|
Comments On: Two Cents On Ten Commandments
I agree that Judge Moore needs to let it go. It's stuff like this that exasperated me as a Christian - it's how we get pegged as nuts, when most of us aren't nuts, just faithful. Posted by jen at August 22, 2003 07:25 AMWell put. I agree on all counts. Posted by sama at August 22, 2003 07:59 AMI can't help but hope that maybe Alabama will secede from the Union. D Posted by david strain at August 22, 2003 08:04 AMSorry bud, but you're wrong on this one. The so-called seperation of Church and State is to guarantee freedom of religion, NOT from religion. The constitution, Declaration and all of our rights come from God NOT State. That's how our founders set it up and were very clear on the matter. Banning God from public places is remniscent of the Soviet State NOT freedom. How do the justices opposed to the display take their oath? - By swearing on the Bible. Should that also be banned from courthouses?? Posted by Tom Schneider at August 22, 2003 09:37 AMGee Tom, it also says that the government cannot endorse any one particular religion. As a Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court - a fereral institution - and by him smuggling in a monument to the ten commandments and displaying it on the rotunda (that would be a PUBLIC place), he, as an official of the federal government is in fact endorsing one religion. If a Hindu Justice were to put up a statue of Shiva it would come down so fast without an argument it wouldn't be funny. So if Judge Asshat wants to put up the Ten Commandments, then he'd better be prepared to put up the Wiccan Rede, sections of the Koran, Torah, Avesta, Tripitaka, as well as sections of the Reht Maryada, the bhagvat Gita and the Book of the Dead. And actually you can swear on any Book you hold sacred or not on one at all. Posted by Penda at August 24, 2003 04:27 PMVery good, Penda. Posted by David at August 24, 2003 05:27 PMInteresting points, everyone, now here is one to ponder:In his Farewell Address in 1796, George Washington had this to say: It is impossible to govern the world wothout God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensible supporters.Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. The reason that the fight in Alabama today is so critical, is that the Ten Commandment are the foundation of the nation. Destroy the foundation, anfd the house comes crashing down. I think that this is the purpose of the ACLU. They appear to want the house to come down so they can rebuild it in their own socialist image. Posted by Mark at August 24, 2003 07:22 PMMark: The 10 Commandments are NOT the foundation of our nation. They were used, to some degree, but to call them THE foundation is way off-base. Secondly, nobody is trying to "destroy" this supposed foundation; nobody is saying that the 10 Commandments are less valid than they were before Judge Moore began his nonsense. Nobody is preventing any christian or jew from practicing their religion, or believing in their particular god/s. Why do the fundies think that removing this monument will result in complete societal breakdown? Posted by DavidMSC at August 24, 2003 07:54 PMWrong again Penda and I'm surprised no one caught it yet. Amendment 1 says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Doesn't say anything about endorsing/not endorsing. Endorse and establish are two completely different verbs. Dave is right when he says this is inane, except he has it backwards. . .the inanity comes from the folks who want him to take it down. Guess what? When this case goes before the SCOTUS, guess what the anti-God/Bible/Religion crowd is going to see in the US Supreme Court? That's right! Depictions of not only the 10 Commandments but of Moses himself. Bottom line is if you look at the commandments from a purely secular point of view you can not deny that 4-10 are the foundation for a moral society. And no matter what God you worshipped you would do pretty good adhering to 1-3. Anyway just a observation and then some questions. . .first I didn't kow there were so many self-hating Christians out there. Secondly how come if you take a principled stand on an issue like this one or say gun rights or anything typically associated with the right/conservative segemnt of society you are a "nut," but if you take a principled stand on an issue like pro-abortion or pro-gay rights/agenda or something typically associated with the left segment of society you are "brave?" Also, where were you anti-religion folks when the California public schools were making the students dress up in Muslim garb, take Muslim names, bring prayer rugs into school, and write papers about "jihad?" Just curious. Posted by Robert Ferrau at August 25, 2003 10:44 AMSelf-hating Christians? Who are you kidding? That's like saying that people who respect gays and lesbians are self-hating heterosexuals. It's also a respect issue. How is someone who's NOT Christian walk into a courtroom like that and expect fair treatment? You can't any more than a person of color can expect to get a fair decision from a jury of all Whites. "1. "I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have " Fan-frigging-tastic. So If I don't worship God, I can't seek Justice? Gee, why obey laws at all? Since the laws are apparenly written for Christians, they don't apply to us non-Christians. Excuse me while I bust out a few windows and, I dunno, maybe boil a few babies. Far-fetched? hardly You don't understand because you're not on this side of the fence. I'm a Witch. I know exactly what the law is and what the Constitution says. And as far as the study of Islam in California schools, it was an immersion program, designed to help students understand other religions. By taking names and wearing the clothes, they got the opportunity to be Islamic for a while. It doesn't make them non-Christian anymore, or did God tell you different? I mean, if your so afraid of Christian children practicing other religions, there are a few holidays you may want to stop practicing. Posted by Penda at August 26, 2003 09:45 AMI guess to you, all Muslims are terrorists? Like all Witches are Satanists, all black are thugs, and all red-necks sleep with their sisters. Must be nice to be such an Isolationist. Everything is in such a neat monochrome package. Posted by Penda at August 26, 2003 09:55 AMPenda, first I would ask that you stop putting words in my mouth. Second I would ask that you read two articles today (8-26-03) on www.worldnetdaily.com's commentary page. One is by Alan Keyes (kinda long) and the other is by Mychal Massie. Mr Massie talks about the alleged "immersion program," but I will leave it up to you and Dave's readers to decide for yourselves if you think it is "immersion." Like Mr Massie writes, substitute "Christian" for Islam, make the kids take names from Catholic Saints, teach them the tenants of Christianity as historical fact and see people like you wet your (this is the proper use of "your" by the way) panties and run to the ACLU. All I asked is where were you anti-religion folks when the religion is question is something other than Christianity? And yes God did tell me differently. 1st Commandement as a matter of fact. Mr Keyes actually makes a strong argument that this case (Judge Moore) is not for the federal courts to decide, but again, you can read and form your own opinions. I like how you nimbly ignore the fact that the 10 Commandments are prominently displayed in the highest court in the land too. That was good. Can you also tell me what/who else I like and dislike? Pretty please? Are all Muslims terrorists? I dunno Penda, but any group that wants to forcibly convert me to their way of thinking or kill me if I don't, well I kinda tend to not like. And please don't tell me about "it's only 15% of the Muslim population who have 'hijacked' Islam." Even if that were accurate you are still dealing with 150 MILLION religious fundamentalist whackos who want to kill me, you, and anyone else who is not Muslim. On 9-11-01 they used only 19 to kill 3000. Imagine what 150 MILLION can do. And please don't tell me about the Christian Crusades. First, that was 1000 years ago. Not to dismiss them but look, when I read the headlines TODAY I do not see "Christian suicide bomber kills 43 children on bus in Jerusalem" or "Christian snipers kill American soldier in Iraq" or "Christian terrorists kill 200 in Moscow opera house" or "Christian suicide bombers blow up night club in Bali." Do you get the point? Also, whatever atrocities were commited during the Crusdaes were not limited to just the Christian soldiers. In 2003 Christianity is a very tolerant religion. We do not forcibly convert, we do not stone adulterers, we do not condone "honor killings," and we don't have suicide bombers blowing up children on a daily basis. Secondly, if you actually do some objective research on it you will find that the Crusdaes were a response to the violent spread of Islam across Europe. You bloggers spend so much time on the internet you would think you could check out a few websites and research some history a bit.A couple more things. How gracious of you to assume I "practice" those holidays to which you allude. Also, you seem to have this stereotype thing down pat. Pot calling the kettle black maybe? Finally, my fear isn't Christian children "learning" about other religions. In fact, I went to a Christian high school and we learned about all different types of religions. But you said "practice." There is a difference, just like the difference between "establish" and "endorse." Can you honestly tell me it is OK for a government-funded public school to make the kids practice a religion (any religion) in the guise of "immersion?" I will tell you what my real fear is. My fear is that Americans will become so complacent as to not see the head of the snake until after it has bitten us and the deadly poison is coursing through this great country's veins. I know I said finally last paragraph but I keep going up and rereading your entry and finding so much wrong I can't help myself. Penda, in America--this Constitutional R E P U B L I C--the Constitution protects the rights of everyone. Now, if you were to try practicing your Witch religion or Wicca or whatever you want to call it in say Pakistan or the Sudan or Iran, you would have no rights. So if you are a witch or Christian or Jew or Muslim or atheist or whatever and you break the law in the US the law applies to you regardless of religion. Didn't you go to grade school? Or maybe they replaced social studies with self esteem or Wiccan class in the public schools nowadays. Whew! Finished. Posted by Robert Ferrau at August 26, 2003 01:43 PMOoops, almost forgot. . .is children dressing up in costumes and going door to door for candy a tenant of your witch faith Penda? Posted by Robert Ferrau at August 26, 2003 01:45 PMOne REALLY last thing. . .the Alabama Supreme Court, like any other STATE Supreme Court, is most definitely NOT a "federal institution." It is a STATE Supreme Court. Just wanted to clear that one up for yall. Posted by Robert Ferrau at August 26, 2003 08:37 PMAnd oh yeah, Judge Moore is also most definitely NOT an "official of the federal government." Posted by Robert Ferrau at August 26, 2003 08:39 PMTrue, Bob, but he does have to take "marching orders" from the Federal government... Posted by David at August 26, 2003 08:52 PMI hear ya Dave but the 10th Amendment says that any power not specifically granted to the fed is reserved for the states or the people. That's what makes Alan Keyes' argument so compelling. The purpose of 1A was to prevent the fed from establishing a "national" religion like what King Henry VIII did when he wanted to get divorced and created the Anglican Church of England. I don't think the mere display of the 10 Commandments "establishes" a national religion, especially when it is done at the state level. Plus like I pointed out earlier they are displayed along with Moses at the SCOTUS, so what's the problem? Now, if Judge Moore started basing his judicial decisions on the 10 Commandements as opposed to Alabama state law, there would be a problem, but his judicial integrity is not in question as far as what I have read. Posted by Robert Ferrau at August 27, 2003 07:34 AMThe Consitution says "CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW..." period. Therefor, the only group who can possibly violate the constitution on an issue of religion is "CONGRESS"... period. It says NOTHING about federal judges, and it says nothing about state judges. So, unless you anti-religion uneducated twits can tell me exactly what law is being broken here by the existance of the monument, then you have no argument. Don't preach to me about what anyone meant to say when they wrote the Constitution. The Constitution is clear, and it is what it is. Any fourth grager can tell you what it means. There is no mystery as to its meaning. You need to point to a specific law being broken. Otherwise, don't waste my time with a pethetic "you don't know what you're talking about" response. Back up your statements, or go away. Posted by Mark at August 28, 2003 02:37 PM>>>is children dressing up in costumes and going door to door for candy a tenant of your witch faith Penda? Actually it is, thanks for asking. It's the practicing of going door to door asking for offerings for the deceased. Children would dress up as relations who had passed on, and go to neighbor's homes asking for an offering. Once back home, the family would prepare a meal from the things collected and sit down to a mute supper. Over the years it's evolved from dressing up as Auntie to dressing up as Dracula. I still go trick or treating and still prepare a mute supper (just not with the candy as a main course). So yeah, it still is a tenant of my religion, thanks for asking. Shall we discuss Christmas trees and Easter Bunnies next? Posted by Penda at August 29, 2003 08:47 AMWait don't tell me, the birth and resurrection of Christ are tenants of your religion too? I celebrate the birth of Jesus on Dec 25th and the resurrection of Jesus on Easter, not trees and bunnies. Posted by Robert Ferrau at August 29, 2003 08:51 PMUm - actually no - Your Christmas now falls around our Solstice, and Oester was the Goddess of Rebirth. People would bring in Christmas trees witht he believe that wood sprites brought indoors would bring them good luck, so they decorated it with fruit and popped corn. The Star at the top represented the returning Sunm since at the Solstice the days would get longer. If you're Wiccan, it represents the birth of the Sun God, by the Goddess who will banish the darkness bringing forth the new life of spring. Oester is a Goddess of fertility, celebrated between the Equinox and May Day. Pastel colors, rabbits - fertility creatures - and eggs were a sign of rebirth. I mean - what the heck do Bunnies have to do with Christ? I don't celebrate the brihday of Ghandi, so not celebrating Christmas isn't all that great a leap. Posted by Penda at September 1, 2003 07:24 PMMan I guess every holiday must have pagan origins. Next you're gonna tell me Teddy Roosevelt was really a pagan and Mother's day goes back to some ancient earth-worshipping ritual or something. By the way, I went to google.com and searched for "halloween+origin" and nowhere did it come back with anything about "mute suppers" and other such nonsense. Seems your pagan brothers and sisters have a different story altogether about how Halloween originated. But it's not like you haven't been wrong throughout this entire post and subsequent comments anyway. . . Posted by Robert Ferrau at September 2, 2003 08:38 AMActually, most holidays are Jewish in origin. The rest come from other cultures and secular society has co-opted them. Look at Christmas in Japan. Christ doesn't even figure into it. It's justa nother day for stuff -money and presents. We all come from the same stock, just splintered off into little bowls of dogma. Try "Samhain" (it's Gaelic, so don't hurt yourself) since that's the original name for the Halloween or All Hallow's Eve. Or better even, go to a site like WitchVox, www.witchvox.com, which gives history and news from actual scholars, and not newbies or fundamentalist freaks. Gee - I mean, what you've basically done is completely discount my beliefs because you couldn't find them on the Internet with ONE search engine using limited words. Nice research Sherlock. I'm guessing it also takes you both hands and a mirror to find your ass - oh wait, that's where your head is...never mind. Posted by Penda at September 3, 2003 07:54 AMNo Penda, I've discounted your beliefs because in comment after comment you have been dead wrong. Look back and you will see where I corrected you over and over on things like state judges not being federal employees and the meaning of endorse and establish. When you are consistently wrong, then make a statement about some goofy mute dinner crap I wanted to research it to make sure you weren't wrong again, but guess what, you were! Then when I call you on it you come back with Samhain and All Hallow's Eve, which tells me you must have repeated my search cuz that's where Halloween orignated, at least according to the 100+ sites I browsed. Of course you are wrong again, because Samhain is Celtic not Gaelic. Then of course you have to insult (lamely I might add. . .Sherlock? two hands and a mirror?) not only me but now google sucks too I guess. Yeah I could resort to insulting you back but what would that solve? I think the multitude and magnitude of your errors speak worse of you than any insult I could come up with. Posted by Robert Ferrau at September 3, 2003 10:07 AMhehe... Gaelic is a language... of Celts Post a comment
|