OT: The Ten comandments.

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

  1. Re: The Ten comandments.

    George Lawrence <drumguru@ameritech.net> wrote:

    > There are so few atheists, Ben.


    I don't know numbers but I doubt they are "few". The way the
    theory of evolution has been taught as "fact" has seen to that.
    And even if they are relatively few, they sure are LOUD! Just the
    way the few rake the "christ-boys" in this group over the coals
    regularly proves that. :)

    > Most who oppose state sanction of religous symbols and practices are theists
    > of different stripes and are usually motivated by political, not religous
    > reasons. Keeping fundamentalists at bay is not just an atheist thing. This
    > latest round was started by a fundie judge and you've taken his bait.


    Obviously I also oppose state endorsement (I don't want to use the
    word "sanction" here) of any religion. And while I agree that there is a
    large Christian element in the founding and history of this country,
    I also strongly disagree with the fundamentalist proposition that this
    is somehow a "Christian" country. And therefore should be "officially"
    turned into one by law.

    But here is where I and the "no God" crowd part ways. The American
    idea is not only that the there shall be no state endorsed religion,
    but ALSO that the practice of religion by believers shall not
    be inhibited by law. The Atheist/agnostic/etc. bunch has interpreted
    this to mean that's its just fine if those kooks get a private
    building somewhere and up their "idols" and chant whatever
    they want to sing and shout nicely out of sight. That's fine. But if
    such people suddenly choose to actually make their religion part of
    their life and actually LIVE it! WHOA! That's public display of
    symbols! That violates the mythical "separation of church and state"
    and the few (but loud) crowd suddenly is filing lawsuit after lawsuit.

    And it's FAR worse than that. They've done this for so long now that
    hardcore religious symbols and actions aren't enough. Now they
    have started on things with true historical basis and value.
    They are suing to strip any traditional seasonal liturgy from
    a "holiday" show (don't dare call it a Christmas show anymore)
    Music has to be limited to Teresa Brewer singing about mommy
    kissing Santa Claus. It's like the old USSR where any religious
    references historical or otherwise were methodically stripped out
    of encyclopedias and books.

    You know, George, there was a time when the very same kind
    of arguments we are hearing now about people practicing
    religion and people being forced to tolerate other people
    with different faiths were argued about other races!
    The Jew who sued to get traditional liturgy out of the
    public school show because he found it "offensive" was
    not so long ago himself found "offensive" just by existing
    and many argued that so long as he stayed separate and hidden
    things were fine.

    So were they fine? Nope. 100 years of "separate but equal"
    showed that in the end it had to be if you are offended
    by another's race, too bad. Get over it! America stated
    from the beginning that "all men are created equal".
    And I think that one day not too far off, these people
    who have such a cow over public display of a person's religion
    are also going to have to get over it. And I'm talking
    about people on ALL sides!

    Maybe not tomorrow, but one day. I think that is what the
    ideals of America demand.

    As for the judge having me be "had", can't say. But I can say
    that the issue needs to be decided on proper issues and not
    on that mythical "separation of church and state" old saw.

    That's what I say.

    benj
    (Who very much agrees that most of these disputes are started
    for political not religious reasons)
  2. Glenn Dowdy

    Glenn Dowdy Guest

    Re: The Ten comandments.

    "Joey Furr" <joeyfurr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:JaecnZB6HKWqUNKiXTWJhg@comcast.com...
    > "Da Parrot-chick" <just@sk.me> wrote in message
    > >
    > > Right. Atheists and agnostics want proof. You can't have faith and

    > demand
    > > proof at the same time.

    >
    > Incorrect. Although I know I shouldnt have needed proof as a

    Christian...as
    > a scientifically minded man I did demand proof...and got it.
    > You just have to be willing to look.


    You have scientifically verifiable proof of the existence of the Christian
    God?
    >
    > If you sincerely look...you WILL find proof.
    >

    Perhaps, but I shouldn't need faith to find truth. Don't want to bias the
    experiments.

    Glenn D.
  3. Re: The Ten comandments.

    BKO <brentolesenNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > ben,


    > A definition (as you should know) requires two parts: the part where it
    > includes and the part where it excludes: e.g., a Gretsch drum has the
    > qualities that make it a drum, but also has specific qualities that
    > distinguish it from other drums. Your position that atheism is a religion
    > seems to me to ignore the exclusionary part. This leads to the conclusion
    > that every little group get together is a religion, just so long as the
    > people involved believe something. You can hold your view, it's not a big
    > thing, but you've robbed the word of significance. If 'everything' is
    > religion, then 'nothing' is.


    I never said "everything" is religion! I only point out that:
    1. Being an organized group is not essential to the definition.
    2. There is no membership requirement. A membership of "1" is enough.
    3. There is an element of "ardor and faith".

    Ardor means you strongly believe it. And faith means you do that
    even though there is no actual proof of what you believe.

    I believe atheism and the atheists fit these criteria. (They were
    even organized for a time historically). But the assertion
    that my interest in conspiracy theories is a "religion"
    actually does not. First I'm really not in all that big
    an "ardor" and I DO demand reasonable proof to accept a
    given theory. No faith involved. So no, everything is
    not a religion. Discussing unproven theories is not
    religion either, but strongly asserting they are true
    without any actual proof is!

    Benj
    --
    SPAM-Guard! Remove .users (if present) to email me!
  4. Mark Rance

    Mark Rance Guest

    Re: The Ten comandments.

    Faith is the path to Truth. Why it is that you should not need faith to
    find Truth is beyond me.
    I suppose it is a function of the degree of Truth that you're seeking.

    -Mark
  5. Re: The Ten comandments.

    Glenn Dowdy <glenn.dowdy@nospam.com> wrote:

    > Well, if I could get the converts to give me 10% of their money, I'd sure
    > try.


    Lessee. Where is that email address of the "church of the swimming
    elephant"? :)

    Benj
    --
    SPAM-Guard! Remove .users (if present) to email me!
  6. Mark Rance

    Mark Rance Guest

    Re: The Ten comandments.

    Glenn,

    You'll figure it out someday, I know that you will. I also understand that
    you (probably) already think that you have it figured out. As per usual,
    perhaps you do not know what it is that you do *not* know. Just a
    thought....and no need to turn it back on me. Just, please, take it for
    what it is worth.

    -Mark



    "Glenn Dowdy" <glenn.dowdy@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:deP3b.3753$hV7.124@news.cpqcorp.net...
    >
    > "Mark Rance" <mrr@pcisys.network> wrote in message
    > news:vkvdd1g65ntqf8@corp.supernews.com...
    > >
    > >
    > > Not "worse than", but rather, "as good as."
    > >

    > Heh.
    >
    > Glenn D.
    >
    >
  7. Glenn Dowdy

    Glenn Dowdy Guest

    Re: The Ten comandments.

    "Mark Rance" <mrr@pcisys.network> wrote in message
    news:vkvk9oi67vk5c4@corp.supernews.com...
    > Faith is the path to Truth. Why it is that you should not need faith to
    > find Truth is beyond me.
    > I suppose it is a function of the degree of Truth that you're seeking.
    >

    Remember, you're talking to a mathematician. Truth and facts stand by
    themselves. There is no faith required. If by Truth you're talking about the
    way in which any religion equates their tenets with capital T Truth, then
    what you say makes sense to those who believe the same way you do.
    Otherwise, it is an argument that in many cases fails to meet the standards
    for acceptable science.

    Glenn D.
  8. Glenn Dowdy

    Glenn Dowdy Guest

    Re: The Ten comandments.

    <bjacoby@users.iwaynet.net> wrote in message
    news:biojfl$c5$3@tribune.oar.net...
    > Glenn Dowdy <glenn.dowdy@nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    > > Well, if I could get the converts to give me 10% of their money, I'd

    sure
    > > try.

    >
    > Lessee. Where is that email address of the "church of the swimming
    > elephant"? :)
    >

    Like letters to Santa at the North Pole, I think that mail sent to Big Ass
    Castle, Carolina should arrive with no problem.

    Glenn D.
  9. Glenn Dowdy

    Glenn Dowdy Guest

    Re: The Ten comandments.

    "Mark Rance" <mrr@pcisys.network> wrote in message
    news:vkvkfgo3ltk53d@corp.supernews.com...
    > Glenn,
    >
    > You'll figure it out someday, I know that you will. I also understand

    that
    > you (probably) already think that you have it figured out. As per usual,
    > perhaps you do not know what it is that you do *not* know. Just a
    > thought....and no need to turn it back on me. Just, please, take it for
    > what it is worth.
    >

    Have no doubt that I have.

    Glenn D.
  10. Re: The Ten comandments.

    Glenn Dowdy <glenn.dowdy@nospam.com> wrote:

    >> this way: "A system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".


    > Like NASCAR and WWF?


    Um, depends if there is any proof available? :)

    > I see this more of preventing a particular system of believes from gaining
    > favor. If the courthouse in Montgomery displayed holy symbols of every
    > religion registered as a tax free organization in the state, then I wouldn't
    > care as much.


    See now you've put your finger on it. If the symbols of EVERY
    tax-free religion are OK, then just one of them should be too!
    It's just like the situtation on our statehouse lawn. If the state is
    out of the issue, then who puts what there, and how many
    are there is not part of the issue.

    People being offended is not the issue. A fundie Real estate broker
    I know put these huge bible quotes on the side of his building.
    The neighbors had a cow and the city had a cow and tried to
    get them removed with the sign ordinance. NOPE, said the
    court. His fundamental right to his beliefs supercedes his
    neigbors being offended and the city's sign law. The state is
    prohibited from interfering. They are still up there. (Ugly too!)

    Benj

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

    "BKO" <brentolesenNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:S3J3b.126582$2x.37441@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
    > Hey Phil,
    >
    > what is your native language?
    >
    > BKO


    I don't know, but after the longwinded crap he's been posting, I wish it
    were sign language.

    CM
  12. Adam <adamNOleith@talkspam21.com> wrote:

    > Come on Ben, that wasnt what he meant and you know it. I'd have
    > expected better from you of all people.
    > Play nice, children.


    No, I think that was exactly the point. And he did make it
    well. Freedom of religion does not mean that anyone can
    set up a church and go there an do what they want where
    nobody who disagrees can see them and be offended. Freedom
    means just that. A person can actually LIVE their faith
    and go out and actually offend others who believe differently
    and the state cannot make laws to "protect" those offended
    persons from being offended.

    I think Parrot-chick hit the nail on the head implying that
    religion is something that ONLY happens in a church etc.
    My point was that this view is not correct. I think the
    analogy of that view to segregationist views in the past
    is clear. Needless to say we all (should) agree that that
    thinking proved unviable and wrong.

    Benj
    (Who IS playing nice! You should see what I'm like when
    I REALLY get going! I've been trained on the 'bots in
    talk.politics.guns :)

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

    "Chris Milillo" <drums@bestweb.net> wrote in message
    news:biokvm$koq$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
    > "BKO" <brentolesenNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:S3J3b.126582$2x.37441@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
    > > Hey Phil,
    > >
    > > what is your native language?
    > >
    > > BKO

    >
    > I don't know, but after the longwinded crap he's been posting, I wish

    it
    > were sign language.
    >
    > CM


    That is pretty good Chris. I could not agree more.
  14. <bjacoby@users.iwaynet.net> wrote in message
    news:biol6u$27a$1@tribune.oar.net...
    > Adam <adamNOleith@talkspam21.com> wrote:
    >
    > > Come on Ben, that wasnt what he meant and you know it. I'd have
    > > expected better from you of all people.
    > > Play nice, children.

    >
    > No, I think that was exactly the point. And he did make it
    > well. Freedom of religion does not mean that anyone can
    > set up a church and go there an do what they want where
    > nobody who disagrees can see them and be offended.


    Well, pretty much it doesm actually. If you can get a certain number of
    people to join your sect, you can be a minister with property tax-exempt
    status. Ever hear of the 24-Hour Church of Elvis? Right here in PDX. Look
    it up.

    Freedom
    > means just that. A person can actually LIVE their faith
    > and go out and actually offend others who believe differently
    > and the state cannot make laws to "protect" those offended
    > persons from being offended.


    It depends on what you mean by offend. There's a man here in town who goes
    to public events in parks and such, music in the park sort of things, and
    screams at the top of his lungs about Jesus is coming to judge sinners and
    such. The courts ruled his right to do so superseded the public
    disturbance. I know, it's whack. Then there's another fellow who decided
    he would take his derr rifle and shoot doctors performing abortions. Sniper
    he was. The courts ruled in our favor--he's to be executed in a few weeks.
    Boy will he be surprised when he meets St. Peter!

    > I think Parrot-chick hit the nail on the head implying that
    > religion is something that ONLY happens in a church etc.
    > My point was that this view is not correct.


    I don't blame you for taking that view of my implication, Ben, but I didn't
    mean it that way. I musta not been clear. Religion starts in the heart and
    that's where it's based. You can reach God anywhere: in jail, on a
    mountaintop, in a cave, a mall, or on your deathbed. Some of my most
    meaningful conversations with God have been on the gig.

    I think the
    > analogy of that view to segregationist views in the past
    > is clear. Needless to say we all (should) agree that that
    > thinking proved unviable and wrong.


    Care to elaborate? I'm not sure I'm following you.

    > Benj
    > Who IS playing nice! You should see what I'm like when
    > I REALLY get going!


    We have. But hey, we're still here talking to you.
  15. Re: The Ten comandments.

    "Roger Sherman" <coolgrooves@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:pan.2003.08.29.19.09.26.422229@hotmail.com...
    >After all, one
    > of the core beliefs of Buddhism is called "actual proof."


    As is the core belief of Mike Clarkism! ;-)


    Funkfully,
    CM
  16. Re: The Ten comandments.

    "Joey Furr" <joeyfurr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:JBSdnQcz6-UtVtKiU-KYuQ@comcast.com...
    > Classic! Somehow, someway,...it's gotta be Bush's fault.
    >
    > LOL.
    >
    > ...Joey


    Hell no! It's always been Clinton's fault! Everybody knows that!

    I wish the GOP held Dubya to the same standard as Clinton. Wonder what an
    independent counsel and $52 million would turn up?
  17. Re: The Ten comandments.

    "Joey Furr" <joeyfurr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:JaecnZB6HKWqUNKiXTWJhg@comcast.com...
    > "Da Parrot-chick" <just@sk.me> wrote in message
    > news:UlM3b.623$tw6.470@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > >
    > > <bjacoby@users.iwaynet.net> wrote in message
    > > news:binpa2$d4v$1@tribune.oar.net...
    > > > George Lawrence <drumguru@ameritech.net> wrote:
    > > > > I will accept that atheism and agnosticism are world views, but not
    > > > > "religions". Religion can safely be defined in the broadest sense as

    > > man's
    > > > > expression of his acknowledgement of the divine. Because neither

    > atheism
    > > and
    > > > > agnosticism acknowledge the divine, they are not religions. They are

    > the
    > > > > lack of religion.
    > > >
    > > > Yes, saying that has been a ploy of the atheists, agnostics etc.
    > > > for some time, and worded as you word it makes sense. But I say
    > > > religion is not solely defined as an "expression of his

    acknowledgement
    > > > of the divine". Yes, Religion as found in organized churches

    definitely
    > > > is "religion". But that isn't quite enough. The Dictionary puts it
    > > > this way: "A system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".

    > >
    > > Right. Atheists and agnostics want proof. You can't have faith and

    > demand
    > > proof at the same time.

    >
    > Incorrect. Although I know I shouldnt have needed proof as a

    Christian...as
    > a scientifically minded man I did demand proof...and got it.
    > You just have to be willing to look.
    >
    > If you sincerely look...you WILL find proof.
    >
    > ...Joey


    Joey, trust me on this. You do not want to go down that road. Don't do it.
    Resist temptation.
  18. Glenn Dowdy

    Glenn Dowdy Guest

    Re: The Ten comandments.

    <bjacoby@users.iwaynet.net> wrote in message
    news:biok7i$1fs$1@tribune.oar.net...
    > Glenn Dowdy <glenn.dowdy@nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    > >> this way: "A system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".

    >
    > > Like NASCAR and WWF?

    >
    > Um, depends if there is any proof available? :)


    I hope the hell not.

    >
    > > I see this more of preventing a particular system of believes from

    gaining
    > > favor. If the courthouse in Montgomery displayed holy symbols of every
    > > religion registered as a tax free organization in the state, then I

    wouldn't
    > > care as much.

    >
    > See now you've put your finger on it. If the symbols of EVERY
    > tax-free religion are OK, then just one of them should be too!


    Only if there would be no objection to a second one, and you know that if
    someone brought in a big Star of David or Russian Orthodox icon and set it
    next to the tablet, it would not have been tolerated by the same folks
    protesting the removal.

    > It's just like the situtation on our statehouse lawn. If the state is
    > out of the issue, then who puts what there, and how many
    > are there is not part of the issue.


    I'm not that concerned with religious symbols. I am concerned that someone
    who refuses to acknowledge the priority of the Law over his particular faith
    might not be the impartial jurist that those who are empowered to pass
    judgment are expected to be.
    >
    > People being offended is not the issue. A fundie Real estate broker
    > I know put these huge bible quotes on the side of his building.
    > The neighbors had a cow and the city had a cow and tried to
    > get them removed with the sign ordinance. NOPE, said the
    > court. His fundamental right to his beliefs supercedes his
    > neigbors being offended and the city's sign law. The state is
    > prohibited from interfering. They are still up there. (Ugly too!)


    No problem. I don't expect people to give their personal beliefs, and I even
    accept conversion attempts from those whose religion commands them to do so.
    To me, that's part of being a good Christian. Doesn't mean I have to like
    it, but those attempts should not violate any of my constitutional rights.

    Glenn D.
  19. Glenn Dowdy

    Glenn Dowdy Guest

    Re: The Ten comandments.

    "Da Parrot-chick" <just@sk.me> wrote in message
    news:maR3b.1048$tw6.956@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > "Joey Furr" <joeyfurr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:JBSdnQcz6-UtVtKiU-KYuQ@comcast.com...
    > > Classic! Somehow, someway,...it's gotta be Bush's fault.
    > >
    > > LOL.
    > >
    > > ...Joey

    >
    > Hell no! It's always been Clinton's fault! Everybody knows that!
    >
    > I wish the GOP held Dubya to the same standard as Clinton. Wonder what an
    > independent counsel and $52 million would turn up?
    >

    If I were selected, I guess Grand Caymans. Oh, you said 'what', not 'where'.

    Glenn D.
  20. "Are the 10 commandments
    a historical basis for modern law?"

    No. three of them are but those three are in most preceding legal codes too.
    --
    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




    <bjacoby@users.iwaynet.net> wrote in message
    news:binr62$e92$1@tribune.oar.net...
    > Linda Dachtyl <lindaleed@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >
    > > One of the things that recently happened in town was a last minute
    > > cancellation of Handel's Messiah at the arts/music vocational high

    school in
    > > the city schools system. Ft. Hayes in Columbus, Ohio to be exact.

    >
    > Yeah, leave it to good old Cowtown.
    >
    > > Regardless of one's religious beliefs (or not), this production had gone

    on
    > > for years without complaint and was a tradition that was looked forward

    to.
    > > Surely, even those without even remotely Christian beliefs recognize the
    > > value of this work as great music, regardless of how they feel about the
    > > text.

    >
    > This is exactly the kind of stripping of any "religious" references
    > from "public" performances crusade that so many are on. The historical
    > values of the music become totally overshadowed by arguments that it
    > is "religious".
    >
    > This is exactly like the monument thing. Are the 10 commandments
    > a historical basis for modern law? You bet. So ponder this one
    > for a moment. What if that judge had placed a giant granite
    > monument of the Code of Hammurabi in the lobby. In that case the
    > true issues would probably have been discussed (did he have authority
    > over the space etc.) But instead we have the people who are scared
    > of anything with even a hint of Christianity in it attacking full
    > bore. So much of history is mingled with Christianity it's really
    > a shame to see it all attacked on the basis of "Christian content".
    >
    > People can be a hoot.
    >
    > Benj
    > --
    > SPAM-Guard! Remove .users (if present) to email me!

Share This Page