbols doesn't change the argument.

    We went through all this here when the Klan decided to put up a
    "Christmas" cross on the statehouse lawn. (No, they didn't burn
    it. :) Everyone argued like you. That there should be no "religious"
    displays allowed at all. But happily this court discision followed the
    law and determined that the state could NOT interfere with anyone's
    religious displays no matter who they were. So now the Klan cross
    goes up. Some Jewish group always puts up a menorah some other groups
    put up some of their symbols too. The Atheists find the whole thing
    TOTALLY offensive and are still demanding that their symbols (none)
    be made official by the state, but the issue has been pretty much
    settled. The state stays ABOVE the fray!

    Benj
  12. Re: The Ten comandments.

    George Lawrence <drumguru@ameritech.net> wrote:

    > I imagine the next thing to go will be the swearing on the Bible in the
    > courtroom which is, of course, just a tradition and not a legal act.


    As far as I know, this is already long gone. Generally speaking,
    only Christians are asked to swear on a bible. Those of other
    religions with other holy books are asked to swear on their
    own book and those following beliefs without holy books are
    simple asked to "promise and affirm" (or something like that)
    that what they say will be the truth. Of course times change
    slowly and I can imagine some courts in the boonies where the
    bible thing is still enforced.

    Benj
    --
    SPAM-Guard! Remove .users (if present) to email me!
  13. Re: The Ten comandments.

    SCW <adsl001@verizon.net> wrote:
    > I don't understand why Athiests are so afraid of
    > something they don't even believe in. I'm
    > agnostic and am in no way threatened by other
    > people's faith.


    AMEN! :)
    Spoken like a true American!

    Benj

    --
    SPAM-Guard! Remove .users (if present) to email me!

  14. > I thought of a way to fight back, and that would be telling the jew at work
    > who
    > displays his beilives to remove the stuff, but then it occured to me that I
    > would just be another low life like the ones who go around doing this stuff.
    > Why can't people just go about their daily lives and ignore something they
    > don't like?
    > The answer is because they have none. Im not going to follow up on this, and
    > im not trolling, ok I have some swamp land to. ;o) No really, I was just
    > curious what others thought even if you're athiest, because the athiest I have
    > talked to are not bothered by displays of the ten comandments. I look at this
    > as no different then a nude bar down the street that local judge makes up law
    > to have it removed. That is essentially what was done here.



    I do think you hit the nail on the head....with busybodies being threatened
    by having the Ten Commandments displayed. Maybe they should give those of us
    ALL their money that aren't....because it says "In God We Trust" last time I
    looked;-)

    However, I can see both sides of this issue.

    Many of the founding fathers of this country embraced Christian faith, but
    it was not a "Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell" kind of faith. For example, I
    think Jefferson was a deist, etc..etc...

    I think "Robertson/Falwell" kind of faith was readily found in Salem,
    Massachusetts during the witchcraft hysteria.

    A balance of moral values is needed, but I would not want people like this
    in control of anything as I think it would lead to something similar to the
    Taliban, given time.

    I think that may be where keeping any religious things in government in
    check is a good thing.

    However to go completely secular (and in my opinion that is denying that a
    spiritual life exists....regardless of faith or philosophy) to be a mistake.
    IMO, the secular god of this country is the love of money and where I
    personally see this lack is in the general media.....not allowing the heart
    and soul of artists to come through....rather ALWAYS looking for the quick
    buck, rather than the quality and sincerity of the work.

    I have seen a decline of values in society in general. Where I personally
    saw this most was when I was a school teacher (K-12) and how in many
    instances, there was a lack of any kind of respect for rules, making it
    difficult to do your job. Unfortunately, this seemed to be backed up by
    parents of the most unruly kids. I am not ancient, but I certainly remember
    the days when the teacher issued a punishment, most parents questioned their
    kid......"what do you think you are doing?..."you're grounded", and the
    teacher's word was considered the truth in the matter, etc.. Now the
    teacher's motives in discipline are always questioned and the kids are too
    empowered by this....because of the attitude of many parents, IMO to
    challenge the teacher. I am not talking about corporal punishment issues, I
    am talking about issuing after-school detentions and minor things like this
    for back talk, disrupting the class, etc..

    I simply tired of having to deal with and fight this kind of thing and
    welcomed teaching music as an adjunct instructor at the college level after
    putting up with endless discipline problems and then not really having a
    back-up at times with adminstration who were afraid of being sued
    themselves, etc.. However, I did work for a principal, who didn't care about
    lawsuits and had to deal with a couple himself..just for enforcing the
    rules. These court cases ended up to be decided all in his favor, however,
    he resented the time wasted in court when all he wanted to do was his job in
    running the school.

    I am a Christian, but I could not see myself sitting down to dinner with
    "Robertson/Falwell" types. We always need to be wary of this kind of stuff,
    as I think it boils down to emotionalism and control. However, I do not like
    the idea of a totally secular society either.

    So what to do? Take responsibility for your own spiritual life, I guess is
    the only way I know how to deal with it.

    Linda
  15. jmt

    jmt Guest

    Re: The Ten comandments.

    Dear WhenAManLovesAnInflatableWoman;

    Yeah, pretty much...

    Winning Friends and Influencing Sheeple;
    jmt

    NoSheeples wrote:

    >>Dear TommyGBombadildo;
    >> Goddam that's beatiful...
    >>
    >> Finnegan's Original WakeupCaller;
    >> jmt
    >>

    >
    >
    > Is this what it takes to make you crawl out of your hole? ;o)
    >
    > "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch. Liberty is
    > a well armed lamb protesting the vote."
    >
  16. Re: The Ten comandments.

    <bjacoby@users.iwaynet.net> wrote in message
    news:bil9jf$jtr$1@tribune.oar.net...
    > Da Parrot-chick <just@sk.me> wrote:
    >
    > > <bjacoby@users.iwaynet.net> wrote in message

    >
    > > Secular humanism...I haven't heard that term in maybe 15 years. Didn't

    it
    > > spring up when the religious paranoiacs were trying to affix creationism

    as
    > > the method by which the Grand Canyon was carved?

    >
    > Nice ad-hominem attack there chickie-poo, but I wasn't talking either
    > paranoia nor Grand Canyon carving.


    The religious paranoiacs and you used the exact same phrase, in the exact
    same context. That was the point, Benjy.

    > > You cab practice whatever faith you want, but you can't force it on

    others
    > > who don't want it. That's what the issue was.

    >
    > No it isn't. The issue is not *anyone* but that the STATE cannot force
    > religion on others. Jehovahs witnesses are free to ring doorbells etc.


    Who do you think the state is? WE are!

    > > I'd bet this was a large group blocking the way for others.

    >
    > Was not. It's a general policy! Go test it and find out.


    I wouldn't begin to know where to look. I was speculating. It'd be
    interesting to see why that law was implemented.

    > > Religious symbols removed from the offices
    > >> of the faithful who work for the state.

    >
    > > Not from private offices or cubicles. Just public areas.

    >
    > What is a "private" office of a public employee? Nice try?


    I'd define that as an area separated from other areas and offering a modicum
    of privacy. If I worked in one of those (which I never have, not outside my
    house and some tiny bandstands) and a coworker in the stall next to me
    brought in some religious icon and put it up, I wouldn't have a problem. If
    that coworker brought in an unwieldy, cumbersome icon and sat it in the
    middle of the floor then we'd have to talk. See the difference?

    > > The justices who approved that did so openly, not unilaterally and

    certainly
    > > not under cover of darkness and without telling anybody.

    >
    > You have a point. There may be an issue here of exactly who has
    > the authority over the display area in question. But I'm not really
    > trying to get into the details of the specific case. (I really
    > don't know that many of them).


    I can dig it. This was a material fact though--why sneak it in? I'd call
    it a recipe for grandstanding and publicity. It also made it easier for his
    8 GOP-affiliated brethren to bounce this whole notion.

    > > Horse hockey. Freedom from religion means no one can force upon you the
    > > tenets of their faith.

    >
    > First of all the question is of the STATE forcing tenets, not just
    > anyone. And so long as they don't break the law, people DO have
    > the right to recruit new members. The STATE on the other hand by
    > law is REQUIRED to stand above the fray. And that includes making
    > laws to inhibit the fray to please your sensibilities.


    Again, Benjy, WE are the state. And it's one thing to consider a polite
    request as recruitment, like those Jehovah's Witnesses who come to your door
    wanting to hand out literature, or FOI selling copies of "Muhammed Speaks".
    It's quite another to have their religious views forced on you in a way that
    you cannot help but deal with, like a 2.5 ton chunk of granite sitting in
    the middle of a rotunda of a building where all folks are spoze to be
    considered equal.

    > > Oh, so you wouldn't mind a group of Hare Krishnas setting up shop on the
    > > sidewalk in front of your house or hallway of your apartment building

    and
    > > chanting all day? Let 'em know, Ben. They'd appreciate you not being

    so
    > > insecure as to have a problem with their free expression.

    >
    > Hey, I mind the crap coming out of YOUR pie hole!


    Why? I don't mind your crap. Diversity makes the world go round.

    BUT that doesn't
    > mean I don't support your or the Hare Krisna's right to flap it.
    > This means of course that they can't block traffic nor chant
    > at rock and roll levels breaking noise laws, but otherwise,
    > the constitution says the STATE can't pass a law to stop them.


    Also big-arse hunks of granite in the middle of yada yada blah blah.

    > Of course *I* might go down there and say something! But what if all
    > that chanting goes into my ear and suddenly converts my brain against
    > my will!!!! Gosh next thing you know I've got a long robe and I'm
    > playing percussion for their chanting....


    You'd never be able to play in 5 again, though. And no more Bird and Diz,
    either.

    Yeah, you are right. Get the
    > SWAT team and throw their asses in jail! :)


    You'd get someone else to handle it? You couldn't take care of it yourself?
    Hm.
  17. Joey Furr

    Joey Furr Guest

    Re: The Ten comandments.

    And with friends like you, who needs enemas?
    :)
    --

    ....Joey
    "...so hold the mustard on those flames, y'all." - Aaron Draper

    "jmt" <jmt@shawneelink.net> wrote in message
    news:bile93$alo54$1@ID-46790.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > Dear WhenAManLovesAnInflatableWoman;
    >
    > Yeah, pretty much...
    >
    > Winning Friends and Influencing Sheeple;
    > jmt
    >
    > NoSheeples wrote:
    >
    > >>Dear TommyGBombadildo;
    > >> Goddam that's beatiful...
    > >>
    > >> Finnegan's Original WakeupCaller;
    > >> jmt
    > >>

    > >
    > >
    > > Is this what it takes to make you crawl out of your hole? ;o)
    > >
    > > "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch. Liberty

    is
    > > a well armed lamb protesting the vote."
    > >

    >
  18. jmt

    jmt Guest

    Re: The Ten comandments.

    Dear Furry;
    The Enema of my Enema is my Friend?
    Regularly Yours;
    jmt

    Joey Furr wrote:

    > And with friends like you, who needs enemas?
    > :)
  19. Adam

    Adam Guest

    Re: The Ten comandments.

    NoSheeples (n2new@aol.comNsheep) wrote:

    <Snip>
    >>Then I guess we should go ahead and place quotes from every
    >>other religious doctrine in the world in every courtroom in
    >>the country. That's just silly.

    >
    > Well I guess we should remove In god we trust from our
    > currnecy then, right? After all, one dollar bills could start
    > rearing the face of Saddam right? It's not fair that
    > Washington is on there. ;o)


    "God" is not necessarily denominational. Most majority religious
    groups have a "god" or some concept of a supreme being.

    --
    <INSERT SIG HERE>
  20. Re: The Ten comandments.

    in article Zop3b.16263$Ih1.5721265@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com, George
    Lawrence at drumguru@ameritech.net wrote on 8/28/03 8:41 AM:


    > I think many of these acknowlegements
    > like the coins, swearing on the bible, are sentimental traditions that are
    > innocuous. They don't bother me.


    I think they are to and as such they don't bother me. They are troublesome
    in that they seem to encourage and in some ways empower the "this country
    was founded on Christianity by Christians for Christians" camp. I would
    assume that swearing on the bible was more than a sentimentality to the
    judge in question here.

    George, all very well put (your previous post as well)

    David

Share This Page