Woman to Woman

By norman

February 28, 2005 07:12 AM | Link to this

Diane is wrong, the Catholic Church does not leave out of the Ten Commandments the prohibition of graven images. Her quote is from the Cathecism, not from the Catholic Bible.

But that is not the issue. The real issue is this: the Ten Commandments are a version of Babylonian social regulations to prevent chaos and preserve society and property. Some of the Commandments are religious, some are secular. I personally don’t care whether they are displayed or not. They have never prevented murder, theft, adultery, or anything else. They simply are things bible-thumpers like to see displayed, hoping against hope it will keep their kids from sex, even though fornication is not mentioned in the Commandments. The secularists want to stick it to the believers by removing the Commandments. I sort of agree with sticking it to the believers but I don’t think the issue is worth the trouble. It is a good symbol of religious hypocrisy.

By kt1066

February 28, 2005 07:41 AM | Link to this

Shaunti is right about one thing: governments are the corporate representation of a bunch of people. All of the people who are citizens, in fact, not just the majority, or just a very vocal minority. That is the reason the Founders wanted the government to be neutral about religion. (The rightwingers have the most bizarre reading of the First Amendment.) I know rightwingers have very little ability to empathize or imagine how someone else would feel, but they should try: How would they feel showing up to answer for a even just a speeding charge if the courtroom were decorated with pentagrams or Hindu deities or verses from the Koran? And if everywhere they went, these same symbols they disagreed with were on every government building? Shaunti and the other rightwingers can publicly display the 10 Commandments all they want, just not on goverment property. They can have them printed on their clothes and wear them at all times, even into government buildings. But they have no Constitutional or moral right to have the government endorse emblems of their religion. Only power-hungry hypocrites want to do that, anyway, as Jesus clearly taught in Matthew chapter 6. But the teachings of Jesus don’t matter much to the rightwingers, even the religious ones.

By Deepanker Baderia

February 28, 2005 07:52 AM | Link to this

I read your opinions about the ten commandments issue. I support Ms. Felhan’s position, but with a caveat.

I am a Hindu by religion and a strong believer in celebrating diversity, not dumbing it down as many would have us do.

In my opinion, we should not only celebrate the ten commandments monuments, but also honor other world religions such as Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism etc. by erecting plaques/monuments side-by-side.

In doing so, we are truly celebrating diversity which is such an innate part of the ethos of this nation.

If people who support the ten commandments monuments have a problem with this, then I believe they are discriminating against other religions.

By RS

February 28, 2005 08:16 AM | Link to this

Deepanker Baderia: You are absolutely right! But there is no way we will ever be able to get any Bible-thumping Fundamentalist Christian to see reason; they can’t.

By Erin

February 28, 2005 08:22 AM | Link to this

Shaunti, secular humanists, atheists and other people concerned with First Amendment rights do not think religionists should not be able to express or practice their religion in public. We do, however, take issue with religion being expressed or practiced by the government in a tax-funded building. I don’t want to go into a courthouse and see my tax dollars paying for the government to tell me “thou shalt have no other gods before me.” That’s establishment, sweetie.

You reveal your ignorance by calling secularism a “belief.” Secularism is the nothing more than silence on the subject of religion. Secularism is a belief like bald is a hair color. The government does not have to say “there is no god.” The government, in order to comply with the First Amendment merely needs to remain silent on the subject. Why are Christians so threatened by silence?

By Moi

February 28, 2005 08:22 AM | Link to this

Restating what others have posted, but it baffles me how proponents of public Ten Commandments displays don’t see very far down the road. The minority religions in this country continue to grow each year. What are these Christians going to do when a Muslim wants to display a stone Koran outside a courthouse? What is the big deal about just leaving these things off of government property? Truly, aren’t there much more important things for Christians to be concerned about? Sometimes I wonder if the priorities in a world of extreme suffering have been flipped over on it’s side.

By Claire

February 28, 2005 08:25 AM | Link to this

Here’s an idea…for all the liberals who are so offended by religious monuments or plaques, take the same advice you gave to the conservatives regarding the last forum on governmental crack down on adult television: If you don’t like it, don’t look at it.

By Randy

February 28, 2005 08:35 AM | Link to this

For the liberals who want all Christian monuments and plaques gone, be careful of what you wish for you may get it. Then the society reverts to times of Hedonism, killing the female babies, rape and murder.

By Patrick

February 28, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this

Think about it this way, as soon as the Supreme Court rules these things OK, I will be advocating for copies of the Satanic verse, Koran, etc. to be displayed in ALL public buildings. Then lets see how these religious groups feel.

By Jack

February 28, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this

The display of the commandments does not prohibit the worship of one religion over another. The displays should stay.

By Tim

February 28, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this

Claire… here is a simple way to put it… I will ‘dumb it down’ so even you can understand it… you don’t have to watch TV… but there are times when a person does have to go into a government building… say for instance for jury duty… no one volunteers for that!… so if a person is not a Christian they shouldn’t have to go into a government building and look at the 10 Commandments (and I am a Christian… but I don’t have to see the 10 Commandments placed everwhere to remind me of that)

honestly though I could care less one way or the other… I think both sides have a lot more to worry about

By Brian Curtis

February 28, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this

Here’s an idea… for all the conservatives offended by religious freedom (which means the government can’t practice or endorse a specific faith—duh), perhaps you should move to a nice theocracy like Iran.

Meanwhile, we real Americans will continue to practice our beliefs in private and ask only that the government stay the heck out of it… and that includes erecting monuments to one faith while ignoring others in government buildings.

By Texas

February 28, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this

Claire, You my Dear are right on. It’s not a matter of putting these items up, after 100’s of years they want us to tear them down!

Why? Why can’t they ignore it as we are told to ignore every Liberal subversive message they throw at us?

In the name of “Tolerance”. Oh wait, Tolerance is a one way street when it comes to Christianity. It’s sad, it is truely sad. :-(

By Brian Curtis

February 28, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

The truly bizarre part of Shaunti’s argument is that government should somehow enjoy the same freedoms that citizens are granted by the Bill of Rights.

That’s an interesting perspective for a self-proclaimed conservative, who should be aware that the whole reason we HAVE a Bill of Rights is to spell out rights reserved to the people that the government can’t affect or restrict. If the government enjoys “Free Speech,” for example, then the government is allowed to say “Gays should be burned at the stake” or “Ni**ers shouldn’t have rights.”

The only way we can enjoy our freedoms is by restricting government. Claiming that government is “just a large number of people” overlooks the obvious distinction: it’s a large number of people with a lot of power over the rest of us. We have rights that a judge, or a President, does not have (at least, not in the performance of their public duties), because the Bill of Rights protects individuals from their government.

Don’t we have any libertarians on this forum who can explain this concept to the Republicans in small, easy to understand words? Rights belong EITHER to the people OR to the government; which would you prefer to have as the default setting?

By Randy

February 28, 2005 09:21 AM | Link to this

The problem is that liberals have taken the Constitition and stretched it, for instance there is no statement to the effect of “Separation of Church and State” in the constitution(nor anywhere else). What has made this country the strong nation it is, is Christian morals and principals. But people keep making the same mistakes, they figure what makes for a happy life, marriage between a man and a woman and them staying together, going to church and worshiping the creator of the universe, etc. But they start thinking they know more than they do. Then they start questioning the morals and beliefs that made this country great. I’m sure that the Muslims see this and see a weakness in our society. Really, the muslims don’t need to attack the USA, the liberals will destroy it from within. The founding fathers are probably turning over in their graves at what the liberals want.

By E. Lewis

February 28, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this

I am most upset by the fact that a group of polticiians have co-opted the Ten Commandments, something I hold dear, for their own easy, purely political gain. Perhaps if more polticians lead by example rather than simple by word of mouth and public opinion polls, we wouldn’t have to worry about this.

By Randy

February 28, 2005 09:29 AM | Link to this

AGAIN MUSLIMS, SAVE YOUR BOMBS AND MEN, THE LIBERALS WILL DESTROY THE UNITED STATES FROM WITHIN.

By Archie

February 28, 2005 09:33 AM | Link to this

Diane’s argument is wrapped in First Amendment indignation, but it’s not the real reason for her opposition: the real reason is that she and a small minority of others believe religion should be a private thing practiced at home, in church, or in temple, but for heaven’s sake not in the public square.

I am a part of that minority that religion should be a private thing practiced at home and in church. I am not sure that I am a minority in this line of thought however. The Supreme Court should rule according to the law and nothing more. I go to church just about every Sunday so I am not bothered by the Ten Commandments but it does bother me that Christians seem to be protesting against someone or imposing their religion by making others seem like villains. Heck there is a church on every corner in Columbia but maybe that’s not the case in other southern cities. Anyway I would like to see all these religious people marching or rallying to save children from poverty or help the hungry, sort of like Christ.

By mit

February 28, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this

what’s the point in having the ten commandments in the courthouse? its not like the courts abide by them, who has ever gone to jail or paid a fine for using the lord’s name in vain or having an affair. And what’s with the promise to tell the truth using the bible. That doesn’t work for everyone (anyone probably). I don’t see any need for the display but actually I could care less, well, until they start punishing me for saying GD.

By Van

February 28, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

Folks, it is just this easy. Our rule of law is based on our Constitution and the amendments - right? The Courts of this nation are bound by these documents - right? Then, from the first amendment, it reads

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

The question is, did Congress pass a law placing the 10 Comandments in a public place?

Any Questions?

By Sandy

February 28, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

Using the argument about not looking at religious displays on goverment property is off the point, (particularly if the judge, jury, and prosecuter choose to heed them). I have (and exercise) the right not to watch morally bankrupt television, but if I am to partake in due process, I must attend court in a tax-funded building. At some point, those faithful to the true teachings of Christ will see how they have been manipulated by the current government trends to embrace Christianity as an end to political means, but alas, the damage will be done.

By JohnR

February 28, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

I fail to see how any “secularist” infringes upon the rights of anyone to practice religion in the public square. How hard is it to understand that the government(which includes schools, courthouses, et al) is constitutionally bound to remain neutral on the subject of religion. That includes state or local governments as well. Shaunti obviously believes that states can ignore the mandates of Federal law, but she should remember that this issue was decided 140 years ago at the end of the Civil War.

The whole purpose of the Bill Of Rights was to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority. It is the cornerstone of what it means to be an American. Read the first amendment, it’s all there. Practice whatever religion you want, but don’t use government property to promote it. It’s a matter of fairness.

By Dan

February 28, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

Van is correct read the first amendment yourself and it is clear unless a law in enacted either establishing or prohibiting religion, there is no breech of the amendment. As a matter of fact creating a law to prohibit such a display would be unconstitutional.

By Sylvia

February 28, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

I don’t care if the 10 Commandments are posted up as long as I can put up quotes from the Quran or the Book of Morman..>As long as my tax dollars aren’t paying for it and there is euqal access of the space by other religions then go ahead

By Seaborn

February 28, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

I say we compromise and allow 5 commandments…any five that offend neither secular folks are the churchy set.

By Lyrazel

February 28, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this

Say all you fine readers, did you know that thousands of stone Ten Commandment monuments were placed around the country in the 1950’s and 1960’s by the Fraternal Order of Eagles with the support of Cecil B. DeMille, the director, who was promoting his movie “The Ten Commandments.” (Including the monument in Texas that is subject to this Supreme Court decision.)

Yeah! Not your government at work, but Hollywood!

The marble frieze in the courtroom of the Supreme Court Building depicts Moses, holding the tablets, in a procession of lawgivers of history. The 17 other figures in the frieze include Hammurabi, Confucius, Justinian, Napoleon, Chief Justice John Marshall and Muhammad, who holds the Koran.

Exactly how much money WILL be spent on this and other government decisions regarding religious symbolism? How many state seals will have to be changed, how many flags depict some kind of religious symbolism how many city seals and charters will need changing? Our tax dollars will be needed to remove all 10 Commandment displays, even some attached to buildings, in every podunk county courthouse across this nation. What cost it will take to enforce it?

Yes, freedom of religion is a right of Americans as is having a government not influenced by dominant religious institutions. In a time when tiny counties are crying for funds to fix child assistance and medicaid, schools and and police services, when backwood rural counties dont have enough judges, or even legal-aid lawyers for disadvantaged litigants why be so frivilous about wasting tax dollars just for some grandious symbolic gesture that signifies nothing and helps no one?

My bet when all this bruhaha finishes, the Supreme court declare these monuments as symbols of law not faith based…thus negating further legislation.

By Seaborn

February 28, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this

oops, that should have been “neither secular folks nor the churchy set”. (don’t want to show bad grammar…)

By norman

February 28, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

Well, Seaborn, which five commandments offend no one? Some people don’t think adultery is bad. Some don’t mind bearing false witness. Some don’t mind coveting their neighbor’s a*, in fact most rap music recommends coveting your neighbor’s a*!

By Bruce

February 28, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

The reason “yet to be Christains” do not want a public display of the 10 Commandments is simple. Everytime they see them they come under conviction of the Holy Spirit. This guilty feeling is something that just cannot bear. They truly believe if they do not have to see the 10 Commandments they do not have to live by them.

Out of sight, Out of mind.

By Ron

February 28, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

Diane is wrong on the notion that the constitution prohibited states from “expressing” relgious views. When the constitution was ratified by the 13 orifinal colonies and this country was formed, 3 states (Maryland, Rhode Island and Conneticutt) all had state religions in place. They were not unconstitutional at the time and they were never ruled unconstitutional. As a matter of fact Maryland maintained a state religion until 1820 when they changed the law without a threat of a court case. This notion of a seperation was one promulgated by Justice Hugo Black in 1947. He was KKK member and he hated Catholics.

By Seaborn

February 28, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

Bruce,

What about those yet-to-be Hindus? Let’s assume a US citizen that just happened to be originally from India, and who still practices the majority religion from that country. He goes to court to settle a civil case…a business contract dispute let’s say…what should that citizen infer from seeing monotheistic statements in a government building? Should he change his legal strategy based on fear of religious predjudice from the court? That’s the exact type of court that Ray Moore ran.

By Jack

February 28, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this

If everyone of all faiths LIVED by the 10 commandments, the world would be a much better place. If you don’t agree with that then I have some beachfront property in Kansas I want to sell you.

By Seaborn

February 28, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

No Jack,

if everyone lived by the “Golden Rule” the world would be a better place…hint..”do unto others…”

By J. Morris

February 28, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

We will never win this argument with the zealots. Why? Because they don’t want a society in which we are all equal under the law, and equally entitled to governmental protection. The want a society in which Christianity is the established, legal religion of the land and in which the practitioners of other relgions, or those of none, are treated as second-class citizens.

How do you think it seems to a Hindu or Buddhist, for example, to walk into a Courthouse or other official government building and see a giant monument to a religion that is not their own? The government has a responsibility to ALL of its citizens to be impartial. The private sector can plaster the 10 Commandments all over houses, cars, personal property, etc. This isn’t discrimination against any religion, no matter how much the Religious Right likes to play the martyr.

By Randy

February 28, 2005 10:56 AM | Link to this

Seaborn, It’s Roy Moore and there are no yet to be Hindu’s.

By Randy

February 28, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

No we just want what has made this country strong and great, Christianity, and the morals and values that it instills in people.

By Randy

February 28, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

That’s what I like about the USA, the 1 or 2% of people(Gays) and 5% (Atheists & Agnostics) want the 90+% of the rest of people to change things. I say let the MAJORITY rule, take a vote. Make it part of an election. With 78% of Ga voting against Gay marriage, I sure the liberals are not for a majority vote.

By Seaborn

February 28, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

Roy..Ray…who cares?.he’s still a jerk.

As a matter of fact Randy, I may just end up Hindu…I just have to work out the vegetarianism aspect…(I like hamburgers too much).

By Randy

February 28, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this

Maybe we need as a country to go back to the rules of society when we were at our strongest and happiest. Statisics would put that at 1945 thru 1963, and we didn’t need to fix what wasn’t broken.

By Randy

February 28, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

No Moore isn’t a jerk, he just has the courage to stand for is convictions. In my book that says, Hero. Hamburgers are my weakness also.

By Bruce

February 28, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

J. Morris,

No J that is not what we want. I look at it this way. This past Christmas Christains were berated because of placing Nativity Scenes in public view. Now it is the 10 Commandments. What will it be next? Will Christains have to build fences around their Churches, take the steeples with crosses on them down? That way when the traveling public rides by they do not have to see them.

Next it will be outlawed to make door to door visits, or advertize for Vaction Bible School in the local stores. How about wearing Christain clothing or jewerly? People will be offended at the mall and want the banned too.

You won’t stop at the 10 Commandments, the goal of “yet to be Christains” is to as Norman put it 2 weeks ago, “Death to all Christains”.

Like I said Out of sight. Out of mind.

Seaborn,

Did you ever have to visit Judge Moore’s courtroom? How do you know what type of court he ran? I wouldn’t be scared to say you only heard what the media put out as to the way he ran his court.

By Tim

February 28, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this

Randy… just because the marjority of people agree with something does not make it right… example… slavery…also, yes let’s go back to the 50’s… send black children and white children to different schools… make people drink from different water fountains… eat at separate places… make black people sit on the back of the bus… and to make sure blacks and whites don’t mix let’s once again make bi-racial marriages illegal again… ah yes those were the good ol days weren’t they Randy (but I digress)

By Jack

February 28, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

All of this “Politically Correct” stuff is garbage and will certainly be the downfall of this country. Our fore-fathers were not PC. Why should the will of the few dictate what happens to the majority?

By J. Morris

February 28, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

Randy has nicely pointed out the mentality that the protections built into the Constitution were meant to defend against.

“I say let the MAJORITY rule”

This is the Tyranny of the Majority - under this flawed mentality, the Holocaust would have been OK. Slavery would have beem OK. Lynchings would have been OK because the majority approved of them. Extreme examples, maybe - but these people are SCARY. They are so un-American, it is frightening. God save us from the fanatics.

By Seaborn

February 28, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

I have read quotes by Moore advocating a biblical basis for his jurisprudence (and I use the word prudence lightly), including death for breaking biblical law…(I assume sodomy or perhaps preparing a goat the wrong way) His stand on issues related to custody rights of lesbians is well known. He only made it to the state bench because of his ten commandment stand, not his acumen of law…that’s why he got canned by his peers.

You say he has convictions…I say he’s a jerk.

By mit

February 28, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

bruce, you are comparing public to private. no one can tell a church to take down its crosses just like you can’t tell any other type of church to take down its ‘graven images’. aren’t you breaking a commandment anyway? its alright to have a cross or a statue of mary but not ok to have a image of a cow. i’m confused. what makes something a ‘graven image’?

By mit

February 28, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

bruce, you are comparing public to private. no one can tell a church to take down its crosses just like you can’t tell any other type of church to take down its ‘graven images’. aren’t you breaking a commandment anyway? its alright to have a cross or a statue of mary but not ok to have a image of a cow. i’m confused. what makes something a ‘graven image’?

The door to door ban does sound good to me though.

By norman

February 28, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

Ron: all you rightwingers get your messages from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and the other fascists on talk radio. They are always blabbering about how Hugo Black and Senator Robert Byrd were KKK members. No one else speaks of this because in both cases their membership was a youthful indiscretion which they repudiated many times later on. You are only spreading s….t. It’s really funny since Limbaugh, Hannity & Co. have always been against civil rights. We call their intervention “hypocrisy.”

By J. Morris

February 28, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this

Bruce, you again fail to understand the difference between religion in government and government in your personal life. I would stand up and defend your right to have a nativity scene in your front yard or in front of your Church any day of the week, and so would any other real liberal. I would defend your right to show up at my house prosletysing until the cows come home, just as I would defend my right to politely ask you to leave.

NO ONE is trying to prevent the free and personal excercise of any religion, but anytime you and other members of the Fundamentalist Right are presented with anything that removes religion from Federal or State-funded institutions, you claim that “the liberals” are trying to wipe out Christianity. It simply isn’t true, and since many of those “liberals” are in fact, Christians, it’s also a rather silly claim.

Do you understand the distinction? Public Square, paid for by public funds - not OK. Home or Church, paid for by private funds - Great! Go for it!

By norman

February 28, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

Randy, of those 90% of Americans who are not gay or atheist, what percentage are Christian criminals (like Rader in Wichita), what percentage Christian adulterers, Christian pedophiles, Christian crooks?

By Brian Curtis

February 28, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

Blacks have been a minority, and their rights were ignored. Today, wacko groups like the KKK and NAMBLA are a minority, but they still have the right to free expression.

In other words, what does majority/minority status have to do with rights? Not a thing. Some people forget that we have a Constitutional and Bill of Rights to protect those small, less-populous (and less popular) groups from the “will of the majority.” And that is a particular function of the courts system.

We have a right to an impartial judiciary and a religiously-neutral government. How many people are Christian, and how many are non-Christian, is irrelevant. The Constitution demands that government be neutral on matters of religion, so that’s what needs to happen.

If you want to shout, “Rah-rah, Jesus!”, go right ahead; no one will stop you. But you won’t have governmental authority to back up your position, any more than a Moslem, Jew, Hindu, or atheist will.

It seems that there’s nothing some folks fear more than the notion that people of all faiths might be treated equally under the law.

By Seaborn

February 28, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this

I saw on Cspan the other day a conference of US Govenors and what they were discussing is the fact that the US is 16th among developed nations in graduating high school students. In Georgia, it’s a little more than half (56%). Jack, that is probably going to affect the downfall of the nation a lot more than the fact that Yawah, Ywah, Yahway (whatever he’s called) is not mention in government establishments.

By J. Morris

February 28, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

Mr. Curtis - very well said.

By Chris

February 28, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this

Shaunti is WAY off base on this one. It is not the secularists that are attempting to shove their beliefs down everyone else’s throats - its funademantalists. Further, secularism (or lack of desire to participate in a theocracy) is not a form of religious belief. Rather, it is constitutional truth. Comparing this to religious freedom is absurd, and secularism / constitutionality must come first in every situation.

By lozen

February 28, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

In a few years we won’t have to worry about the 10 commandments on public ground since Islam is the fastest growing religion in the U.S.

By Zack

February 28, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

Not only should the Ten Commandments stand, but they should stand without the hype that always comes with this story. Also, the Pledge of Allegiance should be in every school, and anyone who is unwilling to recite it should be ousted from the country. (If that sounds harsh, think about it: Why should we let people live here if they’re going to disrespect the foundation of this country as well as those who died for us to have freedom? Yeah, it doesn’t sound harsh at all now.) This country was founded upon the Bible, and our laws originally were inspired by it. As I’ve said before and will again, after years of moral erosion and decay, we’ve seen our laws based not on the Bible but on sensationalism, void of reason, wisdon, and simple, common sense.

We do not need to censor the public posting of the Ten Commandments. We do need to censor the ACLU and its attempts to promote humanism and relativism on a society where the freedom of laws inspired by the Bible has been attacked by a group who is obsessed with imposing its self-centered will on the rest of us.

By Seaborn

February 28, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

Lozen is right…which way is Mecca again?

By Brian Curtis

February 28, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this

Got anything to back that up other than your own personal preference? Anything like, say, the Constitution? Or legal precedent? Or logic? If so, we’d love to hear it.

Assertion is not argument, and simply saying “Everybody needs to be Christian” doesn’t change the fact that this nation, and its government, are religiously neutral, not Christian-centric.

By cynic

February 28, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

I’m sure that the BTK Killer would be in complete agreement with Shaunti’s and Randy’s sentiments. Put up those tablets, go to church one hour a week and then screw (or better yet-maim and kill) your neighbors every other minute. Poor Jesus, what a miserable, rotten fan club he has.

Thank God (no pun intended) we live in a country where there is at least lip service paid to the notion that the minority should be protected from the majority. I guess Shaunti was out sick the week democracy was discussed in class.

And I can only assume she never did get around to reading the Sermon on the Mount (hint to Christian loud-mouths-leave your sack-cloth and ashes at home please, nobody is really that impressed with religious hooey except fools).

By harry haff

February 28, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

Our Constitution is based upon secular humanist traditions, not the traditions of a religion or a church. The founding fathers did not forget then word “GOD” in their thoughts about the form the government would take or upon the principles it would be based. Time and again we read of Jefferson, Adams. Paine, et al, includng Franklin, warn of mingling religion with government. The phrase “absolute wall between church and state” is in fact from TJ himself. The notion that the founders of the US were religous is naive and uninformed at best; stubbornly ignorant and biggoted at worst. The big focus on combining church and state come from people who do not know their own country and who believe if you tell a lie often enough it will become true. Come to think of it, that really is the basis for the neocons across the country.

By J. Morris

February 28, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

I find it ironic that Zack would accuse any group of being “obsessed with imposing its self-centered will on the rest of us”, given that he is as dangerous a fanatic as ever piloted a plane into a building.

By lozen

February 28, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this

The main injunctions of Islam are 1. fasting, 2. prayer, 3. pilgrimage, 4. charity and 5. firm belief in the oneness of God and His prophets, particularly Mohammed.

These will need to be posted on our courthouses and government buildings before too long.

By Lyrazel

February 28, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

Ahem, the 10 Commandments has been used as a cornerstone in the creation of laws. Our constitution was based on english common law which used the 10 Commandments as its foundation too. What the SC will argue is if it is a law document or a faith emblem…

Maybe we need as a country to go back to the rules of society when we were at our strongest and happiest. Statisics would put that at 1945 thru 1963………

Randy, which aspects, do you think we should go back to first: blacklisting, or segragation? Or are you thinking TV family values, like Father Knows Best, how we ought to retain silence of alchoholism, child or spouse abuse for social reasons? Did you enjoy living in a cold-war atmosphere of countries stockpiling weapons for future wars, or did you like playing Duck and Cover? (My guess is you were not born yet) Perhaps you were awed by the fact the KKK prayed before each meeting and wanted racist organizations parading and burning crosses to keep blacks and jews from living in white neighborhoods or did you enjoy knowing organized crime ruled over many state and city governments? Its ok to love nostalgia but the decades of 45-63 were not the grand shining example of great culture if you were not a white male…if you lived through them…it wasnt fine.

Judge Moore decided to place a monument on government land with own agenda. He commissioned the monument and late at night, not in broad daylight, put the mega-ton statue in place without concent from mayor to city government to state legislators. Now he uses it to grandstand a historically inacurate but deliberatly antagonist agenda of revisionist christianity…like what some posters here promote. He was fired because of his covert actions and he is not and never has been a hero.

By lozen

February 28, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

Can anybody guess what the most popular name is for new born baby boys?

By J. Morris

February 28, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Not so sure you’re on target there, Harry (though we are in total agreement about everything else). The Neo-cons are mostly secular - many of the most prominent neo-cons are Jewish rather than Christian (Insert note here: Identifying someone by his or her religious affiliation is not to be considered anti-Christian or anti-Semitic; it is merely a statement of fact). That they have currently found common cause with the Religious Right has more to do with their mutual interest (though for disparate reasons) in Israel than anything else. They are uneasy bedfellows at best.

The root of Neo-conservatism is that the US is the moral center of the world and has an obligation to spread that moral authority to those “less fortunate”. Since the #1 target for that “assistance” is the Middle East, Israel is strategically invaluable, both because of its location and its association with our traditional European allies.

The Fundamentalists, on the other hand, are concerned with Israel because it figures so centrally into their eschatological “End-times” scenarios.

Traditional religious conservatives like Pat Buchanan have strongly rejected the neo-cons and their philosophies. He and I don’t agree on much, but a lot of his recent book was right on target.

By lozen

February 28, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

There was a point to that question! The most popular name in the world for boys is Mohammed. If you want to tear down the wall between religion and state - be careful what you ask for; you might get it!

By Whiley

February 28, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

oh NO NOT ANOTHER RELIGIOUS DEBATE ! ! ! !

See ya’ll next week then.

By RS

February 28, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

WHAT?!?! Even from Zack, that’s a bit extreme! He feels that if someone refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance they should be ousted from this country yet it’s ok for the same person to slack off, refuse to work & steal money from taxpayers. This is a man who is SICK SICK SICK & needs Prozac or shock treatment or something! (Lozen: Let me guess. Not Zack, I hope!)

By J. Morris

February 28, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

Yeah Whiley - this time it’s actually on-topic though. I’m in it until it degenerates into a flame-fest.

By Bruce

February 28, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this

Mit and J Morris,

50 to 60 years ago people would have laughed you out of the room if you would have told them that in the 21st century the Supreme Count would be auging the issue of the 10 Commandments in public places too.

It will take you some time but I tell you it WILL NOT STOP AT THE 10 COMMANDMENTS. Satan’s only hope is to convinence us that God does not exist and the only way he can do that is remove anything in our lives that remind us of God. Today the 10 Commandments, tomorrow everything else.

Randy, I understand what you are saying about going back to the good ole days. When neighbor helped neighbor not stole his stuff. When you could leave your door unlocked when you went to the store, when people showed respect instead of contempt. Life was simplier and LOVE was the catch phrase of the day.

By Van

February 28, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this

This forum always seems to get so far off the topic, I really should let the nuts out there run free.

When Jefferson was tlking about a wall between church and state, he was referring to the state not imposing its will on religion and religion not imposing its will on the state. PERIOD. Yes, the Supreme Court can make mistakes.

The question deals with a monument to the 10 Comandments. It was not placed there by Congress or funded by congress. Therefore it passes the First Amendment. The bill of rights limits the power of the FEDERAL government only. Whle the feds can not declare a state religion, the States are not forbidden under the 10th Amendment.

From a pure Constitutional point of view, a monument honoring any faith or religion is okay, as long as Congress did not have anything to do with it.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…�

The founding fathers were a religious crowd. They call upon “divine Providence” in the Declaration of Independence.

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Their use of phrases as “Nature’s God”, the “Creator” shows us a deep faith in a Supreme Being. And this maybe the argument. Today we express ourselves with the word “God”. He goes be may names, depending of what your personal belief system is.

Our founding fathers had the smarts to understand that they were establishing something new here, a country without a national religion. By calling upon “divine Providence”, all would be included, and only those that denied the obvious would find something to whine about.

AGAIN, how should the Supreme Court Rule? In my opinion, the monument stays.

By lozen

February 28, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

Hey Whiley, the topic is the 10 Commandments. How can we discuss that without discussing religion? :-)

By Janine Cory

February 28, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

What conservative Christians and others fail to consider is their reaction if selections of Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist (shall I go on?) doctrine were displayed with equal prominence in public buildings. Many people would find this offensive, regardless of the content and its perceived applicability to people of all (or no)faiths. In addition, how does a non-Christian perceive his or her chances for a fair trial in a court of law that appears so flagrantly biased?

By J. Morris

February 28, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

There is the moment - when the discussion has turned to the motivations and machinations of Satan, we have passed the threshold of logical discourse and entered into that realm where rational discussions can no longer be held.

If one clings to superstition and religious belief as the only rationalization or justification, one can not be moved from one’s position.

By Seaborn

February 28, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

Who cares what the founding fathers “intended” Van. Courts don’t just look historically at constitutional issues…these symbols don’t exist in a vacuum. The Supreme Court will look at the larger context of these symbols…i.e., why their proponents want them and what the implications will be…in today’s world…not that of the 1700’s.

By Jason

February 28, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

Sorry, I can not comment because I am still laughing so hard that Shaunti Feldhahn had the audactiy to write that “they don’t have the right to impose their beliefs on the nation.” YA THINK?

By J. Morris

February 28, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

Janine, the problem is that the Fundamentalists who are so anxious to have the 10 Commandments displayed in courthouses don’t really care if non-Christians get a fair trial.

You did read one poster’s previous statement that anyone unwilling to say “Under God” in the Pledge should be banished from the country, right? These are the frightening people who are so concerned that our courts be biased. Appeals to reason and logic don’t work on them. They just don’t care.

By lozen

February 28, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

Oh Randy, Bruce and Zack, If I didn’t know it already, I would know for sure now that you are white males. Those are the only people who would call 50 or 60 years ago “the good old days”. Get over it! Times change. No black person would call 1950 the good old days! No woman would say 1960 was the good old days! We had the civil rights movement, the women’s movement and the anti-war movement since then all because the days weren’t so good for the rest of us who aren’t white men.

By Seaborn

February 28, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this

Could it be…oh, I don’t know…SATAN!!!!

By Van

February 28, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

lozen - Hey Whiley, the topic is the 10 Commandments. How can we discuss that without discussing religion? :-)

It is easy, we base all arguments on what is contained in the Constitution and the Amendments. Religion is a diversion from the topic. What does it say in the first amendment? Can you support your case on logical points?

By Larry King

February 28, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

What difference does it make? We are no longer under the “10 Commandments” any more anyway. Do you still offer animal sacrifices and travel to Israel once a year to confess your sins? Do you still keep the Sabbath day holy? I don’t think so. We are New Testament Christian. And Christians ONLY!

By Mara

February 28, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

I’ll get on with my comment in a moment - right now it’s rebuttal time. Randy - We have religious displays now and have Hedonists, rapists, and murders (of many, not just girl babies). If you think that more government sanctioned Christian monuments will magically make these things disappear…dream on. Randy, Randy, Randy - you are such a goof! Our strongest and happiest era was between 1945 and 1963? I suppose that would depend on what makes you happy and strong. Were we made stronger by routinely degrading and segregating people of color? Were we happiest when the movies celebrated the slaughter of the American Indian and the frontier justice of “shoot first, ask questions later”? Were we better off when Lucy had to beg Desi for spending money (and permission) to purchase new clothes? McCarthyism? Sexism?
And Muslims see the lack of Government endorsement of christianity as a weakness in our society? Even the Muslims who just happen to be American? Do you mean to say that American Muslims are just waiting to exploit this “weakness” so they can destroy the very society that they celebrate and defend (they serve in the military too) for its religious freedom? The country that allows them to worship equally without government interferance? Wow, the ungrateful bastids! Jack - You say the monument should stay because it does not prohibit the worship of one religion over another. Yet the very first thing you read is “I am the Lord thy God, any you shall have no other God before me”. Now that sounds a whole lot like a prohibition of any religion but Christianity. That should not be advocated by the government, so the monument should go. So, now to my comment. You do hear a lot from the religious right about how the liberal left is trying to destroy, yes, DESTROY christianity. About how soon we’ll see jack-booted thugs destroying the churches! Tearing down steeples! OUTLAWING the BIBLE! Yes, we want to DESTROY christians…BWAHHAAAAHAAAA! But seriously, y’all put way to much importance on our opinion of you. Hate to tell you this, but if you’d quit trying to get the government to give you resources to convert the heathen (and let them worship as they please) or to implement your sharia-like fundamentalist moral/legal code…we wouldn’t give you a minutes thought. It isn’t the governments place to advocate/support/subsidize any aspect of religious life. All citizens, whether they are Wiccan, Moonies, Unitarians, Christian, Jew, Rasta, or any other religion deserves to be represented by the government, equally. When my city council uses tax dollars to defend their right to maintain an explicitly religious monument that says there is only one god and that is the god of the christians, no matter how old or respected the belief, that is religious advocacy and it’s not right.

By Bruce

February 28, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

If your moral compass is not based on some type of religion what is it based on? What tells you what is right and what is wrong? Somewhere in some far reaches of everyone’s past there is a moral compass. I am willing to say it began with religion. If the 10 commandments are not a part of your moral compass why do you feel they should hidden away in your home and Church only. Why can’t you go into a public place and see them and then simply ingore them. If they mean nothing to you why do they bother you? What harm do they do?

By Sam

February 28, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

For us white boys, the 50’s & 60’s rocked!!

By J. Morris

February 28, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

Bruce,

50 or 60 years ago they would have laughed you out of the room - or in Mississippi possibly even murdered you as a dangerous influence - if you had suggested that “Negroes” and Whites would be eating in the same restaurants, drinking from the same water fountains, going to the same schools, playing sports together, etc. etc. etc. Just because “that’s the way it wasâ€? doesn’t mean that’s the way it should be. The “good ole daysâ€? rarely are.

By Seaborn

February 28, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

Bruce,

How about having moral compass based on compassion for your fellow man (and woman) and a little bit of COMMON SENSE!

By Sam

February 28, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

For us white boys, the 50’s & 60’s rocked!!

By lozen

February 28, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

I was just trying to decide what a big stone tablet with the “Liberal subversive message” on a courthouse lawn would say. I do consider myself to be a liberal but I’m at a loss and I need to find out what my subversive message is.

By J. Morris

February 28, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

The idea that a moral compass must be based on Religion is laughable. First - the BASIC prohibitions, those that protect us from our own baser impulses - murder, deception, theft, etc. are universal to humanity. Religion adds in the “naughty” prohibitions - things that really have nothing to do with the way people treat each other but instead reflect the taboos of the society.

Morality and ethics based on logic and reason are far more genuine, in my not-so-humble opinion, than any religion-imposed “compass”. I believe it’s wrong to cheat people simply because, well - it’s wrong! Cheating hurts someone else to benefit me, and that just isn’t right. The religiously moral, at least many of them, don’t do something because they are afraid of being punished, not because they inherently think it is wrong.

I’m much happier with my moral compass than I am with the moral compass of the self-righteous. Rockefeller was a staunch Christian who ruined thousands of peoples lives through rutheless business practices. I can’t even begin to list all of the Televangelists who have eviscerated the retirement savings of credulous little old ladies out of sheer greed.

Anyone who thinks that you are moral because you are religious, and not moral because you aren’t, doesn’t live in the real world.

By Sam

February 28, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

Very few in this blog have common sense.

By Sam

February 28, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

Very few in this blog have common sense.

By Mara

February 28, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

Bruce, my moral compass comes from my parents. I couldn’t tell you how many times I heard ,”Well, how would you feel if……were to happen/be done to you?” Empathy dear Bruce, is my moral compass. The difficulty lies in acting the adult when what something offensive is “done unto me”. I don’t need a book, a priest, or anyone else tell me what how to be a decent person. My parents did that and they didn’t rely on any book or belief system to do it. A simple “Now is that very nice?” usually did the trick.

By norman

February 28, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

J. Morris: you mean there ain’t no Satan? Next you’ll be telling us there ain’t no God! Larry King: interesting view that Christ abrogated all the Old Testament, even the Ten Commandments. I must say this is quite consistent with Pauline anti-nomianism. So real Christians don’t haved to avoid all the terrible prohibitions in the Old Testament: they can do what they want as long as they believe? Wow!

By Robert

February 28, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

My question for Shaunti is which version of the ten commandments will be used, there are 2 (at least)in my King James version of the Bible. Catholics and Jews have slightly altered versions, and let us not forget the more recent contemporary translations. Our country was founded in a large degree by people seeking to avoid religious persecution and celebrates religious freedom by separating Church from State in it’s Constitution. Our Government has no place trying to promote religion and should remain neutral on the subject.

By norman

February 28, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

Bruce: yes we all need a moral compass. When mankind was immature (and much of it still is) the only way to get people to behave was through fear: fear of punishment either in this world or the next, or both. With reason mankind can find a moral compass in such principles as compassion, enlightened self interest, benevolence, but some will use their freedom to base their compass on greed and unenlightened self interest. But with either a religious or a secular moral compass people have always found ways of doing what they want nevertheless. There is no evidence that religion makes men better, and there is a lot of evidence it may make them worse.

By Bruce

February 28, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

J Morris,

Well since I believe that God gives us our humanity then I believe He instilled in us, how did you say it, “the BASIC prohibitions” or as I put it a moral compass. I guess we can just agree that we disagree.

I still can’t figure out what harm the public display of the 10 Commandments do? They have been there so long and it isn’t until now they are a problem.

By lozen

February 28, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

Think Bruce! Christians (the ones who ARE moral) are not the only moral human beings! All societies have morals. Sam, what are you doing out of school today?

By norman

February 28, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Robert: the so-called different versions of the 10 Commandments make no real difference. One should not remove the Commandments because of meaningless linguistic differences but for a substantial reason. Is there a substantial reason: probably yes but it would be better to forget the whole thing. Let the bible thumpers have their primitive Commandments, they have never prevented any of the ills (idolotry, murder, adultery, theft, false witness, etc.) they make into taboos. Nor would removing them from public view improve or worsen morality.

By Lyrazel

February 28, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

First I would like to clarify a misconception that hedonists would ever want to control a government. Such a statement is laughable to true hedonists. Managing a government and its citizens is work that would bring little reward thus it would detract from indulging in pleasures. Thank you.

Second, lets suppose the government of the USA said, HEY, lets all resign and give control of every facet of government to Christians.And they all left. POOF!

Do you know how many I-want-my-christian faith-over-yours wars would begin? Churches fighting churches to gain political power, evangelicals fighting mormons fighting lutherans fighting amish who are fighting menonites who are battling catholics who are fighting gnostic christians who are battling quakers who refuse to fight…well, you get my drift. Why do I believe it? Listen to some of the posters here and take a good look at AMERICAN HISTORY…not revisionist history. Even our most devout posters degrade other peoples faiths/lives/beliefs in a shameful way and it is done week after week…ad nauseum.

Im still not joining your crusade…Im back on the beach drinking a beer with fellow hedonists…we will wave as you go forth…

By Bruce

February 28, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

Norman,

As I cannot speak for all of mankind I will speak for me and my house. Ask my wife and friends if my religious beliefs have or have not made me a better man. Without going into detail I will just say I haven’t always lived a moral life. More importantly I believe through my faith, and only my faith, in Jesus Christ that today I am a better man. Without that faith I woulld either be in jail or dead.

Lozen,

I guess I am NOT thinking unless I am thinking down the same path as you? If that is the case you need to stop thinking.

By Seaborn

February 28, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

Bruce,

personally the 10 commandments don’t really bother me but I don’t spend a lot of time in public (i.e., tax paid) facilities. In certain situations i.e., context they are no problem even in public arenas…but when their display gives the impression of government sponsored religion the courts have to intervene. You may admire Moore, but he clearly endorsed his religion on the public dole. There may not be many non-christians in Alabama, but they still are due justice free of religious predjudice. The Supreme Court will decide each of these two cases on this criteria…but probably with some influence of public opinion also…so you are apt to get your wish about this display anyway. We’ll see I guess.

By J. Morris

February 28, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

Bruce, the point that seems to escape you is that the prohibitions of which I spoke exist, and have existed, in every society regardless of its secularism or religiosity. We understand that you personally feel your moral compass is divinly derived. You asked how one could have a moral compass without religion and I responded.

And, though it’s been said several times, it isn’t the public display of the 10 Commandments that’s the problem - it’s the display of the 10 Commandments on Goverment property - specifically Courthouses that are meant to be bastions of impartial justice to ALL Americans regardless of their race, religion or creed - that many find problematic.

If Moore had chosen to erect his monument on his church grounds, no one would have said a word. Instead, he planted it squarely in the courthouse over which he presided, a courthouse in which he made NO BONES about the fact that he was utterly partial and biased when it came to injecting religion into his decisions.

He once voiced an opinion that a gay woman who appeared before him should be executed. How is this in any way an appropriate use of the judiciary? Does this not suggest that his treatment of anyone else that doesn’t fit his idea of what people should be? Are we to believe that he didn’t impose harsher sentences on non-Christians or those he thought violated his religious sensibilities?

The man was a monster on the bench, and his placement of that monument was just the outward expression of his virulently discriminatory nature. Anyone not of the Christian faith who walked past that monumnet, knowing his reputation, would be certain to feel like a second-class citizen, would be certain that his or her concerns would not be treated fairly in that courtroom. THAT is the problem with the monument.

Interestingly enough, the mention of the display of the 10 Commandments at the Supreme Court that Shaunti makes is conspicuously devoid of mention of the presence of other parts of the monument - various representations of relgious and secular codes of law. That’s because the display at the Supreme Court is a nod to LAW, in all its historical forms, rather than of one specific religion.

By Zack

February 28, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

RS—If you died for a country to have freedom with that freedom stripped away consistently and substantially, to be followed by people like yourself defending those who desecrate those who died for us to have a country to begin with, your view might change. Please look at the big picture as opposed to that which could possibly be construed as a supporting argument.

Brian Curtis—Were you speaking to me? Study the history of this country through the medium of an objective source, not from the bias of a liberal textbook (which is a “source” that has told such lies also as the lie about condoms being effective against most STDs, the lie that there’s no post-abortion guilt, that sort of thing). On the contrary, the foundation for the laws of this country was indeed the Bible, not the manmade myths of humanism and relativism.

Yes, the Ten Commandments need to be posted. It’s a very sad era when you can kill your own baby legally but have a judge contend such a courtroom posting. This is nothing short of ludicrous.

By Crystal

February 28, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

Well, Norman, I don’t agree with your last sentence at all. That is: “….no evidence that religion makes men better..”. But your prolific pseudo(?) intellectual sayings are usually interesting. (But where is TERRY?)

Anyway, forget stone monuments. POST the ten commandments on this W to W blog. Sounds like a good place for them. Most of the contributing “crackpots” need SOMETHING, for sure.

By Brian Curtis

February 28, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

Zack: Yes, I was speaking to you. And I still am waiting for some evidence to support your claim that our government is supposed to be “Christian.”

I’m curious what sort of freedoms Christians are somehow “losing’ if they don’t have government sponsorship of their faith at every turn. It seems to me that such a situation—i.e., religious freedom and governmental neutrality—simply puts them on the same footing as every other philosophy and belief in this free country of ours. Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

Whatever you think were the “foundations” of our legal system, the facts are that Jesus, Christianity, and God are nowhere to be found in our Constitution, despite dozens of opportunities to bring it up. Our system was solidly based on government staying neutral on religious matters, and it should remain so.

By jack

February 28, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

What is wrong with displaying the 10 commandments? When I go to another country should I be offended when I see the Buddha, references to the Koran or other displays? I think not. Why can’t a country display what they want? This is our country.

By Bruce

February 28, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

J. Morris,

Why is it that it has all of a sudden become an issue? The display of religious materials havebeen around for a very long time.

By mit

February 28, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

zack, did you graduate high school or did you drop out for you refusal of reading ‘liberal textbooks’. lol

has no one here heard of a conscience? the moral compass one speaks of. i didn’t know the conscience was religious.

and to the person who was a better man with faith, i glad you are a better person, but i am not going to kill someone just because i am not religious.

if there is not such deity as satan, what could he possibly be saying to me. i don’t here anyone but my conscience saying, are you guys for real! the 50’s and 60’s were good? oh, i forgot Alabama, man that place looked like it rocked back then from the video footage.

By Bruce

February 28, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this

I agree with Zack. Post the 10 Commandments. If for no other reason than because they have always been there. They haven’t been a problem until now so it must be a problem to only those with self inflated egos.

By Jack

February 28, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

People in order countries probably think we are a bunch of boobs having to spend our tax money so that the courts can decide what can & cannot be displayed. What a waste. many children could be fed with what we are spending on this.

By lozen

February 28, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

75 ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

By norman

February 28, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

For the rare citizen who escapes indoctrination in the “new social order” in progressive schools; for the Bible-believing Christian who rejects “theologians” who teach that socialism is the new “Kingdom of God on Earth”; for all the sturdy souls who hold to age-old concepts of right and wrong, and are vocal about it, the collectivists have one final, ultimate weapon. Declare them insane! Fantastic? Not at all. Just as in the fields of education, religion, press, radio and TV, the collectivists have succeeded in infiltrating and twisting the honorable psychiatric and psychological professions to their own ends.The “new leaders” in the psychiatric field propose to re-educate the world’s population using psychological procedures to create a new breed of amoral men who will accept a one-world socialistic government. They hold the weapon of commitment to a mental institution over the heads of those “reactionaries” who rebel at accepting the “new social order.”It sounds unbelievable? Listen to the words of Dr. G. Brock Chisholm, first head of the World Federation of Mental Health, and later head of the World Health Organization of the United Nations. His address, sponsored by the William Alanson White Psychiatric Foundation was delivered in October 1945 in Washington D.C. to a large group of psychiatrists and high government officials. Chisholm said: “What basic psychological distortion can be found in every civilization of which we know anything? The only psychological force capable of producing these perversions is morality—the concept of right and wrong. The re-interpretation and eventual eradication of the concept of right and wrong are the belated objectives of nearly all psychotherapy.” If the race is to be freed from its crippling burden of good and evil it must be psychiatrists who take the original responsibility. Chisholm has been obsessed for years with the idea that instilling concepts of right and wrong, love of country, and morality in children by their parents is the paramount evil.

By Michael

February 28, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

Here’s the underlying issue the way I see it…

It’s the type of display and how it is used that is the real objection here.

I don’t have a problem with the depiction of the Big 10 in an historical perspective like in the Supreme Court building — which BTW, only displays the second 5 commandments which deal with secular issues, not religion.

Unfortunately, what we are told is that these displays are central to reminding folks (wrongly) that WE ARE A CHRISTIAN NATION BUILT ON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES, etc… and that regardless of what the law actually says, the religious doctrine will override.

Mostly when people object to these displays, what we’re really talking about is not trusting a judicial system to be impartial — or at least neutral — to people outside of a fairly narrow evangelical dogma.

Being informed by your faith is different than imposing your faith — especially when the law is (or should be) absolutely neutral.

Whenever a ruling goes the way of removing the symbols or putting them in a more historical and less religious context, the evangelicals scream about ‘taking G*d out of’ this or that… what they are really screaming about is the loss of power to impose their beliefs rather than float their ideals in the marketplace.

(Sorry for the long post — got on a roll there…)

By Thomas

February 28, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

To Brian Curtis:

“The Colonels or commanding officers of each regiment are directed to procure Chaplains accordingly; persons of good Characters and exemplary lives. To see that all inferior officers and soldiers pay them a suitable respect and attend carefully upon religious exercises. The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country.” —General George Washington

Young man, if God gives me four years more to rule this country, I believe it will become what it ought to be—what its Divine Author intended it to be—no longer one vast plantation for breeding human beings for the purpose of lust and bondage. But it will become a new Valley of Jehoshaphat, where all the nations of the earth will assemble together under one flag, worshipping a common God, and they will celebrate the resurrection of human freedom. —Abraham Lincoln

It would be a neglect of that justice which is due to the physicians and surgeons of this hospital, not to acknowledge that their care and skill, and their punctual and regular attendance, under the Divine Blessing, has been a principal means of advancing this charity to the flourishing state in which we have now the pleasure to view it. Relying on the continuance of the Favour of Heaven, upon the future endeavors of all who may be concerned in the management of the institution, for its further advancement, we close this account with the abstract of a sermon, preached before the Governors… —Benjamin Franklin

Enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafterâ€â€?with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? —Thomas Jefferson

Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained; and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people. —George Washington

“Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets 600 years before.” —John Quincy Adams

I’ve got lots more.

The fact is that freedom of religion is not freedom from religion, but I agree that the government is not the “person” I want teaching religion. However, if the ten commandments are included as part of a diverse, historical perspective then they are proper and do not represent an “establishment” of religion.

By J. Morris

February 28, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Bruce,

As the country continues to grow more diverse in terms of religions and ethnic groups it should only be expected that the “way it’s always been” will change as well.

Societies evolve - it is at the heart of Conservative philosophy to attempt to stall change at any costs. Your own argument, “Why hasn’t it been a problem before”, epitomizes this philosophy. Why does it matter that it wasn’t this way before? Nations change. People change. Laws change.

By norman

February 28, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

What naturalists or rationalists aim at in philosophy, that the supporters of Liberalism, carrying out the principles laid down by naturalism, are attempting in the domain of morality and politics. The fundamental doctrine of rationalism is the supremacy of the human reason, which, refusing due submission to the divine and eternal reason, proclaims its own independence, and constitutes itself the supreme principle and source and judge of truth. Hence, these followers of Liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license. The end of all this is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man’s individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and all duty reside in the majority. But, from what has been said, it is clear that all this is in contradiction to reason. To refuse any bond of union between man and civil society, on the one hand, and God and Creator and consequently the supreme Law-giver, on the other, is plainly repugnant to the nature, not only of man, but of all created things; for, of necessity, all effects must in some proper way be connected with their cause; and it belongs to the perfection of every nature to contain itself within that sphere and grade which the order of nature has assigned to it, namely, that the lower should be subject and obedient to the higher.

By norman

February 28, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

Moreover, besides this, a doctrine of such character is most hurtful both to individuals and to the State. For, once ascribe to human reason the only authority to decide what is true and what is good, and the real distinction between good and evil is destroyed; honor and dishonor differ not in their nature, but in the opinion and judgment of each one; pleasure is the measure of what is lawful; and, given a code of morality which can have little or no power to restrain or quiet the unruly propensities of man, a way is naturally opened to universal corruption. With reference also to public affairs: authority is severed from the true and natural principle whence it derives its efficacy for the common good; and the law determining what it is right to do and avoid doing is at the mercy of the majority. Now, this is simply a road leading straight to tyranny. The empire of God over man and civil society once repudiated, it follows that religion, as a public institution, can have no claim to exist, and that everything that belongs to religion will be treated with complete indifference. Furthermore, with ambitious designs on sovereignty, tumult and sedition will be common among the people; and when duty and conscience cease to appeal to them, there will be nothing to hold them back but force, which of itself alone is powerless to keep their covetousness in check.

By Michael

February 28, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change. With the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted hime when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. — Thomas Jefferson

By lozen

February 28, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

Who is that posting under Norman’s name? Uses big words so it can’t be Zack or Randy (unless they’re just cutting and pasting). Boscoe? Is that you. Chuck? We all know Norman’s not writing this crap!

By lozen

February 28, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

The Prophet Mohammed was foretold in the bible: Song of Solomon 5:16

�ãå Ú�È ¡ æßáå ã�ÊåíÇÊ ¡ å�Ç åæ �ÈíÈí ¡ æå�Ç åæ Îáíáí íÇ ÈäÇÊ ÃæÑ�áíã

His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.

The phrase “he is altogether lovely” reads in the Hebrew, as “he is Mahamaddim.” The Hebrew word Mahamaddim. The ending letters ‘im’ is a plural of respect and majesty just as in Elohim (the God). Without ‘im’ the name becomes Muhammad, which was translated as “altogether lovely” in the Authorised Version of the Bible or ‘The Praised One’, ‘the one worthy of Praise.’ In Arabic, Muhammad means the one who is most praised.

By Jack

February 28, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

Yeah that doesn’t sound like Norman. I seem to remember that he believes that nature is the true religion. (although he opposes organized religion) Am I right Norm?

By J. Morris

February 28, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

Bruce - your overinflated egos comment reminds me of something an adolescent would say. Because its always been that way, it must not have been a problem? Was it not a problem when women weren’t allowed to vote? Was it not a problem when black citizens were forced to refer to white folks as sir and ma’am? Just because something hasn’t “been a problem before” does not mean that it IS a problem.

Thomas - Why do people always assume that men of faith believe that faith and government should be linked? There are many people of faith who do not agree that faith should intrude. The intent of the Founding Fathers is clear. Just because they believed in God does not mean they believed in theocracy. Quite the contrary, everything they wrote suggests the opposite.

Fundamentalists wants to say that when Thomas Jefferson talked about his wall of separation, he didn’t really mean it, or when he said that religion would never be a requirement for an official, that he didn’t really mean it. Well, gosh…I have to believe he did.

It’s not the first time on this blog that I have suggested someone read “Democracy in America” by Alexis de Tocqueville. Tocqueville himself was a devout Christian. The introduction to his book is full of references to the Creator, to God, etc. It’s ALSO full of warnings about the intrusion of religion into government. He says that religion is the enemy of freedom and that religion’s effects on government must be guarded against and mitigated. Smart man.

By J. Morris

February 28, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this

Well, since it’s a Papal Encyclical by a nineteenth century Pope, I’m laying odds on that captain of Obscure Catholic Dogma - Boscoe!

By Zack

February 28, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

Post the Ten Commandments in every courtroom.

Censor the ACLU. Censor Disney and it’s anti-Christian and gay propaganda, which is used subtly to brainwash audiences. Censor pornography. Censor liberal lies in textbooks.

Don’t censor God’s Word.

By Jack

February 28, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

You forgot to require that women wear burmas

By Janet

February 28, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

Here’s a thought… IF commandments MUST be posted, why not post the 2 commandments Jesus gave in Matthew 22:37-39. Maybe they will satisfy both the Conservative Christians, the Liberal Christian, and the other religions because it says “You shall love the Lord, YOUR God, with all you heart, with all you soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Let each group pick who the Lord THEIR God is.
And forgive me for sounding like a bleeding heart, but if we did all love each other as much as we loved ourselves, the intolerance levels in this country would go down. I find it hard to believe that Jesus who preached Love, would be able to find much true Christian Love in the complete intolerance being spewed by “Christian” today. I’m sure Jesus’ second commandment offends many “Christian” today.

By Seaborn

February 28, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

Oh Zack…you scamp.

By Phillip

February 28, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

Suddenly, you find yourself in a room filled with Demonic symbols. These are on display for a reason. Someone wants you to see this because they want you to get this message. This is most likely an important factor in the decision-making process of the people who control that room.

Now, you may or may not agree with the ‘rules’ on display, but hey, if someone else wants to be a Devil worshiper and believe/practice that sort of thing then who are you to say they are wrong? To each his own. The First Ammendment guarantees that right to all of us. And besides, it makes no difference since it isn’t directly impacting your life.

But, wait a minute… this isn’t just a room somewhere, this is a courtroom. And you are being judged right or wrong in this room. This does affect the rest of your life! You’re not a Demon worshipper. You don’t even know that much about it. Is the judge a demon worshipper too? Who put this stuff in here anyhow? Why are you thinking about devil worship when you have been accused of a crime?

Then the trial begins with the sacrifice of a screaming innocent… Comforting, isn’t it?

By Zack

February 28, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Please take note of how those who defend abortion call its opponents haters of women. Please note how gay rights advocates call its opponents haters and bigots. Please note how non-Christians vehemently attack Christians for believing the truth, as opposed to the myths that they themselves try to believe.

So many cringe when people say the Bible is absolutely true, and they attack Christians for this statement. However, they make their statements that their beliefs are absolutely true and expect Christians to accept these beliefs. This is nothing more than garbage.

Heck, look at this blog. Look at how Christians are attacked on here with all the hatred dished out by the likes of Norman, RS, J. Morris, etc.. There’s a ton of it.

By J. Morris

February 28, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

Does anyone else think that Zack is beneath notice?

By Randy

February 28, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

What it all comes down to is simple, one day we are all going to be on our death beds and the commitments we have made to the creator of the universe will come into play to the extreme. I’ll take my chances with Jesus, as I know he is the way to eternal life. If you want to take you chances with some other religion, knock yourself out. But my immortal soul is worth more than that to me. Also, I care enough about this country and others to try to help them find the same peace that I know. I’m sure that bothers some of you as you have not taken care of business. Common sense tells me a creator exists and he is going to make himself known. He will give me rules to go by(bible), they may not be exactly what I want, but they will and are good for me. My mom told me to do things also that I didn’t like, but they were the best thing for me. I didn’t go out and look for another mother, that would let me do whatever I wanted to do. Grow Up.

By mit

February 28, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

zack, with your statement:

Please note how non-Christians vehemently attack Christians for believing the truth, as opposed to the myths that they themselves try to believe.

and then to say: However, they make their statements that their beliefs are absolutely true and expect Christians to accept these beliefs. This is nothing more than garbage.

vice versa can go to you and others on this blog. just switch out christian and non-christian. hence, your argument is flawed

By Randy

February 28, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

WHY DO THE 10 COMMANDMENTS BOTHER NON-CHRISTIANS? WHEN I SEE SYMBOLS OF OTHER RELIGIONS, THEY DON’T BOTHER ME. REALLY, I DON’T EVEN NOTICE THEM. IS THERE SOMETHING ABOUT JESUS, THAT CONCERNS THE NON-CHRISTIANS? HERE I’M REALLY GOING TO BUG YOU NON-CHRISTIANS. JESUS LOVES YOU. JESUS LOVES YOU. JESUS LOVES YOU.

By Jack

February 28, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

Zack you are beyond hope. Bless your heart.

By J. Morris

February 28, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

I find it almost incomprehensible that Zack has the nerve to accuse ANYONE of bigotry and hatred.

By norman

February 28, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

Zack and Randy are using my name for posts which I have nothing to do with. They think this is the way to silence me. Ask rather, why do they wish to silence me? Because the truth they cannot endure.

By Randy

February 28, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

norman, Not me man. I have never used your name.

By Jack

February 28, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

On the food chain Zack ranks up there with pond scum.

By Brian Curtis

February 28, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

Randy: Your common sense, and your faith, can tell you anything they like. Mine can do the same, and we both have the right to be treated equally in the eyes of government regardless of those views. That’s freedom.

Our government is required to treat us equally, and can therefore NOT favor one faith or perspective over another. That’s democracy.

And Christianity, despite Zack’s repeated (and unsupported) claims, is NOT the law of the land, nor should it be. Our founders created a secular government for a reason. That’s America.

If you want a Christian government, you need to go elsewhere and set up a less free, less democratic society. Because the U.S. has a Constitution and a Bill of Rights that will prevent you from taking such steps here.

By Randy

February 28, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

Norman, There is no truth in anything you have said, that I can remember.

By mit

February 28, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

randy, non practicing-christian (since i was baptized and have a christian name) here.

just wanted to let you know that they don’t bother me at all. i don’t speak for everyone but i do see how they can bother others, especially people with different faiths. i also feel that the cali atheist with all the hub bub over the pledge and stuff is stupid, but regardless he has a point, his.

By Michael

February 28, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

Jesus loves you, but HE LIKES ME BETTER…

Look, I don’t think that people who state that the bible is their literal truth are raving loons or bigots. I happen to think that they are intentionally uninformed — but then again, I went to a private Christian-oriented university where we had to take courses in the Good Book, much of which were spent discussing the various contradictions in it. Not to mention the contradictions between all the various translations over the centuries.

These religious symbols are there for the express purpose of telling people who want and expect a fair and neutral government that equality begins with a particular set of beliefs — namely those of the people putting up the blessed symbols. We’re in charge, get used to it, and don’t think a little thing like the Constitution or rule of U.S. law is going to get in the way.

By Brian Curtis

February 28, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

Maybe it’s time to swap some words and deliver the Wisdom of Kcaz, too:

“Please note how Christians vehemently attack non-Christians for believing the truth, as opposed to the myths that they themselves try to believe.”

“However, they [Christians] state that their beliefs are Absolutely True, and expect non-Christians to accept these beliefs. This is nothing more than garbage.”

Agreed; it’s hypocrisy of the worst order. If only there were an example of non-Christians insisting that everyone else has to share and accept their beliefs as true! Then Zack might have some basis for complaint.

Randy: WHY DOES NON-THEISM BOTHER YOU SO MUCH? I GUESS THE TRUTH HURTS AND YOU TRY TO HIDE FROM IT, HUH? WELL, THIS WILL BOTHER YOU EVEN MORE: THINK FOR YOURSELF. THINK FOR YOURSELF. THINK FOR YOURSELF.

Are we done shouting now?

By Randy

February 28, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

Your right Brian, I agree with freedom. I really think freedom is what God wants, he doesn’t want anyone to accept him as lord and savior unless they come freely. I want freedom, I don’t see a problem with symbols this country has had throughout it’s existance and are a part of its heritage. If I went to another country to live, I wouldn’t expect them to change their religious symbols, because I moved there.

By Seaborn

February 28, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

Wow Randy…that’s cool you are so open about other religious symbols. So you wouldn’t mind if a judge put a 1 ton statue of Vishnu (that’s a Hindu deity) in the atrium of your local court house?

By J. Morris

February 28, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

Randy, since you have obviously not read anyone’s post, I’ll recap. The argument is not with Christian symbols. The agrument is not with Christianity, or Christians. I know that you and Zack and all the other frothing-at-the-mouth fanatics like to act persecuted whenever the opportunity presents, but that’s not what’s happening here.

I think you would find that there would be equal argument - and I bet you and the aforementioned martyrs-in-training would be at the fore - if it was a symbol of any other religion in similar circumstances.

The argument is not - with - religion. It is with the intrusion of religious law into an impartial court system. Period.

By Steve

February 28, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

Jesus taught his disciples to pray in private, not the boastful praying of the Pharisees. And he also taught his disciples to render government to Caesar. He basically taught the separation of church and state AND keeping religious private.

Religion needs to be out of government as much as possible. This is so obvious, if you study history or religion, I don’t see what the debate is here.

By Brian Curtis

February 28, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

Randy: The problem is, our “country” as a whole HAS no religious symbols. Various groups of its CITIZENS do. Do you see the distinction?

We do not, cannot, and will not have a Christian government—no matter how many Christian citizens we have (and that portion is shrinking, by the way). Freedom demands that every citizen be free to practice his/her beliefs without judgment or unequal treatment from the strictly neutral government.

And that, in turn, demands that government can make NO comments on religion at all—not in favor of Christianity, not against Islam, not displaying Wiccan symbols, and not condemning Satanic holidays. Zip. Zero. Nada. The government’s role in religion is precisely one thing: to butt out.

By GS

February 28, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

I am not a Christian, but I have absolutely no problem with the ten commandments monument in govt. buildings. I am also not offended in any way. Nor do I believe it threatens my freedom. However, in order to ensure fairness, we must give space to other religions as well.

I’m surprised to read so many postings talking about being offended if they were forced to view the enscriptions from other religions.

What’s there to be offended about?

Why should a Christian or non-Christian be offended if a courtroom displayed monuments of the Ten Commandments, Koranic verses and Hindu Sutras (verses) side by side? Wouldn’t that attest to the strength and character of our country?

Whatever happened to respecting other’s beliefs even though they may not be your own?

I say the ten commandments monuments should stay and we give equal space to monuments of other religions to reflect the plurality of this country.

By J. Morris

February 28, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Zack, Randy, and others of their ilk don’t care about freedom, they don’t want freedom, they are scared of freedom, and they certainly don’t want others to have freedom.

By Joe H

February 28, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

Lets face it; this is simply about irrational religionists with power wanting to rub their god in everyone’s face. It’s one of their many misguided missions! Although it is laughable when they pretend to be offended when peaceful, intelligent and moral people figure them out. But make no mistake about it, their history of violent suppression of information contrary to their dogma is well documented. And their days of power are coming to an end. Keep your mythology in your homes and churches.

By Randy

February 28, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

Your right Brian non-theism does bother me. Why, how can anyone be that stupid. Things don’t appear out of thin air, a creator ABSOLUTELY has to exist.

By Jack

February 28, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

G.S. has it right. Zack, Randy and the others in their ilk would be much happier in a “Talaban” run govt.

By RS

February 28, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

Pond scum & beneath notice, yes, indeed, but Zack’s idiotic posts are so amusing I cannot help but respond. Kind of like that urge to slow down & gawp at a wreck. Did any of you note how he thinks(?!?) I attack advocates of freedom when he’s the one who A) Is against women having control over their own bodies? B) wants only one religion & eveyone else be treated like filth? C) Wants to oust anyone from the US who doesn’t recite the pledge? B) Displays the type of bigotry he accused Norman, me etc of??

By lozen

February 28, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

J. Morris, Mit, Brian Curtis, Seaborn, Lyrazel, Keep up the good work. Although it sometimes seems hopeless and as if nothing we say or do can get through, who knows who may be touched and their eyes opened by a chance word. The “soon to be open mindeds” fight so hard because deep down inside they know we’re right and they’re wrong :-)

By J. Morris

February 28, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

w00t Lozen.

By Randy

February 28, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

It doesn’t work that way Iozen, non-Christians become Christian not the reverse. You guys are the ones who we hope to get through to.

By J. Morris

February 28, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

Yeah, there’s this flaw in Randy’s argument…if things don’t appear out of thin air, then who Created the Creator? Somewhere, there’s a primal cause…

See, if we accept as given your argument that a Creator exists because nothing can appear out of nothing, then you have to assume that the Creator appeared out of nothing, which pretty much negates the argument, yes?

Or, conversely, you have to admit that if a Creator did spontaneously emerge out of nothing and then Create the universe, it’s equally as likely that the universe came spontaneously into being without assistance.

Please note that A) I know this is over your head and B) I’m not saying one way or the other - it’s a logical excercise. Wasted on some people, I know.

By Randy

February 28, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

A creator would have to be eternal, to be the creator.

By lozen

February 28, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this

75 ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Randy: 75. THE JUST IN CASE ARGUMENT

If I’m wrong and have loved god and tried to be a good person and when I die there is no God, what have I lost? If you’re wrong and die and there is a god, you will burn forever in hell. Therefore there is a god.

Zack: 2. COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause. (2) I say the universe must have a cause.

By Randy

February 28, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this

There is No flaw in my reasoning. My reasoning is 100% complete and true.

By Lyrazel

February 28, 2005 05:21 PM | Link to this

Would the bashing end please and lets begin some discussion on topic tomorrow. More than one opinion is valid. And to the person trying to post as another…please just grow up…if you believe your fake expressed opinion is valid, stand up and post under your own name! Thanks.

Taking bets: 90-1— issue is resolved calling 10C fundamentals of law 1-0—supreme court declares religious icons be removed at a cost of several millions per state 1-0—supreme court will declare a new spanish inquisition 1-0—supreme court will abandon their posts to persue hedonistic pleasures 1-0—supreme court will be replaced by Simple Life starlets 1-0—supreme court will disband and leave town in unmarked vehicles 9-0—nothing will happen stalemate and future debates will be expected 1-0—Martha Stewart takes new job as Chief Justice and redecorates all courts in mauve

By Randy

March 1, 2005 07:12 AM | Link to this

OK here is the thought for today, tues. WHO GIVES US OUR RIGHTS AS AMERICANS? Is it the goverment or is it God?

By Brian Curtis

March 1, 2005 07:50 AM | Link to this

Well, since those rights include the right to believe in all sorts of deities, or none at all, it obviously can’t be God.

I believe the more pertinent question is, “Should the U.S. government be promoting the ideals of one particular religion, even though the Constitution forbids it?”

By Brian Curtis

March 1, 2005 08:03 AM | Link to this

quote from randy: “It doesn’t work that way Iozen, non-Christians become Christian not the reverse.”

Interesting thought! Then how do you explain: *The Ex-Christian webring: http://k.webring.com/hub?ring=exchristian *The Ex-Christian forum: http://www.infidels.org/electronic/email/ex-tian/stories.html *Dan Barker, a former minister who is now a director of the Freedom from Religion Foundation (http://www.ffrf.org/about/bybarker/)

It seems to me that plenty of people walk away from Christianity to embrace other faiths and beliefs, just as many turn to it in the course of their lives. Imagine that.

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 08:04 AM | Link to this

Sorry Randy, but while your conclusions (that there is a Creator) may or may not be correct, the logical processes by which you arrive at them are flawed.

Let’s consider your assertion that any Creator must be eternal. In logical terms, this is purely fallacious - in order for a Creator to exist, he or she or it (for the sake of convenience, we’ll use the standard “he”) must merely precede his Creation.

Now - let’s examine the idea of Eternal. By Eternal, I assume you mean existing infinitely backwards in time, as well as forwards. We’ll illustrate your posited existence as a line: <—————————-> (no beginning point or end point).

Next - let’s insert the act of Creation into the illustration: <—————!—————->. The problem with this model is that the beginning point exists at a point infinitely distant from the point of Creation. This means that, if time and existence (and therefore the Creator) has existed Eternally, that….ready for this?…one would NEVER REACH THE POINT OF CREATION.

One could alternately guess that by the act of Creation, our hypothetical Creator has turned the illustration from <——> to @—————————————-> (a line with a beginning point and no end point) by defining a moment that transforms theoretical infinity into concrete reality. This leaves us with the inescapable position that the Creator came into being at @, which returns us to the idea that something is spontaneously created out of nothing. This, in turn, returns us to my initial argument…that there are two divergent hypothesis that extend from this conclusion. Hypothesis A) Creator-Deity came out of nothing and created the Universe, and Hypothesis B) Matter spontaneously emerged from nothing and the Universe created itself.

I look forward to your insightful rebuttal.

By Boscoe

March 1, 2005 08:35 AM | Link to this

Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796. On 4 November 1796, near the end of George Washington’s second term, a treaty with the “Bey and People of Tripoli” was signed, promising cash and other considerations to Tripoli in exchange for peace. Leading the negotiations for the U.S. at that point was Joel Barlow, a diplomat and poet (he wanted very much to be remembered as America’s epic poet). Barlow was a friend of Thomas Jefferson and of Thomas Paine (Paine hurriedly entrusted the manuscript of the first part of the Age of Reason to Barlow when Paine was suddenly arrested by the radicals of the French revolution). Barlow was very likely by 1796 a deist, though he had served earlier as a military chaplain. There is considerable dispute about whether the Arabic version of the treaty read and signed by the representatives of Tripoli even had the famous words included (they are not present, as was discovered in about 1930, in the surviving Arabic version). No one knows why. The treaty remained in effect for only four years, replaced, after more war with Tripoli, with another treaty that does not have the famous words included. One or two later treaties even allude to the Trinity. IF the major claim of separationists regarding the treaty were a legal one, these facts might be fatal. But no one claims that the treaty was the basis for our government being non-Christian—it is the Constitution, which calls on a higher power than “We the People,” that is the necessary and sufficient legal basis. This information comes from the Library of Congress.

By Katie Grogan

March 1, 2005 08:38 AM | Link to this

Good Morning,

First of all I would like to say to Ms. Glass. if you are going to quote a scripture verse out of the bible, such as one of the Ten Commandments of God, make sure that you quote it right. First of all if you reread that verse, you will see that it is referring to Idols or statues of any thing pertaining to what is thought to be in “Heaven” and or beneath the earth. It goes on to say that we are not to bow down to graven images. If she would read it all she would know this. Second of all , if she really reads the bible she would know that the Jewish scribes wore the “Ten Commandments around their head or had them written somewhere on the clothes. The bible also tells us that the “Ten Commandments where given to Israel 3 times before God commanded them to keep them in their hreats. If we are not to see or know the Ten Commandments , then God would not have insisted we have them. Ms. Glass needs to pray for forgiveness for mishandleing the word of God.

By Quentin

March 1, 2005 08:39 AM | Link to this

Let’s get real for a moment. If you people, such as Zack, Randy, and Boscoe are such supporters of Christianity (I’m a Christian man), why do you have pictures in the churches and on window panes with Jesus Christ being fair skinned with long flowing straight hair? Look at the people in that area. Most of them do not have long flowing straight hair, blue eyes, and pale skin.

Zack, when you talk of the outrage of The Passion of the Christ. I was more upset with Mel Gibson choosing a fair, white male actor to play the part of Jesus Christ. They make several references in the bible to Egypt, The Sudan, and the Middle East. I look at these people today. Most of them are pale with blue eyes, and straight hair. When you are making these assertions, I want you to take a moment and think about that area, and challenge your church, etc. to put up some pictures that actually depict the real Jesus Christ.

By norman

March 1, 2005 08:44 AM | Link to this

There are two kinds of arguments for God’s existence. The first affirms His existence from the use of reason; and the second grows out of the historical existence of Jesus. The arguments from reason begin with the premise that this world does not contain its own explanation. As we know our world, it is a planet revolving about the sun, ninety-three million miles away. The sun itself is not the center of the universe. At the same time there are man-made satellites revolving about the sun. If we ask we put them there and how did they get there, the answer is that scientists put them there using rocket-stages to get them into orbit. If another satellite went into orbit again we would ask how it got there. We would remain unsatisfied until we discovered that the agents were the Russians or the Americans or the British. The same mental instinct which demands to know who has put a rocket into orbit around the earth, also demands to know who has put the earth into orbit around the sun. To answer that the earth is just there and so is the sun leaves us dissatisfied because it offers no explanation. This is another way of stating that there is no effect without a cause. Common sense is always looking for causes to explain events. Police find a dead man on the road. How did it happen: was it a hit-and-run driver? Did the man fall out of the car? Who is he? Who did it? We know when we are causing something. I drive a golf ball from the first tee. Something happens because I make it happen. Nothing happens without a cause. A plane crashes and there is an investigation called because common sense assures us that nothing happens without a cause. The cause is there, even if we cannot discover it. What or who caused the earth? Whatever, whoever brought this vast immense universe into being cannot be less than its effect. A man with strength to lift only half a ton cannot lift a whole ton. If he lifts a ton he must have that much muscular strength. We are then dealing with a Power of some sort of immensity to explain the immensity of that universe we observe. What sort of Power can it be? Day follows night with regularity; season follows season; trees, flowers, animals all follow a certain and predictable course of behavior. What happens is so well-defined that we can say they happen according to laws in nature. The Power is a law-giver, a law-maker Who gives testimony of intelligence. This immense Power of terrifying Intelligence (we are still making fresh discoveries of design in nature) is subject to the same question. Who caused it or Him? If it or He is the effect of another Cause, there must be behind Him another Cause, of which He is the effect; or He must be without a Cause because He IS of Himself and not of another. Ultimately there must be a Being That Is, a Supreme Cause Who depends upon no other for His existence.

By Boscoe

March 1, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this

Quentin, what does your church say Jesus looked like? And does it matter? The bottom line is whether you beleive in Him or not. Do you?

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this

Ya know, the posting in other people’s name is not only childish, it is hopelessly transparent. Grow up, children.

By Texas

March 1, 2005 08:50 AM | Link to this

My eyes have never beheld what I believe I will one day possess.

My hands have never touched hands damaged in crucifixion, yet I believe I will one day touch them.

My feet have never touched pavement of gold, yet one day I fully expect to walk on such streets.

My mind has never understood the mysteries of God, yet there will come a day when it will all make sense.

So until then, I will rejoice in what I do not possess because I have something that will carry me in confidence until that moment arrives. What will carry me is the belief that the Father has fully paid my sin debt which gives me the freedom to love and follow where He leads.

I don’t need to see it or hold it in my hands to believe that it is real.

Some say seeing is believing - but for me it’s the opposite. Belief comes first, seeing will come soon enough. I am willing to wait.

I have been forgiven. I have been loved. I have chosen to love and forgive in return. My heart yearns for a day, a time, a moment. Yet in that special moment there will no longer be a need for time. I don’t have to understand it all to hunger for my first taste of eternity.

My life can be lived in no other way than to believe, for without this trust, this conviction, this joyous confidence - I would become a pitiful cynic. A man in desperate need for the one thing I have rejected; The one thing that provides a doorway to joy, peace and contentment, the one thing so closely linked to love and faith.

We have a future and a promise. God has a plan for our good. He’s preparing a place just for us. He’s promised to come back for us.

We, more than all others, have the greatest reason to bubble over with this most joyous anticipation.

It is because of the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus’ that we have been given yet another wonderful gift from the hand of God Himself.

That gift is hope.

• Glenn A. Hascall -

By norman

March 1, 2005 08:56 AM | Link to this

Today’s 8:44 AM post is NOT MINE>

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this

Typical religious zealots…when confronted with the chance to have a reasonable discussion, they freeze up and revert to quoting platitudes and spouting out verses. It’s a discussion board, boys and girls…not a forum for bad verse.

By Alex

March 1, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this

I think norman gave you a reasonable reply to your arguement on creation Mr. Morris. What’s the fuss?

By Brian Curtis

March 1, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this

This thread is not about proving the existence of the Christian god or any other; it’s not about the validity of Christianity as a point of view.

It’s about whether the government (remember them?) should be promoting the values of one particular faith in a nation dedicated to religious freedom. I believe THAT’S what Mr. Morris was referring to.

Arguing about the divinity of Jesus, or abortion, or any other irrelevant issue, doesn’t answer the original question: Should the U.S. govt. be endorsing Christianity? Understand that whether Christianity is the One True Faith or not has no bearing on that question.

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this

I’m sure you do, Alex…of course, that wasn’t actually Norman.

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this

Sorry Brian - you are correct. I got sidetracked. I was just getting tired of the constant use of the “There is a Creator because there must be a Creator” arguments. Circular reasoning just…ticks me off.

Back to topic.

By Jack

March 1, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this

Mr. Morris should know that argueing with zealots is a waste of time. Instead, you should toy with them as Norm does.

By Seaborn

March 1, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

The problem is that the faith of these zealots dictates that they not only have their beliefs, but that they also must convert us heathens…Randy’s patronizing “tough love” and referring to us as “yet to be Christians” is a shining example of the arrogant and condescending attitude that these people operate under. To them, the government should dictate Christiananity because, heck, it’s good for us…

What ticks me off though is for some uneducated rube from east nowhere Georgia, whose never spent anytime outside of his or her narrow southern white existence, assuming what’s best for me to believe in. None of these people have spent anytime at a seminary or in a divinity program, where they would learn the historical and cultural relevance of their faith…no they are all amateur theologians.

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

According to adherents.com, a website collecting data on religious groups:

Christians: 2 Billion worldwide Non-Christians: 3.9 Billion worldwide

Sounds like y’all have got a lot of work to do - why don’t you leave the rest of us alone and go try to convert some heathens!

By norman

March 1, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

Washington’s death bed scene, according to his biographer Joseph Ellis: “There were no ministers in the room, no prayers uttered, no Christian rituals offering the solace of everlasting life. The inevitable renderings of Washington’s death by nineteenth century artists often added religious symbols to the scene, frequently depicting his body ascending into heaven surrounded by a chorus of angels. The historical evidence suggests that Washington did not think much about heaven or angels; the only place he knew his body was going was into the ground, and as for his soul, it ultimate location was unknowable. He died as a Roman stoic rather than a Christian saint.”

All the nonsense we hear about this being a Christian nation comes from 19th Century religiosity, not from the founders of our country. Those beginnings in New England were religiously motivated to be sure, but the Puritans quickly got the reputation for bigotry and intolerance and good people in Boston especially turned away from them. Harvard College became unitarian very quickly in the 18th Century and no one who wanted to be thought of as intelligent ever spoke of the Holy Trinity at all.

By Seaborn

March 1, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this

I don’t know Norman…in the Simpsons,when Ralph Wiggum played George Washington and Lisa Simpson was Martha, it looked like George had a pretty heavenly exit :).

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

Yeah, that was a powerful moment in Simpsons history.

By norman

March 1, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

“The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.” - George Washington’s letter of August 20, 1778 to Brig. General Thomas Nelson

“Almighty and eternal Lord God, the great Creator of heaven and earth, and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; look down from heaven in pity and compassion upon me Thy servant, who humbly prostrate myself before Thee.” -George Washington’s prayer at Valley Forge

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure; reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. ‘Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.” - Farewell Address, 1796

By norman

March 1, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

Seaborn: you right about the sublime idiocy of rubes from rural Georgia pontificating about God and the universe, but don’t think that they would be better qualified had they gone to a seminary. Most seminaries are hotbeds of illiteracy and fundamentalistic nonsense. The good seminaries teach things pretty far from orthodox Christianity and even they have a vested interest in keeping this evil Christian religion alive.

By lozen

March 1, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this

Seaborn, well said. If they wanted to live in their restricted little fantasy world and leave us alone, that would be fine. Who cares? But they are so patronizing, so arrogant, so self righteous to think they know the way to god and heaven for all of humanity! You are right and it’s very obvious in their posts that they have no religious training, have never been exposed to other cultures and are terrified of differences in people. If they did know the historical and cultural history of christianity they could not be quite so sure of their small little worldview. I have been amazed by people like this since I was a teenager and realized the south is full of people who are the worst educated of the entire country and they think they can tell everybody what they should believe and how they should live. Ignorance is pathetic.

By norman

March 1, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

Boscoe is of course correct in holding that what Jesus actually looked like is unimportant. Each culture depicts him as they think a beautiful God-Man would look, blond among northern Europeans, dark among Mediterranean peoples. Everyone gets the Jesus they want, probably they would not want the real Jesus. Houston Stewart Chamberlain was sure Jesus was not Jewish, because he was an Aryan racist. All that was bad for him and the Nazis in Christianity came from the man they called Rabbi Paul. For Nazis Paul was too Jewish, for Jews he was too Greek. We cannot recover the real Jesus, but why should we want to? He is only a beautiful idea. Anyway he died and that was that. No one can or had followed his recommendations becaue they do not work. What he said one should do was predicated on the approaching end of the world. The world did not end. You cannot practice the Sermon on the Mount unless the world is really on the verge of ending.

By Chuck

March 1, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

By Bruce

March 1, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

I had to leave yesterday and have spent the morning catching up. It seems that an argument has been made that our countries goverment should have nothing to do with religion, which may or may not be true. So I pose the question. Should we only elect officials to these goverment positions, including judges, that have no connections whatsoever to religion? In order to qualify as a canidate one must prove they are not religiously connected and support that there is not a Supreme Being?

By Randy

March 1, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this

IN ANSWERING MY EARLIER POST, IF WE GO BY THE LAWS OF MAN, WE PUT OURSELVES IN A SITUATION LIKE COMMUNIST RUSSIA, OR CHINA OR MANY OTHER NATIONS WHO HAVE LET MEN GIVE THEM THEIR RIGHTS, MEN CAN TAKE YOUR RIGHTS AWAY. THE UNITED STATES IS BASED ON RIGHTS OF MEN FROM GOD. STARTED THAT WAY AND NEEDS TO STAY THAT WAY.

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

Uh oh lozen - you said “worldview”. I notice that some prat is still using someone else’s name to post with. Cowards are funny!

I realize that Fundamentalists have a hard time separating Religion from…well…anything, but I ask again - why do you think that because a Founding Father may or may not have been religious (really, this is a silly argument anyway; please show me a single Western nation that has stagnated since the eighteenth century) has anything to do with religion in government? There are lots and lots of religious people who understand that the two shouldn’t mix.

By Randy

March 1, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

On my conclusion on a creator, Brian, go out pick up some dirt, ask yourself in the beginning how was this created(and be honest with yourself). Or get a seed, and ask yourself, where did the first seed come from(again get the chip off your shoulder and be honest with yourself) you don’t have to come back and say I’m right, just be honest with yourself.

By Chuck

March 1, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

By Randy

March 1, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this

On the subject of the creator being eternal, and JMorris disputing it. He is absolutely incorrect, if the creator wasn’t eternal, someone would have to make him, that would make that entity the creator. I really can’t believe this is not a plane as the nose on your face. The world was created, things don’t appear out of thin air without help, a creator, who has always existed would be the only logical conclusion.

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

Bruce, there should be no test of a judge’s religion one way or another. However, a judge SHOULD hold his religious beliefs independent from his responsibilities on the bench. The role of the judiciary is to serve as objective arbiters of the law. Allowing religious belief to intrude on secular law is inherently discriminatory.

To use Roy Moore as an example: He made it very clear that his religious beliefs informed his descisions. He discriminated against people he felt were unChristian and made absoultely no apologies for doing so. As such, he abused his power as a judge and violated the basic Freedom that this country claims to stand for.

Randy - do you ever have an argument that makes sense? Please explain why we would end up with a “communist Russia” (I assume you ACTUALLY mean the USSR). You do realize that Western Europe (and Canada)is almost exclusively secular in their legal structure, and they have a far better track record of civil rights than we do? And sheesh - stop shouting. All caps doesn’t make your argument any more sound.

By Randy

March 1, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

JMorris, do you have a argument that makes sense? I’m much to logical for this crazy illogical analysis. I guess you just make up any reason that fits your wants and beliefs.

By Bruce

March 1, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this

Randy, Texas, Chuck,

I think we have hit a nerve. Now we are “uneducated rube from east nowhere Georgia”. Is there a name out there we haven’t been called. I hope it keeps up. The more these folks look down there noses at me the more resolute I become.

Romans 8:18 - I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.

2 Corinthians 1:5 - For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too.

Philippians 1:29 - For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake,

And I could go on. The point is the more we are ridiculed the closer to God we are. Please continue to allow God’s light to dispell the darkness.

By Jack

March 1, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

You morons have ruined this blog. Stay on the subject or go somwhere else. This is not church.

By Randy

March 1, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

Alright, let me make this a clear as possible. We as humans have a choice on what to beleive. Two choices, in the beginning A)things(the universe) appeared out of thin air without any help, or B) things appeared out of thin air with help(a Creator). Having worked on a Master’s degree, years ago, I have to go with B. If A is true, I’m going to hold my breathe until several billion dollars come to me(appear out of thin air). Think about it, be honest with yourself, you don’t have to be honest with me, I wouldn’t want to mess with your Ego or pride, but be honest with yourself, it means your immortal soul.

By Luke

March 1, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

Is anyone else like me in that they are totally baffled that these two rubes are allowed to opine in a quasi-public forum?

D. Glass adopts the appropriate position, but it is not as if the position is difficult to maintain.

As for S. Feldhahn, what can be said about her intellectual merit other than it does not exist?

That we even have this discussion is embarassing, made all the more unbearable with the likes of these two fourth-rate thinkers.

By Bruce

March 1, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

J Morris,

Exclude judges if you like since they only inforce the law. Which we all know that is not what is happening these days. What about the lawmakers having religious beliefs and use them as a moral compass? Do you object to that?

By Randy

March 1, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

We are on subject Jack, the 10 commandments and church go hand in hand.

By Boscoe

March 1, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

J Morris. It would be impossible for someone to separate their religious beliefs from what you call “responsibilities”. Religion is an integral part of one’s core values, so much so, one cannot separate it from their daily lives..it is an impossibility to do so. Lozen, you make some broad assumptions of our education levels. What makes you so sure I haven’t studied this topic extensively to make sure I am correct in what I say? You asked me a question on the last forum which I answered. I don’t believe I persuaded you to live life as I have lived. I am not doing this to make you believe, I am doing this to meet my obligation of telling you the truth as I know it to be. You are the one responsible for you.

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this

Yeah, Randy…I know you are but what am I is SOOO first grade. Really, you might try using supporting statements when you attack someone’s argument. For instance, you said some nonsense about rights from God and how we would all end up as Communists. I said: European countries are largely secular and they have more advanced civil rights than we do. This is called a supporting statement to an argument. It provides evidence to support a claim or hypothesis.

Now, you just call me names, rather than offering anything at all to refute my argument, and then say I will just twist things to fit my “wants and beliefs” This is what I like to call “Dodging the question”…it means that you don’t actually have anything to say, and think that you can try to belittle me, and therefore draw attention away from the fact that you have nothing to say.

Randy, Randy, Randy. What a git you are.

By Brian Curtis

March 1, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

No, Randy, you’re still missing the subject: Whether or not Christianity is “true” matters NOT AT ALL to the question of whether our government should be promoting it at the expense of other views and beliefs.

Do you see that distinction? It doesn’t matter what you or I think of the origins of the universe; that may be an interesting discussion for another time, but it’s 100% irrelevant to the subject at hand. Go back and read the title. This is about whether the U.S. government should be promoting the views of a specific faith.

Do you have an answer to that question, other than “someday everyone will be Christian”? Because that doesn’t answer the question either.

Now take a deep breath and FOCUS. I’m not asking you whether the universe had a creator. For the purposes of this topic, I don’t CARE if the universe had a creator. It just doesn’t matter. What matters is the actual topic: our government and how it should or should not be involved in promoting religious beliefs. Whether that belief is Christianity, Islam, or UFO abductions is utterly beside the point.

Now, once more: Should the government be promoting religious views (of ANY religion, it doesn’t matter which)? Obviously, the answer is no. Can anyone disagree with that and still manage to stay on-topic?

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, I disagree that one can not separate religion from their work or responsibilities. Maybe YOU can’t, but then we know that. A man of faith in a courtroom has a responsibility to uphold the law of MAN not of God, as anyone with any sense of ethics would understand.

Bruce, frankly yes, I do object to lawmakers using religion to shape their decisions. Religious people will always discriminate and abuse those who are not of their faith, and laws shaped by religion will always hurt someone. And yes Bruce, the Judges you refer to are doing their jobs by continuing to interpret the law. They only become “activist” when their decisions don’t match your prejudices.

By lozen

March 1, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

Hey, see if these remind you of anybody? Like the one with the name that starts with R….

75 ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

By Boscoe

March 1, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

Brian, how does the display of the 10 Commandments effect your daily life? What difference does it make if the rule of law within this country is based upon those 10 rules? What would the rule of law be then if it should have nothing in common with those 10 rules? Or should we just have no rule of law and let the individual will decide?

By Earl

March 1, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

While reading some of y’alls comments last night I noticed a serious misunderstanding of how the First Ammendment Establishment Clause applies to the states: “The U.S. Supreme Court, after some tepid interventions in the 1920s and 1930s, responded forcefully to the plight of religious dissenters. In the landmark cases of Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) and Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court incorporated the First Amendment free-exercise and establishment clauses into the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment. On its face, the Court held, the First Amendment binds the federal government: “Congress shall make no law … .â€? As a general statement of religious liberty, however, the First Amendment also binds state governments. For religious liberty is part of the body, the corpus, of fundamental liberties guaranteed by the 14th Amendment: “No state shall deprive any person of … liberty … without due process of law.â€?”

“In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court applied the establishment clause to the states for the first time. It also imbued this guarantee with a firm separationist reading. Justice Hugo Black’s words for the Everson majority proved a prophetic distillation of the establishment cases for the next four decades:

“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, or vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’” (citing Reynolds v. United States)”

text to be linked

By Michael

March 1, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

Mixing government and religion are like combining horse manure with ice cream. The manure will probably not change much, but the ice cream is surely ruined.

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

lozen, you left out a step in #4 - atheist,etc. goes to bar and has a stiff drink. Growls about the stupidity of irrational people to anyone who will listen.

By Randy

March 1, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

I guess the difference in me and you JMorris, is that I am absolutely sure of what I know to be true, God has proved it to me logically, spiritually, in every way. I have tried to do that for you(logically). It’s simple as ABC, 1,2,3. Nothing hard to understand, unless you don’t want to understand. I apologize if I have sounded belittling to you, it’s nothing against you, but this is so simple and black and white to me. It’s like telling someone over and over, don’t walk in front of a moving car, you might get killed and they keep saying no it won’t.

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

Um..Boscoe, at best guess the only Commandments with any force of law in the US are 6,7 and 9. Murder, False Witness and Theft. The rest realllllly don’t have anything to do with our legal system. Ok, Adultery is a legally acceptable reason for divorce, but unless you’re in the Millitary, it’s not illegal.

By Earl

March 1, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

So, just in case I missed something important- what do the arguments made by Randy about the existence of ‘God’ have to do with a discussion of a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Just for fun- let’s stipulate that God exists and that God is exernal and that God created the heavens and the earth…Now, Why should government have a religious symbol on the courthouse steps?

By Jack

March 1, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

Had enough church for the day. I’ll ck back later. Maybe Randy & Zack will get bored & go elsewhere. Keep up the good work RS, Lozen, & Mr. Morris.

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

Earl, because Randy says so. You’ll have to forgive us - Randy and his friends always manage to stray off-topic and turn the blogs into a series of religious diatribes. I admit to sucumbing to temptation and wading into the fray from time to time myself.

By their arguments, God is self-evident. Anyone who doesn’t believe in God is wrong and stupid. As a symbol of the one, true religion, of course the 10 Commandments belongs on the steps of a courthouse, because everyone who doesn’t believe is simply deluded and must ultimately accept God. Those who have not “accepted JC” do not deserve the protection of law as they are inherently evil. This includes gays, atheists, Jews and all other non-Christians, and most foreigners.

The idea that others have their own faiths and beliefs that they hold to as dearly as they hold to their religion is beyond them, frankly they wouldn’t care if they DID grasp it. The idea of a secular government is anathema to them - they would be far happier in a Sharia-based nation or under a Taliban-esque regime.

Even though they continue to prattle on about freedom they fail to understand what it really means, and live in fear that others will have it.

Does that answer your question? :-)

By Seaborn

March 1, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

Bruce, I probably should have posted this earlier, but my comment about “undeducated rubes” was not directed at any one posting on this blog, regardless of their point of view. I was referring to several people I have encountered while doing contract work in Georgia’s hinterlands. Their ignorance (and I mean that in it’s pure meaning) is mind boggling.

By Mara

March 1, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

Is the american government one that is “of the people, by the people, and for the people”? If so, then that implies that it is for ALL the people, not just those of a certain religion. Some people believe that the government should reflect the majority religion (christianity) because they believe (erroneously) that our country and our form of government was founded on that religion. While believing in “Divine Provendence”, our forefathers never included blatently religious wording in any of our foundation documents. As victims of religious persecution, they were well aware of the dangers inherent to mixing governmental power and ecclesiastical power. It is unfortunate that a few well-placed zealots may well thwart the intentions of these great thinkers of the Enlightenment Age. They certainly intended that the government, on the subject of religion, be militantly silent.

By Earl

March 1, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this

Thank you for the concise explaination Mr. Morris. I’ll make sure not to mention to Randy that what President Bush really supports is not freedom or democracy but religion and theocracy. And as someone who is from the South but has now sought political asylum in a Blue State I want to say onward Red State warriors! You are behind enemy lines but always remember that those of us in Free America support you!

By Boscoe

March 1, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

J Morris, in some states adultery IS against the law. But that’s not the point. Should the states remove that as a grounds for divorce to separate ourselves from any association to that particular commandment? Should the states remove any laws with regards to crimes against parents by the offspring? After all we wouldn’t want in any way whatsoever to have our nations laws shaped by the commandment of honoring one’s parents would we? The states should therefore remove the laws that protect elderly parents from physical abuse and material/financial explotation. That sure does sound like you have the right answers Morris.

By Seaborn

March 1, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

For those that ask why we shouldn’t show the 10 commandments, I’d reverse the question and ask whey we should?

Our laws are not based on them..our laws are based on common logical concepts that keep societies running smoothing, and keep them from ending up in chaos. Where’s the commandment for “thou shall not create commercial real estate on land zoned for residential use”? The commandments about God are not necessary for modern era, adult humans to behave.

I imagine that the people that really want this government homage to the Supreme Being don’t want to just stop there, especially Boscoe. How long before we have a big posting of everything from Leviticus? Quite frankly I don’t want to be put to death for being gay.

By Boscoe

March 1, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

Seaborn, tell me what are the logical concepts behind abortion? What are the logical concepts behind what is happening to Terri Schiavo under the precepts of law. Where do you get these particular concepts? Now is your chance to show ME the logic.

By Seaborn

March 1, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

Doh!…sorry about the fat fingering…I’m so excited about this forum I can’t even type :).

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, I hope you aren’t a Jesuit, because that would be really embarassing for them. Our laws against the abuse of the elderly, etc. are not derived from the 10 Commandments. Do you know what a “Stretch” is? Laws against abuse are derived from basic morality and ethics common to ALL religions. Again, only THREE commandments have any legal standing in this country. Twist it how you may.

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

And there we go steering things to Abortion again. Oh, and the removal of a wife from life support by her LAWFUL HUSBAND…a wife who has showed no signs of mental response in years and years.

Yet, Boscoe cheerfully watches as thousands of Iraquis and American soldiers die overseas.

By Seaborn

March 1, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

Boscoe,

Abortion is an issue that I personally never have had to deal with and most likely never will…but at the risk of alienating some of my more liberal compadres here, I tend to take the conservative opinion on abortion, i.e., I’m more pro-life than pro-choice…and I haven’t really weighed in on Terri Schiavo but it’s likely we are in agreement there also. However, my opinions are not based on religion but instead are based on the fact that I cherish life..all life..especially my own (I can’t even kill spiders that sneak into my house…I catch them and take them outside).

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

That’s OK Seaborn. I disagree morally with the use of abortion as a means fof birth control for the same reasons that you do. I find partial-birth abortion to be absolutely horrific. However, it’s not my moral decision to make for someone else, and it certainly isn’t the place of the government to legislate it. It’s also not the place of the government to determine who lives and who dies when the health of the mother is at risk.

Boscoe wants logic? How’s this: Prior to Roe v. Wade, the wealthy had access to safe abortion and the poor did not. As usual, the poor suffered while the wealthy continued to have illicit abortions. Overturn R. v. W.? Back to the same situation.

As for the other situation, well, logically I don’t believe that just because a body breathes and a heart beats that “life” is present. If the mind is destroyed beyond all hope of recovery, is it morale to continue to drain the family remaining of emotional and financial resources? Doesn’t quality of life matter? Don’t you think that if Mrs. Schiavo could make her wishes known, that she would porbably want the suffering to end?

By Lyrazel

March 1, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

Its very interesting that the president supports the argument that the 10C and its position in a courthouse show the foundations LAW and none doubt his faith, do ya?

I thought Jesus would have looked less like Klaus Kinski, being son of a carpenter out of egypt he might looked like Omar Sharif…which would be grand. Next time you all visit a mirror, check out what God looks like…then smile and bless us everyone.

By lozen

March 1, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this

Well, of course Boscoe wants to steer things to abortion! Women need to be “barefoot and pregnant” like in the good ole days! They done gone and got too much freedom and as long as they do they don’t have to marry idiots just because they got pregnant with one! It’s a sin, it’s a sin, it’s a sin to have an abortion! But let’s kill all the people in Iraq and all our soldiers if we have to so the Iraqi people will have freedom (they won’t mind if they’re dead first).

By norman

March 1, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

Someone asked if Boscoe were a Jesuit. I doubt it. He is more likely a member of Opus Dei, a group more rightwing and more dangerous than a Jesuit.

By Bruce

March 1, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

J. Morris,

In response to:

“Bruce, frankly yes, I do object to lawmakers using religion to shape their decisions. Religious people will always discriminate and abuse those who are not of their faith, and laws shaped by religion will always hurt someone. And yes Bruce, the Judges you refer to are doing their jobs by continuing to interpret the law. They only become “activistâ€? when their decisions don’t match your prejudices.”

I would like to say, If you will read the posts set forth earlier in the topic and others before it you will see that for the most part the abuse has been heeped on those of us that are religious. As a matter of fact one poster went as far as to say, we must wipe out Christains at all cost. Another threaten me with violence because I dared to disagree with him. And you have been part of it all. Sounds like abuse to me. And what kind of goverment will we have when those who believe in nothing begin to make the laws of this country? We are protected by the Bill of Rights now but if those making the laws have nothing to direct them they begin to think with the head not the heart. Lord help us if we ever get to a place where humans stop thinking with their hearts. It would be so easy for our goverment to wipe out the present Bill of Rights and incorporate their own Bill of Rights.

As for the judges, you do the same thing you accuse me of. As a matter of fact did you do it this week with Judge Moore. You disagree with him so he is an activist, right?

The best we can say is the knife cuts both ways. The only difference is what we believe to be true. I just hapen to believe God’s truth is THE truth.

By Michael

March 1, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

Be careful what you wish for… should the Supremes vote that it’s acceptable for the 10C’s to be set up and displayed as part of a government setting, then how long before other religious displays start popping up?

Remember, the religous right fought hard to get schools to open up for Bible-study groups on campus… these same Court rulings that allowed student led Bible-study groups in afterschool programs opened the door for gay-straight alliances (much to the consternation of the evangelicals).

If the 10C come in, how about a crucifix behind the judge? Or a Buddah in the hallway? A prayer turret and morning call coming from the Courthouse? You know damn good and well that the Scientologists (who are the best litegators around — ask Tom Cruise) will be among the first to push for a seat at the table… it’s all or nothing.

Either the government favors one religion over another or it does not. And how many steps from favoring is it to demanding obeisance — and changes in doctrine to suit those in power?

By Brian Curtis

March 1, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

Rational posters all: I suggest we not let ourselves get drawn into irrelevant tangents. It’s the fundamentalists who want to muddy the waters because they can’t support their base positions with logic. We don’t need to feed that sickness.

To answer Boscoe: “Brian, how does the display of the 10 Commandments effect your daily life? What difference does it make if the rule of law within this country is based upon those 10 rules?”

Again, all of this is irrelevant to the topic at hand: Should the U.S. government be promoting the principles of one faith and not others, when the Constitution clearly forbids it? Again, the answer is obviously no; and again, I ask if anyone can point to a logical reason to say otherwise WITHOUT wandering off into irrelevancies.

For those of you who need a refresher: When it comes to this particular topic, Abortion is irrelevant. *The existence of a Christian god is irrelevant. *The origin of the universe is irrelevant. *Terry Schiavo is irrelevant. *Prayer in school is only *marginally relevant. *Evolution vs. creationism is irrelevant.

The topic is, and remains: Whether the government should promote a specific faith in violation of the Constitution. The answer is no; can anyone dispute it?

By Earl

March 1, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

Sometimes discussions wander off the path a bit…but, sometimes the place they wander to is directly related to the argument at hand. The existense of laws against Adultery were mentioned by Boscoe…the situation with those laws is fairly closely aligned to the line of cases dealing with the establishment Clause. Indeed, adultery is a crime in approximately 20 states- though most of the penalties are very low ($250 in Virgina) and though the ‘crime’ is seldom prosecuted. But, it is now considered highly likely that all of those laws are unconstitutional. The adultery laws are very similar to the fornication laws that have been falling like flys. Just a few weeks ago the Virgina Supreme Court invalidated that states fornication law- as did the Georgia Supreme Court in 2003. Those decisions were either based on or forrunners of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas (same sex sodomy) which overturned the goofy decision- from a case originating in Georgia- of Bowers v. Hardwick. The U.S. Supreme Court has now said that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment protects private conduct. The laws against adultery are - like prohibition-based on religious beliefs- the same sort of religious beliefs that call for religious symbols to be placed in and around our government buildings. But, as with sodomy, fornication and adultery, religious beliefs should not - alone- create a crime…or create a situation that violates the Constitutional rights of other Americans. As someone who thought they might be shot by the security guards while they were celebrating on the spot in the Alabama Justice Center where the Ten Commandments stone had stood a week before…I will be very happy to see this issue decided. I certainly won’t be surprised if the court finds a way to let these old monuments stick around…I just hope that they make it clear that new monuments will not be allowed.

By Zack

March 1, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

Norman—I’m not posting under your name, so until you know what you’re talking about, don’t make accusations.

Brian Curtis—Study history, and as I said, find an objective source, not the twisted truth that is so prevalent in secular and even occasionally, Christian schools.

RS—I never said I wanted non-Christians to be treated like filth, and this is about the tenth time you’ve put words in my mouth. Do you just not pay attention, or are you a pathological liar?

Gawp at a wreck, huh? I’ve never used the word “gawp” in my entire life, as I don’t have your deranged vobaulary, and I wouldn’t use it in reference to something serious, like a car wreck, but then again I don’t have your low level of character.

Again, when it comes to abortion, the topic isn’t YOUR body; it’s the BABY’s body. You advocate loose living and abortion on demand (which doesn’t speak highly for how you live). You advocate zero responsibility. You try to make excuses when there are none to be made. You’re desperate. You say absolutely nothing against Norman when he takes terrible shots at Christians and Blacks (then you play the innocent act—too late! You’ve already been exposed for what you are). Why don’t you put aside all your prejudices and stop putting words in others’ mouths and start showing a little objectivity and truth-seeking.

Then you sit back and wonder why I don’t respect you.

By Texas

March 1, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

Ten Commandments have an “undeniable” secular significance for the development of American Law. The Establishment Clause, Justice Rehnquist argued should not be read to require the government to ignore the secular, historical importance of religious ideas and movements simply because their religious character.

On the other hand, Justice Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg will scrutinize the justifications. For them, government must stay well away from any message that might amount to a profession of religious faith.

Justices O’Connor and Breyer defined the endorsement test. A judge must examine the “history and ubiquity” of the message. Whether the message involves “worship or prayer,” whether the message refers to a particular religion and the extent of religious content in the message.

More information can be obtained @ Pew Forum. Too much to post.

By Reese

March 1, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

There’s a historical context here. When our forefathers came to America, it was to escape State controlled religion - if you didn’t believe in the Church of England, off with your head. Next monarch comes along, reverses the pole, and now a different population is threatened.

The separation of church and state is the idea behind the formal writing of Jefferson regarding the government shall not establish a state religion. The “separation” was mentioned in private letters, and has been used by many who now step beyond the original intent of a citizen’s right freedom of religion without governmental mandate, to a supposed right to freedom from religion in all public (tax funded) domains.

The debate, I think, comes down to what kicked Adam from the garden, the desire for autonomy and the pursuit of a life without the big guy looking over ones shoulder. The 10 commandments is, in that context, an unwelcome reminder of an opposite belief system, where we each count because we’re held accountable. You either welcome that, or you don’t.

By Brian Curtis

March 1, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Zack: So your evidence amounts to saying, “Study the ‘history’ I prefer to read, not the stuff you can find in libraries and schools, and then you’ll understand.”

Which is interesting, but clearly doesn’t answer the question. Why should the U.S. Government favor one religion over others? You claim it’s because our government is inherently Christian in nature—yet you offer no proof to back it up. And when anyone asks for such evidence, you simply say, “Study REAL history.”

But that tactic is invalid. Klan members can push their twisted versions of history on hate sites just as easily, and then cry, “Study our preferred version of history” when challenged. It proves nothing, because it doesn’t even bother to provide any evidence (probably because it would be easily refuted).

In short, Zack, you can either provide some support for your claims or you can admit they’re just your personal interpretation of history. Which will it be?

By AllaboutMe

March 1, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

…would argue 1OC being the foundation of law not completely acurate…if one looks at chinese culture they had laws in the BC eras and laws after the AD without consulting 10C christian/judaic law….lots of non-christian societies had laws prior to BC/AD not based on this piece of scripture…10C is scripture……dont agree with the prez… its a religious document…and it says dont kill…so ordering soldiers to war means prez doesnt follow them, right…

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Actually Bruce, my dislike for Roy Moore has nothing to do with the fact that he is “activist”, it has to do with the fact that he is an evil man using his power to do evil things.

“Activist” judges are those who look at the equal application of the law to everyone and say “whoa - this is wrong”. For instance when the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws they were making a clear statement that the government doesn’t have any business sticking its nose into ANYONE’S bedroom. Some of the members of the Supreme Court, undoubtedly, disapprove of gays and lesbians. They did not allow their PERSONAL feelings to intrude on their decision.

Roy Moore, on the other hand, for example, awarded custody of a child to an abusive father because the mother was a lesbian and he didn’t like lesbians. He allowed his PERSONAL feelings of hatred and his religious prejudices to affect his decision, and ultimately to endanger a child.

Surely you can see the difference.

And Bruce, please don’t play the “we poor Christians are abused martyrs” card with me. If you - and by you, please understand that I mean all Right-wing Fundamentalists, not all Christians) didn’t spend every moment of your waking lives condeming everyone around you, we wouldn’t give a damn about your religion. As it is, you use religion as a bludgeon to tell everyone else what is wrong about them and their lives, and then when they tell you to shove it, you act wounded and insulted. That doesn’t play, Bruce.

To quote Kevin Spacey in “The Ref”: “You know what I’m going to give you for Christmas next year? A big, wooden cross - so the next time you’re feeling unappreciated, you can climb up and nail yourself to it.”

Get over yourself.

By Zack

March 1, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

Uh, I believe you’re stretching what I’m saying (of course, I wouldn’t be surprised if you, Norman, RS, Lozen, and J. Morris were all the same person).

I’ve exposed how secular classrooms lie about safe sex and evolution, and the same is true when it comes to history. Not only that, but other mediums have slanted the truth, to put it mildly. The low-life network of ABC, which has produced such woefully-filthy shows as “Desperate Housewives”, NYPD Blue”, and “Ellen”, has had pieces on our nation’s history in the past and has slanted the truth at the most obtuse of angles. I have a discerning mind, Brian. You don’t. I can read a college textbook and discern truth from propaganda. I’ve done so many times and will again. I wish you would seek to do the same.

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Does Zack remind anyone else of a really religious version of conspiracy-obsessed Dale on “King of the Hill”?

By Michael

March 1, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

To add to what Reese just posted, it’s all about context.

Clearly, many of these (if not most) of these displays are meant to be cultural markers: “This is Christian Territory — all others beware.” Which would be fine if they were merely treated like roadside markers about this battle or that settlement….

Displays need to be in an historical context — showing the importance or relevance to the law and humanity’s march toward self-governance.

All of the arguments against removal of these displays have centered on their importance as religious displays… conflating their removal with the elimination of Christianity. This line of reasoning only butresses the arguments for removal of the displays.

If a display is so innocuous and neutral to all parties (religious — whatever kind and non-religious alike), then their removal should spark no more protest than moving a traffic sign… the fact that the threat of removal is enough to engender protestations of religious discrimination is proof enough that they are not, in deed or fact, symbols of the state but of a religion. And that cannot be supported.

By Zack

March 1, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

Does anyone else think J. Morris sounds like a cross between Michael Dukakis and Howard Dean?

I don’t watch your petty show, by the way.

Brian—By the way, where’s YOUR evidence? You have none. You don’t want laws based on the Bible, although Christianity is the only religion that calls for unconditional love.

As for each religion being represented in courtrooms, that’s not the way it should be, either. I guess “RS” will accuse me of wanting non-Christians to be treated like filth, the constant liar. You’d think she’d straighten up, put aside her prejudices, and do something about her miserable attitude.

Lozen—There is no evidence against God, my friend. Do not put words in my mouth, either.

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Zack, is that unconditional love the same love that made you suggest we should exile everyone who wouldn’t say the pledge yesterday?

And thanks! Howard Dean and Michael Dukakis are both good guys.

Do you…actually know the definition of “petty”? With your discerning mind, I’m sure you do.

By Brian Curtis

March 1, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

quote from Zack: “I have a discerning mind, Brian. You don’t. I can read a college textbook and discern truth from propaganda. I’ve done so many times and will again. I wish you would seek to do the same.”

So now your answer consists of saying, “I’m smarter than you, and I don’t let textbooks influence what I KNOW to be the truth.”

Again, an interesting claim… but it still completely fails to provide any supporting evidence for your answer. Which, if you’ll recall, was that our government is somehow supposed to be not only pro-Christian in its statements and actions, but explicitly Christian in nature.

So we’re back to asking; Where’s your evidence? Claims of superiority are fun, all right, but they’re not proof. So let’s see some. Otherwise, just admit it’s your own personal interpretation and leave it at that.

By Bruce

March 1, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

J. Morris,

I don’t buy into this Judge Moore is an evil man but the Judges you like are not. Do not belittle my intelliegnce. I may be from rural Georgia but I am not stupid. I don’t care who you are or what you are doing, your moral compass defines how you look at things and how you judge the actions of others. You and I do it every day right here on this form. We all do.

And the only difference between you and I on who is abused more is I vent my dislike of it here on forms like these and you use the ACLU in court and air your laundry to the world. This issue would have never have to brought before the Supreme Court if not for bleeding heart liberials who think are being abused.

Call me what you wish, insult me all you want, I still have nothing but love for you in my heart and wish to spend all eternity with you in Heaven.

By Seaborn

March 1, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

J. Morris,

Is Zack really Rusty Shackleford? :)

By lozen

March 1, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

Well, Zack I think J Morris sounds like an educated and rational man who backs up his arguments with facts. That’s something you can’t do. I don’t want to put words in RS’s mouth, but I seriously doubt she is worrying about whether you respect her or not. First of all christianity is not the only religion that teaches unconditional love. (Who told you that, your mommy or some preacher who was “called by the lord” and never studied theology a day in his life?)Second, what good is teaching unconditional love while producing people who hate anybody who’s different from them, thinks differently or worships differently? I will say it again, Jesus said, “You can tell the tree from its fruit.” You are a very bad apple to be trying to win people to christianity.

By lozen

March 1, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

Yeah Bruce, we “bleeding heart liberals” really do believe you have love in your heart for us. We do, we do, we do believe you love us.

By Bruce

March 1, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

J. Morris,

I do not buy into this Judge Moore is an evil man but the Judges you like are not. Do not belittle my intelligence. I may be from rural Georgia but I am not stupid. I don’t care who you are or what you are doing your moral compass defines how you look at at things and judge the actions of others. You and I do it every day right here on this forum. We all do.

And as for who is teh most abused, this issue would not even be before the Supreme Court if some bleeding heart liberal hadn’t felt they were being abused. The only difference is I use a forum like this and you guys use the courts and air your laundry to the world.

J, call me what you wish but I only have love for you in my heart and hope to spend all eternity in Heaven with you. I was once where you are now, I know how you feel, but believe me I now know true peace.

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

Bleeding Heart Liberal = People who are tired of being kicked around by Bruce and his ilk and have the gall to fight back.

Bruce, I don’t buy this “I’m not stupid” thing of yours. The fact that you can’t tell the difference between widening freedoms and rights to encompass ever-larger groups of people, and the persecution of a minority because your religious beliefs say that minority is evil just proves that you are, in fact, stupid.

Many judges are, in fact, capable of divorcing their religious beliefs from the excercise of their judicial powers. They are able to apply the LAW equitably to all groups without their religious convictions getting in the way.

A simple hypothetical example for you: An Orthodox Jew sits on the bench. A case involving the eating of pork by a non-Jew comes before him. Does the judge condem the man because his personal religious beliefs forbid the consumption of the meat? No, he acknowledges that the man has a personal right to eat what he wishes.

Now Bruce, I know that no one would ever be brought before a judge because he had a little gnosh of bacon, but…you get the point. Maybe.

By RS

March 1, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

Zack, you don’t have to come right out & state that non-Christians should be treated like filth; every bigoted comment you make indicates you feel that way. Let’s start with the one about how all religions shouldn’t be represented in a courthouse. If I ask you why you feel that way, you’ll only come back with your usual lame stand-by “Because Christians are the majority”. SO?? Does that mean that because there are less of non-Christians, that we don’t count & that we don’t deserve to be treated equally? My friend, your “logic” is so-o-o twisted! I don’t doubt you never heard the word “gawp”. Your vocabulary (oh! Except for the classic “WORLDVIEW” of course) is about as limited as your I.Q. Yes, MY body. What “baby”? It’s no baby; it’s a thing. Likewise Terry Schiavo, although you’re bound to disagree. I, personally, would not want any burden on my family and country if I were an inanimate piece of meat. A little too blunt for you? Deal with it! And how could you possibly know how I live? If you bothered reading my posts, you’d know I’m a responsible human being who goes to work, pays her taxes & am a faithful wife. I’m not saying anything against Norman; his feelings about your type of “Christian” mirror mine. Yes, I did start noticing he may have a problem with black people. Not admirable but I can’t throw stones; we all have our prejudices & I don’t know his reasons for feeling as he does. Truthfully, Zack, I don’t give a happy rat’s derrierre as to whether or not you respect me; I actually have a LIFE

By Brian Curtis

March 1, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

I’ve been asked what support I have for the claim that our U.S. government is required to be neutral (i.e., non-preferential) on matters of religion. In the interests of fairness, I’m more than willing to provide my evidence.

The first proof is the First Amendment, which says as much. In addition, take note of the fact that God, Jesus, and Christianity are mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, despite numerous opportunities for our founding fathers�-many of them deeply religious themselves-�to do so.

Finally, I point out that the only references to religion and government in the Constitution’s main body are two clauses that explicitly forbid any sort of religious test for holding public office. Does that sound like a “Christian government� to you? Of course not.

So now it’s your turn, Randy, Zack, Bruce & co.: where’s YOUR evidence that, in spite of all this, the government is somehow still “supposed� to favor one religion over others? We’re all waiting; let’s hear it.

Any evidence at all? Don’t dodge it by invoking the “obvious truth of Christianity,” Randy; that’s irrelevant. Don’t cry foul and claim you’re under attack, Bruce; the insults have been flying in both directions, and that still doesn’t answer the question. And don’t claim we’re all too “dumb and brainwashed to understand,” Zack; if you can’t support your argument, it’s nothing but personal opinion.

Let’s hear it, folks: what proof do you have to support the notion that the U.S. government is supposed to favor Christianity?

By Michael

March 1, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

Some words from the Supreme Court may be instructive here. They come from West Virginia Board of Education v Barnette. The original case brought by the Jehovah’s Witnesses against a school system for compulsory recitation of the pledge of allegiance. (Which they saw as a violation of scripture — Exodus, Chapter 20, verses 4 and 5.)

Quote (emphasis mine)

Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving soul. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.

The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

By RS

March 1, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

Lozen, no, you’re not “putting words in my mouth” at all; on the contrary, I’m flattered that you’ve been paying enough attention to my posts to realize that Zack’s opinion of me doesn’t exactly keep me up nights.

By Jack

March 1, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

Its getting blurry between Randy, Zack & Bruce. Probably from the same mold. Norm is by himself.

By lozen

March 1, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

Michael, very good and to the point. I agree that “…protestations of religious discrimination is proof enough that they are not, in deed or fact, symbols of the state but of a religion. And that cannot be supported.” You are so right.

Growing up about 60 miles north of here I remember that I never even had a catholic in one of my classes until I was in 8th grade. I remember the kids whispering about, “Do nuns shave their heads?” and “Do they really worship statues of Mary?” Ignorance is really sad. And there were no muslims, jews, buddhists or hindus around back then either! We had prayer everyday “in Jesus’ name” of course and nobody was offended. Some people just can’t grasp the fact that the world has changed. They really hate it that the world has changed. They want to pretend the world hasn’t changed and probably will go on pretending until they’re dead. We live in a different world, a much more interesting world that we can learn a lot from if we can just open our minds. This new world also makes for much better choices when I go out to eat! Hedonism, hedonism! The reason it has come up now is because people who go to the courthouse are hindu and muslim and buddhist and not just christian. I bet I can guess which people on this forum think we should keep our deah ole southern flag and don’t give a flip how much it offends some of their neighbors. Do not talk to me about unconditional christian love please!

By norman

March 1, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

Zack: I have informed the management of this site that you know my email address from an earlier time when posters’ email addresses were available and that therefore it is most likely you who is using my name and address to post false messages from me. They will be on to you shortly, so beware.

By Jack

March 1, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

Zack, Randy, Bruce, Do you guys eat meat on Fridays? When I was young, we didn’t.

By norman

March 1, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

Jack: Randy and Zack are redneck Protestants, not Catholics.

By RS

March 1, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

Ohhh, NORMAN, don’t be such a spoilsport! Why, who else would provide us with so many hours of amusement if not for Zack & his idiotic posts?

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

Yeah, well we had no Catholics either, and yet my school system still subjected us to nasty fried fish squares every friday.

By Bruce

March 1, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

J. Morris,

As we all do from time to time we realize we are just beating our heads against a wall. The problem is some of us like the pain it causes. So here goes. Just because I see things differently than you does not mean I view you as evil. Show me where I have said that. People are not evil, however I believe their actions are. I will give you some examples so you won’t be confused. Murder is an evil act, rape is an evil act, etc…. Now I have defined just a few things that I consider evil. I never mentioned anyones name but I did mention actions. Now what determines the actions of people? Their moral compass, their values! I am sure in some cases mental problems may have caused some of these actions but for the most part it is their moral compass. They do not see any harm in what they have done because they do not think it is wrong.

If as a Christain I do not view the 10 Commandments as part of my moral compass I fail to apply reason to my actions. Believe me I tried it once long ago. If on the other hand you can live a moral life without a compass so be it. I have said we can agree to disagree. But you are not satified with that. Please understand that the 10 Commandments are just as important to me as not being kicked around is to bleeding heart liberials. Why can’t I fight back too?

By lozen

March 1, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

In reading Michael’s post earlier the two sentences that really jumped out at me were: “Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.” Randy stated earlier, “… the Pledge of Allegiance should be in every school, and anyone who is unwilling to recite it should be ousted from the country.” It’s only a baby step from this to “exterminating dissenters”!

By Jack

March 1, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

Zack & company are good at preesing their believes

By Boscoe

March 1, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

JMorris, earlier you said Laws against abuse are derived from basic morality and ethics common to ALL religions. Are you suggesting then that religion has it’s place in government or should we not support religion and remove these religious laws? After all, it was you that said The idea that a moral compass must be based on Religion is laughable. Wasn’t it? You also said Oh, and the removal of a wife from life support by her LAWFUL HUSBAND…a wife who has showed no signs of mental response in years and years. That in and of itself is incorrect as the woman’s parents have doctors who testify the woman can be rehabilitated to regain some of her faculties given the proper aid. Now shouldn’t the law based upon reason and logic give a full study before rendering a decision prematurely without all the facts? Educated doctors are testifying on her behalf and the law still wants to kill her. The farther we get away from these Commandments and decide we are the keepers of our future the faster we will meet our end. That is the fundamental point about abortion. It’s about nothing else but life. The farther we get from following those Commandments the less respect for life their is. However, it’s not my moral decision to make for someone else, and it certainly isn’t the place of the government to legislate it. JMorris either you are for it or against it there is no middle ground. And J this is really blowing your credibility Prior to Roe v. Wade, the wealthy had access to safe abortion and the poor did not. As usual, the poor suffered while the wealthy continued to have illicit abortions. Overturn R. v. W.? Back to the same situation. Did you think before you typed it?

By lozen

March 1, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

Bruce, do you have the 10 Commandments posted in your house and in your church? How about on the dashboard of your car and your desk at work? Why do you need them on the courthouse lawn?

By Filster

March 1, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

Folks, let’s leave aside all the personal attacks, insults, and childish behavior and focus on this issue intellectually. Apparently, few contributors have read the Federalist Papers or personal papers of our founding fathers. Had they done so, it would be all too apparent that the so-called Establishment Clause was meant solely to prvent the newly formed government from enacting an official church, such as the Church of England. They wanted freedom to worhsip God as Protestants, Methodist, Quakers, Baptists, whatever, but the key, and critical issue was they wanted to worhsip God. Folks, this was, at its founding, an undeniably Christian nation, and intended to do so. That does not mean intolerance of other religions (like you see in such countries as Saudi Arabia, Talibanesque Afghanistan, and so many other countries where one religion is accepted and others discouraged if not banned.) You can twsit and slant and misconstrue, but if you read and investigate, you will see what I’m talking about. Attend a sesson of Congress, or of the Supreme Court, or even look in your wallet. I find it the height of hypocrisy that the Supreme Court opens it’s day with reference to God, but denies our abilities to display that same God in our lives. Same for Congress. It is shameful, plain and simple. And for most Christians, it isn’t a question of worship like I do or get out. It’s a question of being able to worship and incorporate God into our daily lives, and the lives of this nation, upon which it was founded. Not against our ability to worship in public? Guess you missed the arrests in Philadelphia. Stop listening to the talking heads and fanatics on both sides of the issue and do some personal research. Best wishes.

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

Well Bruce, because no one is trying to stop YOU from living by the 10 Commandments. This is the distinction you fail to make. We aren’t talking about failing to agree to disagree, we’re talking about YOUR desire to force YOUR beliefs LEGALLY on everyone else. You aren’t happy with following your religion’s tenets, you insist on making OTHER people follow them as well.

Look, if you want to have the 10C tatooed on your back, inside your eyelids, frescoed into the walls of your home, and stuck in magnetic form to the rear of your car, GO TO IT. BUT - Keep it out of my bedroom, out of my face and most importantly, out of EVERYONE’S legal system.

What exactly are you fighting against, Bruce? Gay people are fighting against discrimination under the law. Muslim-americans, and increasingly non-Muslim Americans as well, are fighting the increased intrusion of government into their private lives and the abrogation of their civil rights and personal freedoms. YOU are fighting…what? Is someone telling you that you can’t abide by the Commandments? No. You are fighting the fact that your idea of religion isn’t being paraded about town square! Wow, you really have a battle to fight.

The sheer fact that you think that being abused equates in any way to being denied the power to force your idea of what religion should be down everyone’s throat boggles the mind.

And just so you know - I think that Roy Moore is an evil man because he stood up in open court and told a woman that if he could, he would have her executed because she was a lesbian. He then turned her innocent child over to a man arrested several times for domestic violence That, sir, is an excercise of malice that qualifies as evil. So much for Zack’s “unconditional love”.

And - as you would actually know if you had bothered to read, I have a very strong moral AND ethical compass. Just because it’s not based on millenia-old primitive laws doesn’t make it any less valid.

By filster

March 1, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

RS. Jusr read your comment. It is your body, but it’s not a thing. Far from it. It may be simply a few cells to start with but it represents a new life, an entirely separate living entity which the world has never seen before, nor ever shall again. It has a unique genetic code. And yes, Virginia, it does have a soul. I can only wonder how many MLKs, Mandelas, Ghandhis, Mother Teresa’s, and other such individuls whose lives, and deaths, have so enriched our existence. I am abhorred by what we’ve lost in the name of “freedom.” A very wise person once said something to the effect a society is only as great as it’s weakest member. Those who cannot speak for themselves and who are utterly dependant upon another for their food, their comfort, their very life, I think that’s a pretty good definition of our weakest member.

By Seaborn

March 1, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

It’s a question of being able to worship and incorporate God into our daily lives, and the lives of this nation, upon which it was founded

Filster,

What do you mean by “the lives of this nation”? I don’t think anyone is worried about you incorporating God into your daily life. We worry about you trying to incorporate God into our lives..or rather your interpretation of God…I may have a different interpretation. Which arrests in Philadelphia are you referring to? I’m aware of a number of religious/anti-religious incidents there.

By Jack

March 1, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

Mr. Morris, like I said before, to argue with a zealot is a huge waste of time. Don’t let them get under your skin. I let them get to me and it isn’t worth it. Our thought processes should be used more constructively.

By Bruce

March 1, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

lozen,

To answer your questions: YES, YES, YES, YES and I even have them written in my heart. But most importantly to your last question, because YOU need them.

By Michael

March 1, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

The arrests in Philadelphia were of a bunch of folks from “Repent America” whose state mission is “use the Word of G*d to disrupt the activities” of the sinful — namely gays and lesbians enjoying the Philadelphia OutFest.

They were arrested — not for preaching the gospel — but for using a megaphone, signs (which are quite offensive) and trying to intimidate or incite reactions the festival participants. When asked to move away from the crowd by police, they purposefully moved in the direction of the OutFest crowds.

You can read more about them on this blog:

http://www.tidmus.com/blog/index.php?id=73

Is it any wonder that there are those of us that don’t quite trust our good Christian brethren to behave in the public square?

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

Um..Boscoe, what exactly about my statement concerning Roe v. Wade did you find illogical?

And please don’t quote me out of context, dolt. My statement was “The idea that a moral compass must be based on religion is laughable”. I’m sure that even with your meager reading comprehension, you will understand that this means that I was contesting the statement that ONLY religious people could have a moral compass. The idea was put forth that religion was a requirement to be moral. My statement took issue with that.

Also, if you could read, you would know that I stated earlier that the basic ethical framework on which our legal system is based is common to mankind - laws against murder, theft, violence, deception; these laws are common to legal systems throughout recorded history, many of which evolved independed of Christianity, Judaism, or any other form of Religion. Do Religions typically reflect these values? Yes. Christianity does in fact condem murder, etc. However, WITHOUT religion, these laws would still be equally valid and necessary. The fact that religion also embraces them does not mean they are religious-based.

Finally, yes Boscoe, one can personally find something morally objectionable and understand that the state has no business legislating against it. I know you can’t, but then…you’re a Catholic drone.

By Seaborn

March 1, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

Jack is right of course, there are no minds to change here. I personally feel I have a vested interest in keeping a check on the rise of religious extremism in this country…the Roy Moore’s of this country scare me. He obviously has his followers and he plans to expand his political career . And then there’s Gary DeMar right out there in Powder Springs…he makes no bones about making America a theocracy. There’s no difference in these people and those running Iran…

These individuals with their followers can precipitate a movement…history has shown it can happen. Take enough disgruntled people (and we see plenty on this forum) and the constitution and bill of rights will mean nothing. The problem is how to expose these people for being the extremist they are, without making them martyrs.

By J. Morris

March 1, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

Seaborn, Jack - personally, I’m just venting my frustration and outrage. I know I will not change their minds, but personally every time I can make someone tell me they’re praying for me, I make a little mark on my personal scoreboard.

Fun fun!

By godsgift

March 1, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

When will Americans finally realize as Europeans have that Christianity is total b.s.?

By Boscoe

March 2, 2005 07:44 AM | Link to this

Boscoe wants logic? How’s this: Prior to Roe v. Wade, the wealthy had access to safe abortion and the poor did not. As usual, the poor suffered while the wealthy continued to have illicit abortions. Overturn R. v. W.? Back to the same situation. So your “Logic” is to say make abortion legal because wealthy people had enough money to persuade a doctor to do what was at that time illegal but the poor folk had to result to what…coathangers? NEWSFLASH - before legalization, more than 90 percent of all abortions in the United States were performed by licensed physicians in clinics that rivaled hospitals in terms of cleanliness, expertise, and up-to-date equipment. The primary objective for getting rid of abortion laws was far different. Pro-abortionists hoped to eliminate laws, not to defuse the danger of back-alley abortionists, but to codify existing practice in order to allow doctors to more easily obtain insurance and legal coverage.
In other words, the great ‘reform or repeal’ effort was strictly a business move. I’m beginning to see how you reason. As far as your moral compass is concerned, you are correct these moral values are held by society in general. But if these values did not originate as religious based teachings where did they come from? How did we get to the point where the values of the individual are held by the society? If you research it you’ll see organized religion played the major role in the developments of societies moral values. And lastly, and it may just be the Catholic drone in me, but if you hold a certain value, especially concerning the life of another, and your stance on that value is you can’t force it on another; you’re nothing more than a coward who won’t take a stand.

By Randy

March 2, 2005 08:01 AM | Link to this

In answer to Godsgift, evil is going to have a much toughter time in America. Our ancestors had enough faith to come start a new country, to base it founding on Christianity and we are much more optomistic here. Again, life is like Pinto in Animal House, when he has a chance to deflower the young girl when she is passed out. Evil on one side and good on the other, it just depends on who you are listening to. We in America are way to optomistic and have way to much faith, for that to be taken away. Also, most people in Europe, always viewed church as a DUTY, here most of us view it as a relationship with God. Big difference.

By RS

March 2, 2005 08:07 AM | Link to this

Filster: If it can’t live independantly outside my body, then it’s nothing more than a part of me, with no more relevance than a toenail clipping. Yes, I see your point, but not only does it have the potential to become another Ghandi or Mother Teresa, it could also turn out to be a Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy (oh! Or George W. Bush!). As a viable, taxpaying adult, I’d like to think I have preference over a clump of cells

By RS

March 2, 2005 08:11 AM | Link to this

RANDY!!! YOU saw “Animal House”?!?! But it was rife with sexual situations & vulgar humour. I thought Christians weren’t supposed to see things like that? Or maybe it was before you “came to Jesus”??

By Brian Curtis

March 2, 2005 08:27 AM | Link to this

So… between Boscoe raving about abortion (irrelevant to the subject at hand) and Randy philosophizing about a “relationship with God” (also irrelevant)…

I’m guessing none of the theists can actually answer the question, true? That is, nobody has any evidence to support the idea that our government is supposed to favor one religion over others. Ergo, public buildings like courthouses should not display the Christian 10 Commandments because it violates religious neutrality. Cool!

Thanks for contributing, everyone! Have a great day. Next week, we’ll settle yet another issue with reason and logic, despite the best efforts of fundies to drag in irrelevancies.

By J. Morris

March 2, 2005 08:39 AM | Link to this

Boscoe’s ranting is relevant for one reason - it points out the fact that the fanatics CAN’T separate religion from the way the treat other. Boscoe claims I am a coward because, while I personally have moral issues with abortion, I refuse to force those opinions on others or call for legislation against them. Boscoe obviously sees the world in stark white and black.

This is exactly why religion must be discouraged at all costs in the courts. Do we really want judges like Boscoe, who instead of being able to objectively interpret the law as is their responsibility, force their religious views into every decision at the cost of any plaintiff or defendent appearing in their courts who does not meet the standards of that religion?

God save us from extremists.

By godsgift

March 2, 2005 08:41 AM | Link to this

Randy: yes, Europeans have resented religion because it was obligatory. But it has also been obligatory in America — in colonial New England and here in the Bible Chastity Belt where while the Baptist church was officially separated from government everyone acted as if it were the established church, which in all but law it was. Heaven help anyone who countered the Baptists. We still have silly laws about alcohol thanks to the Baptists. I curse them every day when I have to wait til 9AM to get my Pinot Noir. I tried to buy a non-alcoholic wine on Sunday but could not because according to Publix it contained 0.003% alcohol — enough to get a Baptist excited I guess.

By AllaboutME

March 2, 2005 08:50 AM | Link to this

…those great christian ancestors… chris columbus started labor camps for producing sugar and eradicated 2 tribes…conquistadors went through the americas on a quest for gold and slaughtered thousands…they like many white men who follow the testaments of christ saw no value in other races or in other faiths except for labor…do you remember the Apalachicola, Oconee, Chiaha, Osochi, Creek, Okmulgee, Guale, Tacatacuru, Hitchiti, Tamathli, Icafui, Yemasee, Kasihta, Yui tribes of georgia…(seldom taught about in white georgia schools)…even tommy jefferson had slaves that used secret walkways so his family wouldnt be inconvienenced by darkies working his plantations…yeah, love that christian ancestry…to reach my point however, the supreme court abolished slavery, allowed women the rights of voting, extended civil rights to persons of every nationality and now are deciding if the people who impose religious icons in public buildings have that right…about time these symbols of hate were removed…

By Bruce

March 2, 2005 08:51 AM | Link to this

I heard on NBC News this morning that there is a poll that says 75% of Americans want the 10 Commandments to be displayed. As for the other 25%, somebody call them a Waaambulance so they can hush their whining! Or better yet move to one of those Euporean countries you are so fond of. The reason this country is so great, other than the fact it is ordained by God, is that we do not do what these other countries do. Face it folks this country was founded based on Christain principles. Love it or leave it.

By AllaboutME

March 2, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this

…love it or leave it…why not change unconstiutional laws and stay to annoy folks like you…?

By Jaimi

March 2, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this

this is the first time i’ve jumped in here, but i followed the whole thing, and let me just say i am glad Brian Curtis had the last word. he appears to be the only one on here speaking with a brain and not a Bible. kudos Brian. you know your stuff.

By godsgift

March 2, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

Jaimi: what a great insight. People speak either with a brain or a Bible. You have hit it on the head. If you have a brain you won’t need or want the Bible.

By godsgift

March 2, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

Yeah, Bruce, we ain’t leavin’!

By Texas

March 2, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis

*So now it’s your turn, Randy, Zack, Bruce & co.: where’s YOUR evidence that, in spite of all this, the government is somehow still “supposed� to favor one religion over others? We’re all waiting; let’s hear it.

Any evidence at all? Don’t dodge it by invoking the “obvious truth of Christianity,�*

In the matter of Van Orden the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas rejected the challenge. In rejecting the claim the court held that the state had accepted the display (Monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments) in order to honor the Eagle’s work with young people, and commend the secular moral code contained in the Commandments.

Van Orden appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and, on Nov. 2, 2003, a three-judge panel of that court affirmed the lower courts decision.

Van Orden successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

The Supreme Court comes with a thick body of precedent applying the Establishment Clause to government sponsorship of Religious displays. One, Stone v. Graham, the court struck down a Kentucky statute that required public schools to post a copy of the Ten Commandments.

IN Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) the Supreme Court held that a Christmas display did not constitute an establishment of religion. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger reasoned that “there is a unbroken history of official acknowledgement by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American Life since 1789.” This unbroken history, he argued, suggests that the Establishment Clause should not be read to require the exclusion of religious images and messages from government-supported or - controlled displays. The majority found that the Christmas holiday had sufficient secular importance to justify the city’s support for the display, and that the city had included the crèche in the display to “depict the historical origins of this traditional event” rather than to express official support for any religious message that might be conveyed by its presence.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor offered a novel perspective from which to understand the Establishment Clause. Unlike the Lynch majority and dissent, which focused primarily on the perspectives of government officials, she put forth an approach that focused primarily on the perspective of an ordinary citizen. Justice O’Connor view, known now as the “endorsement test” derives from her claim that “the Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to religion relevant in any way to a person’s standing in the political community.” Either the official endorsement or disapproval of religion, Justice O’Connor argued, elevates some to special status because their beliefs have been officially recognized, and excludes from full membership those whose beliefs have not been sanctioned. Thus, courts should ask whether a reasonable person would view the government’s actions as an endorsement of religion. Based on the facts presented in Lynch, Justice O’Connor concluded that a reasonable observer would not view the city’s inclusion of a crèche in its Christmas display as an endorsement of Christianity. Such a person, she reasoned, would see the crèche amid all the secular artifacts of the holiday and perceive it as another “traditional symbol of the holiday.”

Further, Justice O’Connor explained the highly contextual character of the endorsement analysis as a check on any anti-religious hostility that might result from a too-restrictive approach to the Establishment Clause. “The Court has avoided drawing lines which entirely sweep away all government recognition and acknowledgement of the role of religion in the lives of our citizens,” she wrote, “for to do so would exhibit not neutrality but hostility to religion. Instead, the courts have made case-specific examinations of the challenged government actions……

There you go, FACTS and nothing else.

Oh, by the way, J Morris, Rational by humans will never change the laws by nature. Every child conceived has a right to be born, by the laws of nature he has that right. All hypocritical arguements to the contrary cannot change it!

By Katy M

March 2, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this

Displaying the 10 commandments is not being TOLD you must believe or follow them. To me this is a non-issue…a situation where people are confusing their “preferences” with their rights. There is plenty of “art” displayed in public places that I would prefer not to see….being agnostic this is not a religious opinion….I do feel that religion is part of our culture, just as so many things are. If we try to be a totally secularist society then things are going to get very boring. There is no way to please all when it comes to “decor” I would prefer the differences of our people displayed than a sterile broring environment. As long as a judge or someone within the government isn’t telling people you must believe and follow the 10 commandments then there is no infringement of rights. Why do people not raise more of a stink over groups like NAMBLA and the fact that our ACLU supports this group (protected them in a lawsuit where a man’s 10 year old son was killed by a member). This is where danger in our society lies not in words displayed.

By Jaimi

March 2, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

godsgift: i didn’t say people speak with either a brain or a Bible, i said the people in this discussion appear to be speaking with either their Bible or their brain. I would like for anyone one here to offer solid evidence that the US government is supposed to act as a Christian establishment. Or how about as a Jewish establishment? Islamic? Satanic? Brian Curtis has offered his evidence of the promise for a religously neutral government, now where’s your proof otherwise?

By Sandy

March 2, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

Didn’t Jesus answer the question of separation of church and state when he said “Give to Cesar what is Cesar’s, give to God what is God’s”?

If Christians are so deleriously happy with their decision to be Christian, why are they so threatened by other religious or non-religious positions? I, not being married to any single religion or faith, am still spiritual and moral; fundamentalist arguments about every word in the Bible being true and religious postings in federal buildings are frightening and tear at the fabric of our pluralistic society, putting individual rights at risk. Religion and morality are not the same thing.

Oh, and Jesu taught us to love one another as he loved us. He did not offer any caveats or provisos, nor did he demand adherence to the 10 commandments, which were Jewish law. His purpose was to lead us away from “an eye for an eye” and into “love one another as (and) yourself.” I like to look at it as a simplified tax code for life.

For those who wish to worship, Jesus had an idea for that, too, in the privacy of your own home. Legislating religion has never worked to bring peace, but recognizing the love inside all of us might.

By Jaimi

March 2, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this

Sandy, you are a breath of fresh air…

By Seaborn

March 2, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

The figures cited by Bruce are most likely accurate, I doubt if most people are surprised by that. The Supreme Court may rule in favor of this majority, but if they do, it will only be because of this public opinion…and that should scare everyone. Aside from some “states rights” rhetoric, I can’t think of any legal reason for keeping or allowing religious based symbols in a public courthouse…and no one has presented any legal reasons on this blog, even at the repeated request of Brian. Does crime go down? Do people have less domestic issues? Are judges and juries more impartial? Bruce, please feel free to address those issues…

I only hope that before I die, I can observe people like you Bruce, being in a minority position…

By Neil

March 2, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

It amazes and perplexes me how discussions like this degrade into personal attacks of one sort or another, while also allowing people to demonstrate their ignorance of the subject and their blinding biases. Forget about Christian vs. non-Christians, and forget about arguing off the subject about abortion, Thomas Jefferson and slaves, and all that other stuff.
As stated above, the marble frieze in the courtroom of the Supreme Court Building depicts Moses, holding the tablets, in a procession of lawgivers of history. The 17 other figures in the frieze include Hammurabi, Confucius, Justinian, Napoleon, Chief Justice John Marshall and Muhammad, who holds the Koran. This makes perfect sense. The court is about law, and these people were all lawgivers. Moses and the 10 commandments in other courts are about law. It’s a symbol of law … and it predates Christianity anyway. Moses wasn’t a Christian. For the record, I am a Christian and I wouldn’t have it any other way. And I’ve done my share of non-Christian things … unfortunate for me, not you. I still do. I’m not perfect and neither are any of you. I’m anti-abortion, but I’m also pro choice. I may not agree with someone’s decision to have an abortion, but it’s not up to me to decide for them. I don’t think any level of government should fund any abortions in any way, though. I’m very happy my unwed daughter didn’t decide to have an abortion, and I’m particularly thrilled to have a precocious two-year-old grandson now. It will be interesting to see how the Court decides, and it will be interesting to see how the debate will go on regardless of how the Court decides.

By RS

March 2, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

Welcome aboard, Jaimi & Sandy! Always nice to see more rational, intelligent people here. So, Bruce, because I’m Jewish & intend to stay that way, I’m unwelcome in this country? DO I not pay taxes?? Yes, I do! Real loving, “Christian” attitude…

By Steve B

March 2, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

I confess that I have not read everyones comments (who has that kind of time?!) I skimmed through them and would just like to respond in general.

I would never claim that the United States is or was a “Christian nation” as many of my fellow Christians do. However, I think it is just us misleading to ignore the Christian heritage that we do have in this country. Many of our founding fathers were in fact deists. However, many others were committed Christians. To ignore that heritage does a disservice to them and their contributions to our nation. Even the early deists recognized the positive influence of the Christianity and the Bible to the founding and development of our country. I think public displays of the 10 Commandments honor that heritage.

However, as someone mentioned before, I believe Roy Moore was in the wrong when he refused to take down the commandments when the Alabama Supreme Court ordered him to do so. He is still under obligation to obey the law just like everyone else. I think Roy forgot to read Romans 13 in his Bible that deals with the Christian’s responsibility to obey our civil authorities.

Also, Gary Demar was mentioned. Let me just say that I have know Gary for quite some time. I think he is a fine man. He and I are members of the same denomination and have had many opportunities to interact. It is true that Gary really would like to turn America into a theocracy. However, please recognize that Gary is in the minority, even among us evangelicals, even within my denomination. Don’t lump us all together.

By Boscoe

March 2, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

Ever since JMorris came along we don’t here from norman so much, yet the rhetoric sounds remarkably the same. When his argument is rebutted he simply resorts to calling people fanatics. The similarities are startling! Could it possibly be JMorris and norman are one and the same?

By Jaimi

March 2, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this

to Steve B: wonderful point you make. I absolutely agree that our heritage and the contribution of our founding fathers should absolutely not be ignored. if someone had the idea to erect a monument in honor of a particular founding father and that monument was the ten commandments somewhere public, i would fully support that. perhaps outside a court house. but, for it to be part of the establishment itself is a different argument. (see the previous 15 pages of discussion.)

By RS

March 2, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

Ah, I KNEW there was something about J. Morris I like! Now, has it ever occurred to you pack of smug, self-righteous “If-you’re-not-a-Christian-you’re-not-welcome-in-the-U.S” Bible-thumpers that the 10 Commandments were given to the JEWISH people decidedly before the advent of Christianity (& we’re nice enough to share em’ with y’all??!!??) It amazes me that you dare to try to make us feel so unwelcome. Oh, well, I guess envy (one of the 7 deadly sins!) will do that. Please remember that Jesus was a Jew & now, it was not us that crucified him, it was the Romans. Read your Bibles instead of thumping & misquoting them

By Rick

March 2, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this

I was raised in a Baptist church. Of all of the churches I have attended in my life, I don’t ever recall seeing a monument (or even a poster)of the 10 commandments there. Why do the fundementalists only want to put the monuments where they aren’t supposed to be? Put them in your home, church or cemeteries. Wear them on your shirt, hat or coat, but leave them out of government buildings.

By Jaimi

March 2, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

thank you RS.

By Candace

March 2, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this

One thing tends to get lost in the arguments over separation of church and state. In the 4th century, Saint Ambrose is credited with planting the seeds of our modern concept in his fight with Emperor Valentinian II over a church in Milan. The Emperor claimed that all things were in his domain and wished to convert the church from Catholicism to Arianism for his Arian Empress. Ambrose argued that “those things which are God’s are not subject to the imperial power.” In other words the church and the state are to exist in separate spheres, in this instance, for the protection of the CHURCH. Christians should realize that they may not always be the majority, and should do unto others as they would have done unto themselves.

By Alex

March 2, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

For purposes of edification, would somebody - anybody - plaease explain the precedent in American lawmaking whereupon the Ten Commandments are “the cornerstone of our legal system”, as Ms. Feldhan cites?

The last time I looked at the Code of Federal Regulations, or -for that matter - any code of ordinances, it curiously resembles the Babylonian Talmud (ancient oral civil and religious laws of the Jews).

Even Jewish scholars acknowledge ownership of the Ten Commandments (Mitzvoth) as religious tenets that distinguished the early monotheists from their polytheistic Egyptian taskmasters, but unlike many Christians, the “10” are not nearly as revered by Jews, who routinely operate under a whopping total 613 commandments contained in the Septugant (“The Five Books of Moses”).

Judaism teaches that the non-Jewish nations of the world - “Noah’s Sons” - are only obligated to keep seven commandments: 1) Not to worship idols (even if they represent the Almighty) 2) Not to curse God 3) To establish courts of justice 4) Not to murder 5) Not to commit adultery or incest 6) Not to steal 7) Not to eat flesh from a living animal.

Apologies to mom, dad, and covetousness.

By Candace

March 2, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

One thing tends to get lost in discussions on the separation of church and state. In the 4th century Saint Ambrose is credited with planting the seeds of our modern concept in his fight with Emperor Valentinian II over a church in Milan. The Emperor claimed that since everything fell into his domain, he had the right to convert the church from Catholicism to Arianism for his Arian Empress. Ambrose argued that “those things which are God’s are not subject to the imperial power.” Meaning, the church and the state are to exist in separate spheres, in this instance, for the protection of the CHURCH. Christians should realize that they may not always be the majority, and should do unto others as they would have done to themselves.

By Jack

March 2, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

I am a Catholic. During my childhood people were quite down on Jews. I never really understood why until I was a young adult. Why has the hatred lasted so long. This stuff happened over 2000 years ago. Shouldn’t everone get over it. God in any of his various forms would condon forgiveness over continued hatred any day. There, i said it and feel better.

By RS

March 2, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

You’re very welcome, Jaimi! Wow, Alex, that’s impressive! I went to Yeshiva (that’s Hebrew school) for 6 years & even I don’t remember all that!

By Bruce

March 2, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this

RS,

No one asked you to leave. But if you are so unhappy with the fact that this country is 75% for a public display of the 10 Commandments there are other places you could live. I was just pointing out that there are options.

Sandy,

I have to say I do agree with most of what you have said, Love does conquer all. I can’t help but feel that this issue being before the Supreme Court shows that it is not us Christains that feel threaten, it proves just the opposite. It is the “Non-Christains” that feel threatened by a public display of religious material. Just because it is on display doesn’t mean you have to follow it.

By RS

March 2, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

(Thank you, Jack) Candace, you’re right. I do see a trend whereby Christians will one day no longer be the majority & yes, a true Christian will realize this & do unto others, indeed but I’m sure you’ve noticed there are some on this blog who profess to be Christians yet they “talk the talk” without “walking the walk”. If they really lived their lives the way a Christian was supposed to, they wouldn’t use their so-called beliefs as an excuse to adopt a smug, superior attitude toward the rest of the world. If they really feel the need to convince us they’re better than we are, than guess what? They’re not!

By god damn

March 2, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

Your arguments in favor of religious displays in State buildings are absurd. Read american history. Read the lives of the founding fathers. Read what the Constitutional Convention has to say about the state sponsored expression of religious dogma. If the UZA wants to promote religion as it sees it, hell will be comming……

By Tim

March 2, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

‘If they really feel the need to convince us they’re better than we are, than guess what? They’re not!’

Amen RS! Amen :)

By norman

March 2, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this

Boscoe: JMorris is not me. But he is good! Candace: Before you praise St. Ambrose too much, I think it was he who criticized an emperor for defending Jews whose synagogue fanatical Christians had demolished. Ambrose thought the emperor should be anti-semitic because Christianitiy was anti-semitic.

By RS

March 2, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this

Thank you Tim! I always have YOUR back, as well! Bruce, I realize there is no law forcing non-Christians to leave the country, but the fundamentalist “majority rules!” credo makes us feel mighty unwelcome. Sorry, but I have the same rights as everyone else. I have no objection to the Big 10 being displayed in courthouses but please realize they are not exclusive to Chrsitianity & by the same token, other religions in this country should have the same right to display their own symbols as well

By Bruce

March 2, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

Guys,

I am taking my dog out of this hunt. I have done what God asked me to do and that is to sound the horn. If people don’t want to listen they are the ones responsible. One last point before I go. Until a few years ago our country was considered to be amoung the best educated. Then we decided we didn’t need God there. Now were are we educationally?

May God bless you all and continue to smile on this great nation. (Even though some of us don’t want Him in it)

By J. Morris

March 2, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, I believe I addressed your “rebuttal” of my argument, and you are a fanatic. I have other names for you as well, but they aren’t that nice.

And just so ya know, fanatic, the statistics you mentioned may have been valid BY 1973, but only because roughly 20 states had already liberalized their individual abortion laws. People could travel to those states and obtain abortions legally. However, as you travel backwards from 1972 the numbers of physician-performed abortions decrease and the number of deaths per year increase, peaking at roughly 100,000. Yes, in 1972 national stats only show 37 deaths.

However, if R v. W is overturned, there is no guarantee that states would maintain similar free stances.

And people, if you don’t understand that “it has a soul at conception” is a RELIGIOUS belief and not a scientific, rational one, then there is no helping you. You know, historically in England and then in the Colonies, abortion was legally available until the point of “quickening”, the time at which fetal movement begins. Then the religious fanatics came out of the woodwork and decided it was time to legislate their morality. WHICH gets us back on topic…legislating morality is wrong. Boscoe is a doofus. The Pope is an anachronism.

By norman

March 2, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this

J.Morris: you are stealing my thunder!

By J. Morris

March 2, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

Two things I hate more than anything…People who say “If you don’t like X about the US, why don’t you leave?”

Now, I KNOW I’ve been guilty of telling Zack that he would be better off in a Middle-Eastern Shari’a-based nation, but that’s just because I CARE…really, I do! I think he would be MUCH happier among a large group of other frothing-at-the-mouth zealots. Now, he’d have to keep the whole “I’m a Christian, and you should be too!” thing under wraps, but I bet he could get hair shirts at a bargain price, and he’d get to execute all the gay people he wanted to his heart’s content! We’re just looking out for you, Zackie.

The other thing is when people say “We took God out of the “X” and now look what’s happened to “X”. Like Bruce. Bruce says we got rid of God…from somewhere undefined, and now we are no longer considered one of the best educated countries. Bruce, our educational system has NEVER been up to par with our European and Asian friends. Why? Because we don’t value rationality and critical thinking, and we certainly don’t encourage questioning. These are things that are critical to education.

Bruce, are we to understand from your last post that…God talks to you? It’s called Thorazine, man. It’s your friend.

/off-topic rant off

By godsgift

March 2, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

The more one listens to Boscoe the more one wants to do him in. He is one g….damn nut.

But then remember that integral Catholics (that means fundamentalistic Catholics) are a pretty weird bunch.

By SteveB

March 2, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

J. Morris,

I know I should not get pulled into this one, but here it goes…

You made a statement that you hear frequently these days that I would like to respectfully challenge. You said, “legislating morality is wrong”. I do not know of a single piece of legislation that does not spring from someone’s morality. From zoning laws to federal legislation, everything is based on someone’s morality. The fact that it is against the law to drive 120 mph means that someone has decided that public safety is more important than my desire to get somewhere quickly. That is a moral judgement, thus someone legislated morality.

Anyway, back to the topic…Everyone try to play nice :)

By Jack

March 2, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

Thankyou Bruce. Now if we can get rid of Zack & Randy we might be able to have intelligent debate over the subject matter at hand.

By lozen

March 2, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

Ha, ha, ha, ha! Yesterday “Bruce, Almighty� informed me that the reason we need the ten commandments in the courthouse is not for him but so I will read them when I go for jury duty! Ayatollah Bruce thinks he knows better than I do what I need to see on the courthouse lawn. And if I don’t like it I can just leave and go to another country! Well, some people are just sanctimonious, holier-than-thou control freaks. I don’t have to pay any attention to your religious blathering. This is a country where we all can choose our religion, although you and your brethren are doing everything in your power to change that! Which of the three versions – Exodus 20:2-17, Exodus 34:12-26 or Deuteronomy 5:6-21 - would you choose for me Herr Bruce? Since you are a religious conservative you believe god wrote the commandments. I believe the most logical explanation for three versions is that three different authors were describing a single event: that of Moses giving the Ten Commandments to the Israelites. And you want everyone to base their moral philosophy on this. Ha, ha, ha, ha!

By Jaimi

March 2, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

so i challenge everyone who disagrees with RS and Tim and Bruce and myself: why, in one sentence, should the ten commandments be displayed? we are country devoted to national spirit and national devotion- not religious. so why should our court houses display something that would become a false representation of how they run their establishment?

By Sandy

March 2, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this

Bruce—

That’s my point. If religious tenets are posted in federal buildings, I’m not threatened because I don’t believe, but my rights to fair treatment are threatened by those who do. Our founding fathers knew a little bit about the hypocrisy of state sponsored religion and abuse of power. Nonbelievers or believers in separation are not telling others that they cannot practice their religion; they are being told that the federal government has no business “choosing a favorite.”

Perhaps overexposure to religious thoughts in public renders them powerless, especially if invoked for discrimination and intimidation. Maybe this movement will burn itself out, or maybe get lost in the minutiae of which form of Christianity; maybe it will go underground. But the goal should be common ground. We’re caring, thinking people; if not, we would not be so passionate about this issue.

By J. Morris

March 2, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

I have to disagree, Steve. Things like speed limits are legislative extensions of the State’s responsibility to protect its citizens. Speed limits are set in order to mitigate the dangers of driving surrounded by a lot of other people. Zoning laws are set to keep residential, commercial, and industrial areas separate from each other…where is the moral component there?

Laws that protect citizens, organize and regulate trade, etc. are perfectly legitimate excercises of government authority. On the other hand, laws that give a religious (or otherwise unjustifiably discriminatory) belief the weight of law are NOT legitimate excercises of that authority. As we become more diversified as a nation, thankfully many of these laws are being struck down.

Examples: Laws against miscegenation (The law in Virginia struck down by Loving v. Virginia, for instance, was specifically phrased in religious terms), Laws against Sodomy, Blue Laws of all sorts, Laws forbiding early-term abortion because religious people believe a soul is bestowed at the moment of conception - THESE are examples of legislating morality.

By norman

March 2, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

I could not have said it better, J. Morris. The Pope is indeed an anachronism, a relic from the ancient world, from Magian religiosity and Roman cultic practice. He wears an antique costume, speaks and writes in a dead language, and pretends to represent an imaginary world and saviour whose vicar he claims to be.

Catholics are not the only anachronisms. Redneck Protestantism is also a throwback to an earlier, ignorant age. The great Jewish writer, Isaac Bashevis Singer, wrote that as a child he studied the Talmud, which made a dead language, Aramaic, and an almost dead second language, Hebrew, his two spoken tongues. He could not speak the language of his surroundings, Polish, and in the Talmud he learned ritualistic practices for a temple and cult which had been destroyed 1900 years earlier. In today’s NY Times there is a story about a group of Jews which in a public hall reads the Talmud from being to end out loud — again an anachronistic set of writings about legal disputes which have no relevance to anything in the last 2000 years. This is religion, God help us!

By Brian Curtis

March 2, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this

I know I’ve been the one condemning off-topic rambling, but I’ll try to make this a quick aside:

Whenever I hear someone claiming that “all laws are imposing somone’s morality,” I ask how that applies to the regulation size of road signs. Where’s the burning moral issue for that piece of legislation? Or is it simply a practical decision to standardize a trivial piece of our infrastructure for ease of use and recognition? Some “morality,” huh?

By Boscoe

March 2, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

JMorris The legend of thousands of women dying of illegal abortions has been a devastatingly effective propaganda instrument in the past, and is now being used in the fight by pro-abortion groups to keep baby-killing legal in this country. The Pro-Abortionists Admit the Lie. However, no evidence exists to support this spurious claim. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), and the former owner of the largest abortion clinic in the world (the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, or CRASH) states in a quote widely used by pro-lifers to highlight the dishonesty of pro-abortionists; “How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL [the National Abortion Rights Action League], we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always ‘5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.’ I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.”

By J. Morris

March 2, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, the man you reference is a rabid anti-abortion supporter now. Why in the world should we take anything that comes out of his mouth seriously? Find me a current SUPPORTER of abortion and reproductive rights who will admit to this so-called “lie”.

You and Zack love to dredge up “facts” that come from the most suspect of sources…religious web sites, anti-abortion groups, fanatics like you. I know, I know - the only sources you deem credible are the ones that reinforce your beliefs.

Objective sources are always more credible than the misrepresentations of fanatics and converts.

By Neil

March 2, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

Comment? Today, Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, released the following statement after presenting oral argument at the United States Supreme Court in the Kentucky Ten Commandments case, known as McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky. Staver said, “The Ten Commandments are a universally recognized symbol of law. A visitor to the United States Supreme Court cannot enter the very chambers where argument was heard without coming into contact with the Ten Commandments. They are engraved at the main entrance on the double wooden doors, and they also appear on the bronze gates which exit from either side. Inside the Court, the only written inscription of the numerous architectural depictions is the Decalogue in Hebrew text. The Ten Commandments are featured in the central position on this Court’s East Pediment. Richmond County, Georgia, has used the symbol of the Ten Commandments on its seal since at least 1872, so that even the illiterate could recognize legal documents stamped with this imprint. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down the Pledge of Allegiance, has had the Ten Commandments in its official court seal for at least 100 years. The Ten Commandments have also influenced our common vernacular, by giving rise to numerous pithy sayings, like ‘The Ten Commandments of a Good Golf Swing.’”

Staver continued, “Despite the fact that the Ten Commandments are uniquely embedded in our history and appear in the Kentucky courthouses in a Foundations of Law display, some would have the Court confuse an acknowledgment with an establishment of religion. There is a critical difference between government acknowledgments of religion, which the Constitution permits, versus an establishment of religion, which the Constitution forbids. It is not surprising that in a Nation established by religious refugees, we find references to the divine in our songs, in our mottos, in our architecture and in our documents. To erase our history would eliminate the essence of this country - a Nation founded upon religious freedom, where we can acknowledge God and religion and where freedom of conscience is not trampled. If the Ten Commandments are unconstitutional, and if when government merely acknowledges religion, it thereby establishes it, then the sight of sandblasters will become common, and the rapid fire of merciless jackhammers will disturb our peace. Our Constitution was not intended to foster callous hostility toward religious expression.”

By Chris

March 2, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

The problem with Christian fundamentalists is that they scream “persecution!” whenever someone tries to stop them from persecuting others. Kind of like Nixon saying, “I’m not a crook.”

By Jack

March 2, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

Boscoe. What in the world does abortion have to do with the display of the 10 commandments? Give it a break. Go take the dog out like Bruce.

By J. Morris

March 2, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

Neil, explain exactly why we are supposed to be moved by the comments of Liberty Counsel? They are Christian Fundamentalists. Of COURSE they want the 10-Cs in courthouses.

GG people, quit quoting ideologues and discuss the bloody issue.

By lozen

March 2, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

I believe what should be over every courthouse door is “To Thine Own Self Be True.”
Anyway, In all three versions of the biblical rules and regs, the original source of the Ten Commandments was an ancient document predating the bible. The original text is similar to treaties imposed by Hittite kings on their vassals in the 14th-13th centuries BCE. Although some people love to state that the source of the laws of the country is the Decalogue, they’re wrong. The original source is to be found in the Pagan writings of the Hittites. So this isn’t a christian country, it’s a pagan country!

By Zack

March 2, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

J. Morris: One of the problems with your most recent posts is that you don’t know the meaning of “objective”, just like you have many other areas where you lack clarity and insight.

By saying that those who oppose abortion are fanatics and that those who favor it are normal, that’s no different than saying that Hitler and Nazi Germany were normal with their opponents being fanatics.

You need to accept the fact that life begins at conception, not run from the truth and look insanely desperately for any shred of evidence that you can possibly construe as a supporting argument.

By Alex

March 2, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

Food for thought: might depictions of the Ten Commandments, imbued by their notion as God-given laws, themselves be considered graven images and, therefore, in fact be an abomination of the very Commandments themselves?

Remember, inn the lore, the Hebrews were not necissarily worshipping the golden calf at Sinai, they were - many of them - associating it with their “one-true-God”, but after generations of assimilating Egyptian culture and icons, it was the only conduit many could relate to in worshipping the divine. This is the thing that most angered Moses after having worked so hard and faithfully to separate them from that familiarity.

In fact the underlying lesson about not creating graven images relies heavily on the Judaic tenet that it is within the hearts of every person where a spark of the Divine resides. Judaism actually held-fast that ours is to treat people with respect to that mystical notion, one that obviously conveys an awesome personal responsibility to “do unto others as you would have others do unto you”.

According to George Washington ours is a government “which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, [and] requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”

Placing religious icons on public property is tantamount to declaring these places as hallowed ground, to be feared and revered. This is clearly NOT consistent with the attitude the founders had when conceiving the government of the United States, or else many of our capable citizens would deem themselves too unworthy to enter into public service without first removing their shoes.

When we pledge allegiance to the United States our custom is to honor the pride of our hearts, not to bow our heads in dread.

By Belwldered

March 2, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

I don’t about this Ten Commandment crap, butBill O’Really’s recenty had a column about SpongeBob SquarePants shocked me into realizing that my lackadaisical parents and the grouchy old Rt. Rev. Monseigneur Jos. A. O’Dwyer failed to provide me with the right moral values.

I was permitted to ignorantly believe that cartoon characters like Mr. SquarePants were designed to merely to provide entertainment. I was never told that they were really created to promote sexual perversion, violence, greed and laziness.

Had a good Christian outfit like the American Family Association been around when I was growing up, I would have known better than to laugh when that cross-dresser Bugs Bunny kissed on Elmer Fudd. I would also have known that Yosemite Sam had a bad anger management problem. I could have benefited greatly from American Family Association-type guidance highlighting the behavior patterns which led to Yosemite’s violent schizophrenia.

And what were those Warner Brothers perverts thinking about with Pepe Le Peu, a skunk that sexually harassed cats? (French skunk, no less!) Perhaps the worst insult of all to moral values was that overbearing rooster (archetype Republican politician) Foghorn Leghorn. His was always trying to make a move on the widow hen so that he would not have to sleep outside.

Aside from accidentally nurturing the latent ability to discern Mr. Bush’s real motives behind the war in Iraq and privatizing Social Security, my parents and “the Oh-Dee” really blew it when they permitted me to watch that peevish, neurotic, self-absorbed, greedy, moronic megalomaniac Daffy Duck.

By Boscoe

March 2, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

Alright norman, I mean, JMorris…here are objective government sources. Provide some objective sources to support your fantastic claims. According to the United States Bureau of Vital Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control, the last time 1,000 women died of illegal abortions in the United States was in the year before penicillin became widely available to the public in 1942. In the ten years preceding , deaths ranged from 90 to 150 per year. The Commission on Professional and Hospital Activities found that, in 1969, about 9,000 women were admitted to hospitals across the United States for treatment of injuries directly caused by abortions. In 1977, that figure had nearly doubled, to 17,000. Since 1973, there has been no legal requirement for physicians to report maternal abortion deaths and complications. Most states report incomplete data, and the Centers for Disease Control, which compile and summarize the information, receive only sketchy numbers from California, Texas, Florida and Illinois which between them account for more than half a million abortions annually which is one-third of the nation’s total. Confirmation By the CDC. According to an article in the May 1985 issue of the Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, abortion is the sixth most common cause of maternal death in the United States.

By RS

March 2, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

J. Morris, you’re right. Zack would be much happier in a fascist dictatorship police state where his, er, WORLDVIEW is the norm. What’s scary is that that culture regards women as the property of their menfolks (similar to the US prior to the 20th century)& the aforementioned menfolk can do whatever they like to their female relatives; they don’t need a reason. And Zack seems to hate women..wouldn’t surprise me at all if he advocates that type of barbaric mindset.

By Zack

March 2, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

Lozen—We’re not a pagan country, my friend.

You can try all you want to undermine the Bible, but God’s Word will never fall. WE will, if we don’t live by it.

Norman—I don’t appreciate your slanderous comments about me on here yesterday. This “other Norman”—assuming it isn’t you playing a gag—is someone other than me, and you’ve repeatedly accused me of it being me. Guess what? There are laws in this country against slander and harassment, so you’d better watch your tongue. Yeah, I do have your e-mail address, after you wrote me several times, cussing me, saying all sorts of things you’d never dream of saying to my face. (I probably could sue you; I have the e-mails to support my case.) Of course, this is so typical of you and Lozen, J. Morris, and others like you: Since you have no leg to stand on for your beliefs, you resort to name-calling and buzz words.

By Boscoe

March 2, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

Jack, perhaps you should backup and reveiw what has been posted before you sound off then maybe, just maybe, you’ll be able to understand how the discussion turned to that issue and why they are indeed closely related. Can you do that, or is that to big of a task?

By Neil

March 2, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

J Morris, I wasn’t saying anything about why you are supposed to be moved by the comments of Liberty Counsel. Why would you assume that? I posted that quote so you all could clearly see what the legal counsel for one side in the case is putting out as a statement today. Feel free to comment as you wish, but focused responses on either side are certainly the most effective help to those of us, like me, who may be reading these posts to try to understand both sides … not just personal rhetoric, soapbox stances, pleadings, and condemnations.

By Zack

March 2, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

RS—Barbaric? I’m not the one who advocates killing one’s baby and referring to it as “my property.” My, you’re such a sick individual. Then you oppose sex education in schools and endorse encouragement of more and more slutty behavior. (What’s scary is that I think you’ve mentioned having a daughter.) You also show hatred toward Christians and then back off when one of your allies, Norman, by your admission-finally—seems to have issues with Blacks.

I hate women? This is about the millionth lie you’ve told about me on here. I hate wrong ideologies and lifestyles, like the ones you support. I don’t care if you like me or not. Honestly, if you did like me and endorse me, if you’re still acting as you are now, that would mean I’m doing something very wrong. For once, pursue the facts and quit preaching everything you wish were the truth and simply quit your lying.

By Jack

March 2, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

Boscoe. It has something to do with the subject matter because YOU think it does. You just want to argue your point on abortion. I’ve been on this blog for 3 or 4 weeks and you introduce abortion no matter what the subject. I will not bother to argue with you or your buddies for it does no good. I may not agree with Lozen. RS or Norman but they can carry on healthy debate without cutting and pasting bible verses an they seem much more intelligent than thee.

By lozen

March 2, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

Zack, I thought you christians were always whining about how “pagan” we’ve become in this country. Well, the Ten Commandments sitting on the courthouse lawn are based on pagan writings of the Hittites. Maybe that’s why. How old are you anyway. Your postings are so incredibly juvenile my guess is you might be about …. 14 or 15. Are you posting from your school computer?

By J. Morris

March 2, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

That’s fascinating Boscoe, since I just checked the CDC’s web site out, and they didn’t even start tracking abortion data until 1969. Amazing that they had statistics from…what was it, 1942?What’s more the only data they DO track is that resulting from LEGAL abortions. There is also no such thing as the “US Bureau of Vital Statistic Center for Disease Control”. The CDC has a Vital Statistics application, but that’s it.

By the way, if you Google the phrase “United States Bureau of Vital Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control”, it takes you to a number of religiously conservative web sites, all of which are quoting the Dr. Nathanson from earlier. Again…not objective!

And Zack, it’s so CUTE when you accuse other people of lacking sense, being subjective, and name calling. Oh, and you can’t sue someone just because they send you mean e-mails. Slander has to be public AND meet the malicious intent standard - in other words, the Slanderer must be maliciously aiming to damage the public reputation of the Slanderee…since we don’t even know who the hell you are, how can we damage your public reputation, assuming you even have one.

By RS

March 2, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

Zack: First of all, Lozen is right. Native Americans (i.e. practitioners of pagan religions) were here long before Christians & Jews. I don’t advocate “killing babies”, as you so charmingly put it. However, I am ok with scraping a lump of flesh from one’s uterus. Again, you accuse me of not paying attention yet you keep thinking (?!?) I have a daughter when time & time again, I’ve stated I’m militantly child-free. Now when did I ever display hatred toward Christians? I respect TRUE Christians. I do not respect phonies who SAY they’re Christian & preach hate. And don’t worry, Zack, I can’t see myself ever liking you. Or even tolerating you, for that matter.

By Brian Curtis

March 2, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, Zack: The current topic is, as it has been all week, the question of the U.S. government endorsing a particular relgious faith.

It is NOT—repeat, not—abortion. No matter how much you want it to be about abortion, it simply isn’t. Any comments or arguments you want to make about abortion simply Do Not Matter on this thread, because the thread is about a different topic entirely.

Maybe they’re all the same thing in your head, but everyone else here seems to be able to parse it out successfully. Give it a try!

Now: Do you have any comments or information to provide on the actual SUBJECT of this week’s forum? We’re waiting….

By J. Morris

March 2, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

Wait, did Zack say “I hate wrong ideologies and lifestyles?” and then accuse you of showing hatred for Christians?

What happened to Christian Unconditional Love, Zack? Or is that only Unconditional for other Christians?

And just for the record, I don’t think any of us hate Christians…well, Norm doesn’t really like ANY religious people, but…we just hate RELIGIOUS CONSERVATISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM…basically people like you, who constantly condemn “wrong…lifestyles”. And it’s safe to say that I do find you to be a thouroughly despicable human being.

By norman

March 2, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

I’m amazed. For many weeks I almost singlehandedly had to take on Zack and his ilk, with Boscoe as their father confessor and chief inquisitor. I did have some help from a couple of nice ladies. But now all sorts of people, starting with J. Morris have been brought to take up the defense of reason and simple common sense. I guess Zack, Bosco &Co. just got under your skin and finally you had to do something.

It almost makes you believe in the essential goodness of mankind — almost, but not quite.

By Jack

March 2, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

Zack and his ilk manage to damage their reputations with almost every statement they make on this blog. maybe he should sue himself.

By lozen

March 2, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

I guess the Holy Spirit moved; Bruce is gone! I’d be disappearing too if I’d shown my true little Hitler colors like he has in the past two days.

By Katherine

March 2, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

If your faith is so strong, why are you so afraid? If its about your PERSONAL relationship with God, why are you so afraid? If you read your Bible and truly believe you will prevail, why are you so afraid? And, if you are so righteous, why not let those of us that do not wnat our governemnt to be a theocracy, risk eternal damnation. Afterall, you are the chosen ones.

By Jack

March 2, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

We’re trying Norm. But you know how far reasoning gets with these people.

By lozen

March 2, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

Hey Norman. Glad to help you out there! Jack is right; they just create nothing but disgust with every statement. I used to think you were too hard on them and too abrasive. Now after listening to them foam at the mouth for three weeks I can see why you just blew them off and insulted them. They don’t know how to be rational. There’s no logic to anything they say. And just like J Morris, I don’t hate christians. I do despise little dictators like Bruce, Zack, Boscoe, etc.

By Tim

March 2, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Zack… GET REAL! good grief… I have never seen RS stating that she opposes sex education… so you obviously ‘put words in her mouth’… say it with me Zack HYPOCRITE… she also has never once endorsed ‘slutty behavior’… she is happily married and is faithful to her husband… so again you ‘put words in her mouth’… say it with me again Zack HYPOCRITE… third she has said before that her and her husband have decided not to have children… so one more time… stop putting words in her mouth… have you ever heard that saying ‘practice what you preach’ try it sometime… it may work!

geez… you are one of the first people to tell someone not to put words in your mouth but then you turn right around and do it to someone else

and if you do sue Norman will someone PLEASE tell me when that court date is… I would LOVE to see our legal system at work (oh idea… take it to Judge Judy)

By RS

March 2, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

J. Morris, you hit the nail right on the head in your post as to why you find Zack despicable but I cannot go as far as calling him a human being; you are TOO kind. If I knew someone like Zack in my day-to-day life, I’d eventually be moved to slap him silly; I have a difficult time suffering fools.

By lozen

March 2, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

Since I’m not a christian I don’t even have to be a hypocrit and tell them I have love in my heart for them when i don’t mean it.

By Tim

March 2, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

RS… sorry about the post… I know you can easily defend yourself… but I couldn’t take reading anymore from Zack

By Dan

March 2, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

The question is how should the supreme court rule on State display of the ten commandments. As has been quoted a number of times here the first ammendment states congress shall make no law respecting any religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. So unless congress has made a law promoting or disparaging a given religion, it is not within the supreme courts pervue to opine. Meaning if a local electorate chooses to display a picture of the local college mascot the supreme court does not have the authority to change that. The writers of these amendments choose their words very carefully and were specific in some instance like this one and left room for interpretation in others. They evidently knew this could become heated. Many people like to claim the constitution stipulates separation of church and state, it says no such thing, that is an extension of meaning and precisly why they were so specific in their verbage. As long as there is no law there is no breech of the constitution unless of course you count the judges overstepping their bounds

By RS

March 2, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

Thanks for defending me, Tim. See that, Zack? A self-professed homosexual man pays a LOT more attention to what a woman is saying than you have. To date, you seem to have mis-read every post I’ve submitted. Slutty behaviour? Oh yes! I admit, I’m guilty of that. I wear make up. I DON’T wear a burka. I’m a rock musician & worst of all, I (gasp, horror!) dance with & hold hands with my husband in public! IN PUBLIC!!! Plus, yesterday, I saw a male friend & I had the temerity to HUG HIM!!! Oh my goodness, what a brazen hussy I am..

By Texas

March 2, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

Hey Jack, or should I call you Tom. You don’t have to use your real name, but to stand on morals, one shouldn’t go by Tom one week, and decent to Jack the following. Either way, to claim your Catholic and oppose Catholic teachings, to threaten people because their views oppose yours isn’t very much being a Catholic Tom. Catholic teaching for your inforamtion Jack or Tom is Abortion is Morally wrong.

By Boscoe

March 2, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

JMorris, first of all it’s the United States Bureau of Vital Statistics AND the Centers for Disease Control - learn how to read. And here is the link for the CDC statistics on morality all the way to the 1900s!! http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/vsus/vsus.htm You seem to be coming up with one excuse after another probably because you know I’m correct while you can’t verify your wild claims! Jack, Brian Curtis I wasn’t aiming comments about abortion at you so quit crying. Backup and read and you’ll see how I’ve addressed the Ten Commandments issue. You don’t like it to bad!

By Brian Curtis

March 2, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: Fair enough. I just did a search all through this week’s forum, and the ONLY reference you made to the topic (the 10 Commandments posted in govt. buildings, for those of you just joining us) was this:

“Brian, how does the display of the 10 Commandments effect your daily life? What difference does it make if the rule of law within this country is based upon those 10 rules?�

And if you’ll recall, I answered that: It doesn’t matter. Legalizing slavery of blacks wouldn’t affect my daily life either—I’m white, after all. But it’s still wrong, and it would still be unconstitutional.

Here’s my response to your distraction questions: “Again, all of this is irrelevant to the topic at hand: Should the U.S. government be promoting the principles of one faith and not others, when the Constitution clearly forbids it? Again, the answer is obviously no; and again, I ask if anyone can point to a logical reason to say otherwise WITHOUT wandering off into irrelevancies.”

So: Can you?

By Texas

March 2, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

Here’s a perfect example on how Judges Legistrate from the Wall Street Journal:

Justice Anthony Kennedy has many attributes, but judicial modesty isn’t one of them. His latest legislative diktat in the guise of a legal decision—issued yesterday in Roper v. Simmons—overturns 19 state laws on behalf of a “national consensus” that he alone seems to have defined.

Yesterday’s ruling concerned a death penalty case, which isn’t something we usually write about. But what makes Roper notable, and worthy of wider debate, is the way it symbolizes the current Supreme Court’s burst of liberal social activism. From gay rights to racial preferences and now to the death penalty, a narrow majority of Justices has been imposing its own blue-state cultural mores on the rest of the country. We suspect it is also inviting a political backlash.

No doubt most Americans will concede that the death penalty for 16- and 17-year-olds is a difficult moral question. That is why different U.S. states have different laws on the matter, and we’d probably oppose such executions if we sat in a legislature. But rather than defer to the will of voters as expressed through state legislatures and at least two ballot initiatives (in Arizona and Florida), Roper imposes the view of five justices that the execution of 16- and 17-year-olds is both wrong and unconstitutional. As Justice Antonin Scalia writes in a dissent that is even more pungent than his usual offerings, “The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation’s moral standards.” Justice Kennedy rests his decision on his assertion that American society has reached a “national consensus” against capital punishment for juveniles, and that laws allowing it contravene modern “standards of decency.” His evidence for this “consensus” is that of the 38 states that permit capital punishment, 18 have laws prohibiting the execution of murderers under the age of 18. As we do the math, that’s a minority of 47% of those states. The dozen states that have no death penalty offer no views about special immunity for juveniles—and all 12 permit 16- and 17-year-olds to be treated as adults when charged with non-capital offenses.

This idea of invoking state laws to define a “consensus” also runs up against any number of notable Supreme Court precedents, including Roe v. Wade. When Roe was decided in 1973, all 50 states had some prohibition against abortion on the books. But never mind.

Even weaker is the Roper majority’s selective reliance on scientific and sociological “evidence”—the kind that legislatures (and juries) are used to weighing. The American Psychological Association claims in this case that killers under the age of 18 are incapable of making appropriate moral judgments. But this is the same organization that has told the Court in the past that teen-age girls are mature enough to decide whether to have an abortion without parental input. Which is it?

Perhaps the most troubling feature of Roper is that it extends the High Court’s recent habit of invoking foreign opinion in order to overrule American laws. “It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty,” Justice Kennedy writes. We thought the Constitution was the final arbiter of U.S. law, but apparently that’s passé. In invoking international “opinion,” however, the majority also seems rather selective. Justice Kennedy cites the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which outlaws the juvenile death penalty. But that Convention also prohibits imprisonment without parole for juvenile offenders—a penalty favored by some, if not all, 50 states. Is the Court ready to sign on to that international standard too?

Such inconsistency suggests that the real reason this Court has taken to invoking “international opinion” is because it is one more convenient rationale that the Justices can use to make their own moral values the law of the land. And it is no surprise that Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion is joined by the four liberal Justices who have long been on record as opposing the juvenile death penalty—Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens. In Roper they finally found a case, and an inventive legal hook, on which they could lure Justice Kennedy.

If there is a silver lining to this case, it is that it probably disqualifies Justice Kennedy from any consideration to be promoted to Chief Justice when William Rehnquist resigns. Some in Washington, and even some in the Bush Administration, have floated this possibility as a way to ensure an easy Senate confirmation. But we doubt that the red-state voters who re-elected President Bush, and gave Republicans a larger majority in the Senate, did so to promote a Justice who thinks their values are an affront to “standards of decency.”

By Jack

March 2, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

Tex. Don’t know who Tom is but I can think for myself. Yes, I am a Catholic but I do not believe in blindly following anyone just because they say so. I AM opposed to abortion but who am I to tell another what they can and cannot do. I have my beliefs and you have yours. I respect that. Anyone can believe whatever they want as long as they don’t try to push it off on me. You and your pious ilk should join another blog. Like I said before, this isn’t church and I don’t need your sermons.

By Neil

March 2, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

Brian, Actually, that’s not what the question is at all, and I think that’s why so many of you in this discussion get up on some soapbox and start meandering off somewhere else, bringing up irrelevant subjects, attacking each other, saying all kinds of denigrating things just to raise yourselves up while putting someone else down. Why is it so tough to keep on the subject? It’s not about whether the U.S. government is promoting the principles of one faith and not others. It’s not. It’s about whether the 10 Commandments should be allowed to stand in public places as a symbol of law. The Constitution says the government will not establish a state religion and you and I and everyone else can believe what we want.
What’s the problem?

By J. Morris

March 2, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, you get one more response on the abortion issue. Brian is right - yet again we have let you hijack this thread.

First - There IS NO SUCH THING as a U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics. Look it up…it doesn’t exist. Each department or agency tracks its own statistics.

Second - The link to the CDC you posted takes you to a historical collection of mortality data for each year from 1900 to the early ’80s. Each of these years is split into TWO .pdf files, each of which is several hundred pages long. There is no way on Earth that you could have perused this documentation in the short time since you started blathering on. Therefore, we can only assume that your citation of this as lending validity to your claims is based on someone ELSE telling you that the CDC makes this claim.

Third - The mortality data in the volume I selected - 1942 - lists all deaths in the nation by various causes. No where does the cause “illegal abortion” appear. In fact, there is NO mention made of abortion whatsoever. Again, this shows that you haven’t actually read the source material, but are simply parroting some fundy group.

And Texas…do you EVER do anything but cut-and-paste OTHER peoples opinions? Do you have original thoughts?

By J. Morris

March 2, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

Neil, the people who are posting the 10 Commandments aren’t doing so because they view is as a symbol of law. If they were, they would have no objections to OTHER documents being posted, and should really pick something that has more relevance to our modern-day court system. A frieze of Magna Carta, for instance, since it established a Constitutional Monarchy and established the legality of British Common Law courts, and paved the way for other constitutions and similar legal systems.

No, the people obsessed with putting up the 10-Cs are doing so because they view it as a symbol of the one, true religion. As such, they clearly proclaim that they will discriminate against anyone not of that religion.

What’s the problem?

By Dan

March 2, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Again posts about the constitution clearly stating blah blah blah As curtis so often does he has become what he decries and is as far left in reading into the constitution as many others are far right (I guess some balance is good) The constituition specifically forbids the creation of laws regarding religion, period. It mentions nothing of promting or disuading being unconstitutional. That much is fact. It is my opionion that the specificity, with which it is written clearly suggests that the authors foresaw such heated and partisan debate and so stay above the fray of subjectivity while still retaining the protections of the law.

By Brian Curtis

March 2, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

Dan & Neil, no matter how much I disagree with you, I DO appreciate your willingness to focus on the actual forum topic. Thank you.

Personally, I think the history of our judiciary makes it clear that the meaning behind our Constitution is broader than the narrowest possible interpretation of the words on the page. In fact, that is the primary purpose of one-third of government—to interpret the law.

And part of that interpretation has been that “Congress shall make no law” applies to state governments as well, that a right to privacy exists, that free press applies to e-mail, and so forth.

Another part of that interpretive process—which I agree with—says that governmental officials must treat citizens of all faiths and beliefs equally in the performance of their duties. Showing favoritism—that is, anything other than strict neutrality—in this area would deny citizens their rights to due process and equality in the eyes of the law, as Judge Moore tried to do.

So yes, based on the statements of those who support the 10 Commandments posting—“It’s to embrace and recognize our Christian nature as a country”—I DO see the placement of a 10-Commandments monument as identical to favoring the precepts of one faith over others. We have a long and clear record of judicial rulings in this area, and I’m confident that we will once again see yet another pronouncement that Christians don’t get favored status in a truly free nation.

By Neil

March 2, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

J Morris, Who said “they” have any objection to putting up any other documents? So far the only person I’ve seen saying that is you. What’s your reference for that particular piece of information? I think it’s entirely appropriate to have the Magna Carta up there as well as Muhammad holding the Koran as he does in the U.S. Supreme Court. Let’s have the government spend our money to do that in all federal courts … would that mollify you? You are certainly entitled to your opinion … you have that right and I’ll defend it against anyone who says you don’t … but are you really just using this forum as a means to blast Christians rather than keeping on the issue? Seems like it.

By Boscoe

March 2, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

JMorris ou can’t defend your position so you attack my ability to read? You must be using the reason and logic which you tout so readily. Brian Curtis, fair enough, No principle of constitutional law is violated when thanksgiving or fast days are appointed; when chaplains are designated for the army and navy; when legislative sessions are opened with prayer or the reading of the Scriptures, or when religious teaching is encouraged by a general exemption of the houses of worship from taxation for the support of State government; or when the Ten Commandments hangs in government buildings. Why would the founding fathers exclude religion as part of this nations constitution and yet those same founding fathers would have Church on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817). Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson’s example. When the Constitution was submitted to the American public, many pious people complained that the document had slighted God, for it contained no recognition of his mercies to us or even of his existence. The Constitution was reticent about religion for two reasons: first, many delegates were committed federalists, who believed that the power to legislate on religion, if it existed at all, lay within the domain of the state, not the national governments; second, the delegates believed that it would be a tactical mistake to introduce such a politically controversial issue as religion into the Constitution. The only “religious clause” in the document—the proscription of religious tests as qualifications for federal office in Article Six—was intended to defuse controversy by disarming potential critics who might claim religious discrimination in eligibility for public office. That religion was not otherwise addressed in the Constitution did not make it an irreligious document any more than the Articles of Confederation was an irreligious document.

By Boscoe

March 2, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Furthermore, in response to widespread sentiment that to survive the United States needed a stronger federal government, a convention met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and on September 17 adopted the Constitution of the United States. Aside from Article VI, which stated that no religious Test shall ever be required as Qualification for federal office holders, the Constitution said little about religion. Its reserve troubled two groups of Americans—those who wanted the new instrument of government to give faith a larger role and those who feared that it would do so. This latter group, worried that the Constitution did not prohibit the kind of state-supported religion that had flourished in some colonies, and exerted pressure on the members of the First Federal Congress. In September 1789 the Congress adopted the First Amendment to the Constitution, which, when ratified by the required number of states in December 1791, forbade Congress to make any law respecting an establishment of religion. To prevent the very thing that was happening in the colonies.

The first two Presidents of the United States were patrons of religion—George Washington was an Episcopal vestryman, and John Adams

By Jack

March 2, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Is it reasonable to not only remove the 10 commandments but also “under God” from the pledge. “in God We trust” from all currency and all religious symbols from the govt buildings in Washington DC?

By Zack

March 2, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Tim—She does advocate slutty behavior, and she has attacked the teaching of abstinence in schools. She advocates condom distribution, although there’s no clinical evidence to show that condoms work at all against the vast majority of STDs, which I’ve posted time and time again.

Then she has said before that people should be allowed to have casual sex and THEN, AFTER pregnancy, be allowed to have an abortion—-just because they don’t want the responsibility of raising a child.

Of course, abortion is wrong in every circumstance. People can make all the excuses they want to, but it doesn’t change the fact that an innocent life is being murdered.

What does she do? She ignores my statements, misreads (deliberately? I don’t know) about 75% of my posts, and then just makes a general lie that I’m against women. You need to talk to her instead of me.

FILSTER—Welcome to the blog. Your post yesterday was right on the money. Thank you.

By Boscoe

March 2, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

…and John Adams considered himself to be a religious man.

By Neil

March 2, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Brian, Good response. Thank you. I certainly respect it, and I’m glad you respect mine.
I believe in an impartial yet understanding and respectful Court. Certainly not what was given as an example of a bad judge in last month’s Reader’s Digest where a judge arbitrarily ruled against a Jewish defendant who understandably wanted to move a court date from the first day of Passover because of his religious beliefs.
I am thoughtfully considering what you said in your posting about whether the 10 Commandments is a pronouncement that Christians have a favored status. My only response to that right now would simply be a personal opinion, so I’ll reserve on it.

By Jack

March 2, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

What do you REALLY think of abortion Zack?

By Tim

March 2, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

Zack… in your first sentence you state that she advocates slutty behavior… well good grief in your very fist statement you told a lie… goodness, pot & kettle ring a bell?… and before you said that she was opposed to sex education in schools (just because she is opposed to soley teaching abstinece certainly does not mean she is opposed to sex education)… you put words in her mouth… again say it with me Zack HYPOCRITE… can you explain why it is ok for you to put words in peoples mouths when you are adamant that people not put words in your mouth?

and yes we all know what you have said on here time and time again… it is just that actual free-thinking don’t pay attention to your posts… the only reason I have repsonded these past two times is because you are telling lies and then profess to be a Christian… go read what the Bible says about telling lies

furthermore, is it possible for you to ever say anything about the subject at hand?

By Jodi

March 2, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

Why can’t we just decorate our courthouses with some nice art instead of religious symbols? How about a nice landscape? Who could protest that? Neil—Just wanted to add to what Brian said. I look at it this way: If I were a Muslim U.S. citizen in this country, would I be intimidated by overtly Judeo-Christian displays in a court of law in which my fate could be decided? I would have to say that given the current climate in our country that I would be really afraid about not getting a fair shake. Or, to flip it around, say you were a Christian in a mostly Muslim country and had to attend court with Muslim symbols everywhere. I would also be afraid of not getting justice.
People are required to make appearances in court. That is why courthouses should avoid even the appearance of showing favor to one group or another.

By RS

March 2, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

No-o-o, Zack, PAY ATTENTION. I never attacked teaching abstinence in schools; I merely stated that in a perfect world, no teens would have sex & since this is far from being a perfect world, at least teach them to protect themselves & each other since we can’t prevent them from having sex. As for condoms, must I explain HOW they work? In this day & age, Zack…I feel people should be allowed to have casual sex?? No, I don’t advocate promiscuity if that’s what you mean but I feel it’s unrealistic to expect everyone to wait till marriage. What about people who don’t marry until they’re, say, in their 40’s? A 45 year old virgin? Oh sure, THAT’S going to happen..And should there be a LAW against casual sex? Do you want the police in YOUR bedroom? Ah, why not? I’m sure nothing happens there anyway. So, abortion is wrong in EVERY circumstance? What about a fetus that will be born blind, deaf & crippled from some horrible painful disease? You think THAT life(?!?) is precious???? How would YOU like to either be someone like that or have the physical, financial & emotional burden of caring for something like that? I’ll bet you won’t answer THIS either. And yes, I think you hate REAL women. What you want is a submissive little slave girl you can keep barefoot & pregnant. That’s why I think you’d be happier in a middle Eastern country. You wouldn’t have a clue as to how to deal with a real woman.

By Tim

March 2, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

Jack… PPPPLEASE don’t encourage him :)

By RS

March 2, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

That’s ok, Tim, Zack can’t answer a question that pertains to thinking because that is a process he is incapable of. What passes for thinking, in his case, is aping the hatemongering propaganda he finds on fundie, Neo-Nazi websites.

By Vincent

March 2, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

This is another bizarre topic. Isn’t anyone furious that for two years a man worked for the White House Press Corps under an assumed name? How could someone penetrate The White House that way? Of course, if a Democrat were in office, impeachment would have started. Wait. What is more critical to our country… A cigar used as a sexual device, or fooling the FBI and CIA and having access to our President. Oh, silly me… Of course, the cigar!

This story is absurd. Here we are bickering and making cases for our beliefs when the very cause gives us ten ways to live peacefully in our religion. So, what if its on government property. I carry money with “God” written on it, but that doesn’t have any religious meaning. That’s how its minted.

What we say is meaningless. How we behave contains all the value in the world. And if insulting strangers for the sake of keeping those ten rules on government property equates the essence of those ten rules, then that is the true crisis.

By filster

March 2, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

Once again I am somewhat astounded at the misinterpretation of the Establishment Clause, Article IV, etc. Again, all of these were to ensure that there was no “official” church you had to belong to, once again referring to something like the Church of England was at that time. It did not refer to Christianity, as by reading the papers of those who wrote the Constitution, etc. were deeply religious Christian men whose personal relationships with God dominated their daily lives. And if you sit back and think about it, if we all truly lived as Jesus taught, i.e., love, forgiveness, charity, compassion, devotion, the world would surely be a much nicer place to live in that in is today. Could bear some further thought on that couldn’t it. The more we remove God and religion from our daily lives, the worse life becomes. Odd how those little co-incidences happen, isn’t it. Finally, I am glad to see all the vitriolic personal attacks have mostly subsided. Please keep it up y’all.

By filster

March 2, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

RS. Perhaps you should ask some of those who have been borne afflicted by some physical or mental ailment, or their families, whether they feel they would have been better off having been aborted. I know a number of such individuals and families, and by and large, I am humbled because they, as a result of their hardships, view life as something precious and wonderful and miraculous, which is a viewpoint I, consumed in my daily routine, often miss. Spend some time around those whom you would have aborted because they weren’t perfect and see how your perspective changes. Good luck.

By Seaborn

March 2, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this

Well I guess we’ll know in June. They’ve heard the arguments. Is it a harmless celebration of the contribution of religious tradition to our laws…among many secular contributions…or is it an intimadating endorsement of Christianity by officials that abuse their government position? It doesn’t appear to be a clear line. The latter obviously applies to the recently removed Alabama judge. If the justices find in favor of posting the 10C, I see many more lawsuits coming.

By godsgift

March 2, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

To those of you who think our founding fathers were Christians: they were what Sandra Day O’Connor has called “ceremonial deists.” Washington was a member of the Episcopal Church, but in the 18th Century both in England and America episcopalians were fairly deists. Mentioning God means nothing: they did not dedicate the nation to the Holy Trinity or the Blessed Virgin, that would have been REALLY Christian. They were deists: their God was distant, unconcerned with human affairs, almost non-existant. This is not the God of Boscoe, Randy, Zack or those people.

Most especially, the most important trait of deists was that they believed in Natural Religion, that is, not in Revealed Religion, not in the Bible. Therefore not in the Ten Commandments.

By Jodi

March 2, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

Filster—I don’t think that most of us are (except perhaps Norman) suggesting that you remove religion and/or God from people’s lives. I personally have absolutely no problem with people following their religious beliefs. I myself am a Christian. However, I think it’s awfully dangerous to be mixing religion and state matters, regardless of the intent of the founding fathers (No one really knows their intents anyway. All we have are their writings…). This doesn’t mean (at least to me) that religion has to be removed from every public sphere known to man. However, in instances like in courthouses or in schools (where in both cases, attendance is mandatory) religion can have a cowering, sinister effect on those not in lock step with the majority. Do religious references always do this? Most decidedly not. However, I think it’s prudent to be VERY cautious just the same. When I think about the countries in which religion takes a very prominant role in civil activities, I have to admit that I shudder. Saudia Arabia, Iran, South American countries beholden to the Pope when it comes to birth control, etc…Is that what we really want in this country? I prefer to worship on my own time and not the government’s.

By Jack

March 2, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

Godsgift sounds a bit like Norm. (just not as vitrol)

By RS

March 2, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

Filster: No one is perfect but I’m referring to someone born so hideously diseased & deformed they have no hope of living a productive, normal life. Who wants to be bed-ridden, nmsshapen & in constant pain with nothing to look forward to but death? And not to sound harsh, but of what use is such a person? They are only a burden on their families & the state. Yes, I’d have rather not been born than be condemned to such a H—- on earth.

By Seaborn

March 2, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

*And if you sit back and think about it, if we all truly lived as Jesus taught, i.e., love, forgiveness, charity, compassion, devotion, the world would surely be a much nicer place to live in that in is today

This is true, however, you don’t have to be a Christian or even religous to live this way…I think we covered that Monday though.

By lozen

March 2, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

I really didn’t have time to read that long, long cut and paste Texas put on but I think he might have been upset that 16 and 17 year olds can’t be given the death penalty (murdered by the state)anymore? He’s one of the ones who’s so against abortion because “it’s murder”.

By Dan

March 2, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

Well brian you are correct that some of the past interpretations have suggested that the constitution applies to states, I believe that is an erroneous interpretations as well since the constituiton specifically in Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. One could opine that in a society where much law is based on precedent, a judge specifically ordering the removal of a religious symbol would be in violation of the constitution. I think it is clear the courts are overstepping their bounds. The strategy of the three branchs was masterfully created to promote local politics via congress and a national unity and purpose via the executive branch, these two branches are supposed to be a representation of the people, hence we have the ability to remove them via the voting process. The judicial branch however is an appointed position, they can neither be elected by the current whims of the people nor removed (barring severe misconduct) therefore they have an even higher responsibility to limit their personal bias’ and apply the law as written and legislated by the other branchs. I agree many laws are loosely written and subject to broad interpretations, but I believe the first amendment was very thoughtfully constructed in it’s simplicity and not subject to broad brush interpretations. If that is neccessary then congress and the executive branch need to legislate an amendmant. A supreme court justice should not be legislating from the bench.

By norman

March 2, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

Jodi: as a true conservative I see no reason for removing the Ten Commandments. But if religious fanatics try to use the display for their own evil purposes I will come with a sledge hammer and destroy the tablets myself, just as God did.

By Jack

March 2, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

It should be “an Eye for an Eye”. I know we should forgive but if someone raped/murdered my loved one, they should be removed from the gene pool.

By Brian Curtis

March 2, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this

I hear that phrase, “Legislating from the bench,” a lot lately… and I have yet to hear a solid definition of what it means. Does it mean “interpreting the law”? Because that’s exactly what judges are supposed to do.

And keep in mind that a narrow interpretation of the Constitution’s meaning is just that—an interpretation. Just like a broader interpretation is.

It’s not just the Establishment Clause that’s involved here; it’s also the right to a fair trial, another Constitutional guarantee. Think of it this way: The Constitution does not explicitly forbid judges from always ruling against black plaintiffs or defendants, does it? And yet, a judge who did so would be rightly disbarred for violating citizens’ right to a fair trial—even though “congress” had made no law in this area.

That’s what I mean by a broader interpretation of the Bill of Rights—putting even more restrictions on what government can do in order protect and expand our personal freedoms. In other words, “getting governmment out of our personal lives.”

I’m surprised that so many self-professed conservatives would be opposed to such an idea. I understand the concerns of the zealots; they simply want favored status and special treatment from the government, no matter who else’s rights are violated. But I can’t see why conservatives would be upset with rulings that put additional constraints on government to guarantee individual liberties.

By Dan

March 2, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

BTW I am not Jewish, but aren’t the 10 Commandments part of Judaism as well?
And another thought. I think we could all agree that throughout history this country in general has become more secular. yet people always have and continue to migrate here because they are in pursuit of opportunity and fairness, that doesn’t exist in such abundance elsewhere. I submit that even in a court displaying the 10 commandments a muslim, or buddist would get a fairer trial here than in Saudi arabia or china.

By RS

March 2, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

Jack, I agree! I also think forgiving someone for something horrible they did deliberately is almost as bad as the act itself; it means you condone their evil. The death penalty makes sense because if someone does it once, who’s to say they won’t again? And giving leniency to a teen murderer puts a very dangerous message out; that if you don’t like someone, go kill them before you turn 18 because once you do, buddy, you may not get away with it. I am so sick of this child-centered society. Kids who murder are not “poor little victims”, the ones they kill are. The ones who commit the crime are monsters & I just know Zack will jump on this & claim I’m a hypocrite because I think it’s ok to have a clump of cells scraped from my womb..whatever.

By godsgift

March 2, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

Of course posting the Big Ten will not make our courts less fair to non-Christians or non-Jews. The whole issue has only come up because having seemingly been decisive in electing our Fascist president George Adolf Bush the Christian Right is going for the Gold. We have to be vigilant against the Christians; they can be harmless but when they get their egos up they can be deadly. Keep watching them. Strike a Christian when you can and save civil liberties.

By Jack

March 2, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

Thankyou RS. It makes me ill to see the media try to make us feel sorry for such predators as “Lil B’. Yes he was only 13 when he killed a man in cold blood in front of his children and will spend the rest of his life behind bars but he is still alive. his mommy can come see him in jail. The man whom he killed gets no visitors, he is dead. So should “Lil B”. Sorry about the rant but I feel very strongly about this. Gotta go.

By Dan

March 2, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this

There is a big difference in the interpretive possibilities of

The right to a fair trial and Congress shall make no law

Specifically when the mechanics of making such laws are so clearly enumerated in the same document

The drafters of our constitution where exceptional communicators, much more so than today. (You can see how the more recent the amendment the more ambiguous it becomes) I believe they left room for interpretation or not, purposefully.

By norman

March 2, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

The Supreme Court has struck down the death penalty for minors. How can it not strike down the Ten Commandments which are based on the same vicious philosophy of retribution?

By filster

March 2, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

RS, For those very few you describe (for it seems like you have retreated from a much broader abortion at will position) I guess you’d have to ask them whether they valued life in thier respective h—l over the alternative. While not horribly deformed, volunteer at our local children’s hospitals to see how children stricken by horrible disease, and their families, struggle for one more breath, one more hour, one more day. Or, should they lose in their struggle, the emptiness their passing leaves. If you do, I think you’ll see how precious life, any life, even if you think it’s only part of you, really is. As far as being “useful,” then where would you stand o the homeless, or the mentally incompetent, or the elderly. Does our use come solely from our economic productivity or something along those lines? As for me, and I can only speak for me, knowing those who live in “h—l” has never failed to remind me how petty my troubles really are, or more importantly, how truly blessed I have been despite doing little if anything to so deserve it. And for what it’s worth RS, I am not judging you in any way, shape, or form. Truth be known, I’m probably far more in need of His mercy than any of my fellow bloogers. Peace unto you.

By lozen

March 2, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

What happens on this forum each day is a microcosm of what’s happening in the world. There is no compromising or working it out with fundamentalists as we all can see. Their minds are like steel doors and nothing can get in. They believe they should be able to tell us all how to live and what to read and how to conduct our spiritual lives. It was fundamentalists that flew planes into the World Trade Center but the Zacks and Bruces on this forum don’t even see the similarity between them because they believe their fundamentalism is the right one. There’s an article entitled ‘God Alert’ in the April ‘Utne Reader’ that everyone should read. Karen Armstrong talks about how fundamentalism is splitting many countries including ours. She says, “Whenever religion is allowed to enter political debate, positions become more rigid and absolute.”

By RS

March 2, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

Yes, Jack, that story made MY blood run cold, too. How can anyone so young be so evil?

By norman

March 2, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

Let us end today on this note: if God really so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son to be killed brutally, who the hell wants that kind of God?

By Texas

March 2, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

Lozen, I posted the Supreme Courts decision on Capital Pusnishment not because I’m for or against it, but because of the basis for its ruling. You assuming too much on my position of their ruling.

The Supreme Court, you see, is expected to cite a Constitutional basis for its rulings. Not so in this case. Instead, Kennedy cites a “national consensus” and “international opinion.” Boiled down, “national consensus” is just another way of saying “the will of the majority.” So now it seems official. The Supreme Court will base its rulings on what is and what is not Constitutional based on the mood of the people; based on the whims of the mob. This is nothing less than the legitimization of the lynch mob. If there’s a “national consensus” that old so-and-so must hang, then hang he does, regardless of whether or not such niceties as the rule of law have been followed or Constitutional rights met. Perhaps the next step is for the Supremes to hire a polling firm to measure the mood of the people before they issue rulings on Constitutionality.

The reference to “international opinion.” Maybe some guidance from the Supremes is needed at this point. At what point does international opinion trump the dictates and limitations of our Constitution? Should the “international opinion” standard be used by the Supreme Court to decide whether or not a president’s foreign policy initiatives are legal? Maybe Ted Kennedy and John Kerry should have tried to get a Supreme Court ruling on the legality of Bush’s actions in Iraq. Using the “international opinion” standard Bush’s actions would almost certainly have been found to be unconstitutional.

By filster

March 2, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this

Uhhh, lozen. I’m pretty sure I’d probably fit under your definition of a “fundamentalist.” While I try to advocate my position and beliefs, it’s your choice as to whether to agree or reject. I am unfit to judge you for your choices, as that act belongs solely to my Lord. I would welcome a “Christian” nation, but my Chrisitanity begins with “love the Lord thy God with all your Hear,” and “Love your Neighbor as yourself.” Seaborn, dead on my friend. You don’t have to be Christian or relgious to live that way. But you’ve got to admit it, He said it well.

By Neil

March 2, 2005 05:11 PM | Link to this

I just want to thank you all for this discussion today, even on some of the side issues … even though some of you folks could be nicer in the way you treat others … I think you’d be some of the first to complain if you were treated the way you treat others. I hope you know who you are …

This broadened my knowledge of the multiple facets of the central issue as well as provided me with some history I didn’t know. I don’t think it will change my opinion, but it was useful none the less.

By Boscoe

March 3, 2005 08:22 AM | Link to this

Norman, said Let us end today on this note: if God really so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son to be killed brutally, who the hell wants that kind of God? This just goes to show how LITTLE norman knows about Christianity that he so vehemently is opposed to. What they don’t know they mock! Brian, I responded to your request and kept my posts limited to the discussion about the constitution but haven’t heard a reply…care to give one?

By Dan

March 3, 2005 08:27 AM | Link to this

Uh Norman the 10 commandments say nothing about punishments for breaking the rules. You are stretching greatly to find examples to fit your opinion.

By norman

March 3, 2005 08:39 AM | Link to this

Well, Dan, we know the kind of punishments that God meted out: Sodom and Gomorrah for instance. And then there are the Israelite rules about stoning women, etc.

Boscoe: the Christian doctrine of the vicarious atonement invented largely by St. Anselm is crazy and an insult to any God worthy of that name.

By norman

March 3, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this

Isn’t it obvious that the idea that God sent his son to be sacrificed is a spin off the story of God requiring Abraham to sacrifice his son. These are primitive notions which no matter how dressed up with scholastic philosophy or homey redneck wisdom remain primitive. How do you feel about your president with the nuc-u-lar button in his hand believing in the vicarious atonement?

By godsgift

March 3, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this

Thinking about the Schiavo mess in Florida, I suggest we remove the feeding tubes from George W. Bush and Jeb Bush.

By Jack

March 3, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

Its bad…I found myself thinking about this blog at home while trying to relax. Mercy.

By RS

March 3, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this

Filster: You’re one of the few on this blog who takes an opposing view from us “non-Christians” but in a mature, classy, non-judgemental way. I appreciate that. I opine it should be the choice of someone that physically compromised as to whether they want to live or die & the burden of their care should not fall on us taxpayers; I feel that’s wrong. Me, if I had to live wracked in pain, struggling for every breath & unable to function independantly, yes, I’d want to die. Not all, but the majority of homeless I’ve seen are lazy bums who choose to take drugs & live in the streets, as they have no wish to assume any responsibilities. We all have our prejudices & that’s one of mine; I’m also repulsed by the mentally ill. I know this doesn’t sound nice but I can’t help the way I feel. The elderly, well, that’s another story. They’ve paid their dues.

By Lyrazel

March 3, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this

My tulips froze. I was so lost to caring for my garden I have not have proper time to read these great posts until today. Comments run from yes, abortion is cruel to no, juvenile murderers should face the death penalty, to deist beliefs of the ancestors and the BRAVE FEW who stuck to the topic. Thank you. Thank you all for your wonderful and perfect displays of American freedom of speech!!!

Does it really matter what ancestors THOUGHT? BELIEVED? We are not the same nation, ( we are so much larger) but a country of immigrants and natives whos ideas, beliefs and traditions have made this country strong, glorious, but inconsiderate to our environment. Our laws tend to be the fairest in the world. We are not the nation the founding fathers imagined, nor could they even comprehend the life we call American Daily…living. They did not have the vision to see races intermingling or the sexes treated as equal. They would be horrified by our voting apathy and by religious political organizations. Anyone who lived in the centuries that took down the CHURCH or MONARCHY would believe our Presidents terrorism patriot act declaring the ability to jail people without trial or lawyer for indefinite periods is exactly the same laws they sought to change. We need our Supreme Court to keep the Executive and Congressional branches of government from passing unjust laws for all Americas citizens. A nation of immigrants changes with the people who come to this country and the people born to it. The new blood mixes with the old as well old ideas merge with new to bring vision and a unified future for the betterment of all its citizens, not the few.

Perhaps we need to accept that a country that does not accept change; dies. Its people migrate to lands of freedom, its prosperity dies when innovators are stifled by laws, when science is curtailed by imposed faith, or when one faith becomes mandatory; people flee. The commandments themselves are not the issue. The issue is if these symbols of faith are unjustly placed. These monuments and paper documents were put up without concern toward anyone who might not be christian in a period of time when minorities were arguing for rights and immigrants were despicable loathsome folks, rarely portrayed as human-like. It is not an us against them issue and never was, and should not be portrayed as us vs them because WE ARE all Americans. We have different faiths and ought to embrace the new people and their faiths with the same reverence we have for the beliefs we think were in our founding mothers hearts. I love new ideas, new countrymen and women who have different beliefs and who take pride in this country and their new role. Lets make history and declare America can be a place of worship/non-worship and freedom and none shall take precedence over anothers rights for no matter how tiny a voice is screaming in the winds for change, its our country, our citizens and our future. Love it, dont leave it, change it!

By boscoe

March 3, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this

Norman, I have more fear of the athiest Russians and their nuclear weapons than I have of my own President.

By Jack

March 3, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

I worry more about the people the Russians have sold the nukes to. They are anxious to use them.

By Seaborn

March 3, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this

Jack, I know how you feel… This forum is addictive isn’t it? I had a physical last week and my blood pressure was sky high…my doctor asked if I had been under any stress lately…job, home, etc? I said “no…not really…but I do follow an AJC blog a lot” :).

I doubt if I would ever engage in these discussions/arguments outside of an online venue…my chances of interacting with a rural fundamentalist Christian are mostly non-existant in real life. I work in internet development so I’m attached to it all day…I just can’t stay away…it’s a sickness really :).

By norman

March 3, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

Seaborn: it is good, despite the threat of high blood pressure, to get in touch with how low in intelligence and common sense the average American really is. What keeps Americans dumb is their addiction to religion which weakens the brain and removes gray matter.

By norman

March 3, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

Boscoe: it you knew how to spell ATHEIST I might worry more about the Russians, but I worry about people like you being able to vote. You would probably vote the way Opus Dei told you to, as you did this fall with countless other Catholics who voted vs. John Kerry.
I not only favor literacy tests for voting, I also favor a religious test: those who believe would be barred from voting until they undergo mental training to remove the religious bug from their brain.

By RS

March 3, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this

Jack, Seaborn & Norman: I hear you! I can’t seem to stay away from this blog either. Aside from my enjoyment of the submissions posted by you 3, Tim, Lozen, Jaimi, Sandy, Jodi etc, I am greatly amused by the inane ramblings of the Bible-thumping Fundie set. You must understand, living in Little 5 Points, I am thankfully, never exposed to such lunacy in my day-to-day life so it IS a bit of a novelty

By Jack

March 3, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this

Do you know how to tell if a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.

By godsgift

March 3, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

Boscoe: don’t worry about the Russkies. Worry about what Alan Greenspan just said: our economy is going to tank because of heavy deficit spending, the approaching retirement of the baby boomers, and the crisis in (not social security so much as) medicare and medicaid.

By Seaborn

March 3, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

RS,

I also live inside the fruit loop :)…to misquote a line from “Priscilla Queen of the desert”..”I’m not sure I-285 exists to keep them out as much as to keep us in” :). As I mentioned before, I did some rural business travel a few years ago..it was like going back in time…I was raised in the semi-rural south and I was amazed at some of the things I heard. But I’m digressing off topic.

But to get back a little closer to the topic, I noticed that the house passed Bush’s faith based training bill..I’m so glad to help fund organizations that can now discriminate against people like me..

By Alex

March 3, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this

One thing is clear, our nation’s economy ain’t the only thing going in the tank.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if Greenspan were asked to evaluate things not strictly fiduciary, but political in nature?

By RS

March 3, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

Seaborn: One of the many, many, many reasons (actually, one of the PRIMARY reasons) I did not vote for “Dumbya”

By Boscoe

March 3, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

I’ve seen your “reason and logic” norman. I doubt you even know what Opus Dei really is. You’re not the worlds best “speeellar” either normy. godsgift, Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley, has already predicted what he terms an Economic Armageddon. The strength of our government is from the economy, the ability to produce. Should that collapse we would be in a major war on U.S. soil within a years time.

By Dan

March 3, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel I don’t often agree with you but you are right in the fact we should change and evolve. But those changes should be legislated through congress. A judge should not dictate law, his/her job is to apply the law not create it. Liberals like to chant about facism and nazis etc when they haven’t the facts to make a solid argument. But letting a judge who the people have no power to elect or throw out of power is exactly that.

By lozen

March 3, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

This is why I’ve been looking for “Bloggers Anonymous” for two weeks now! Like you RS, I live in such a way that I don’t run into the fundys in my day to day life. It was a shock to find them on this forum saying the same things and with the same attitudes and stinking thinking as people I grew up around in small town georgia 40 years ago. I did run into a crazy-eyed man in front of the High Museum of Art with his sign about Jesus not too long ago. There was no way I could get in without walking near him and of course he saw me scowling at him. It was such a surprise to see him there; it made me mad because I really felt he was infringing on my privacy and harrassing me. He said something about Jesus and I said he could just take his jesus with him and stop bothering people. He said “Well he’s coming back and you’ll see him then.” I said “you people have been saying that now for 2,000 years and I haven’t seen him yet!” I saw the same man again at the Inman Park Festival and, as crowded as it was, there was a big clear three foot circle around him! Anybody who looked into his eyes could see immediately that he was not a sane person.

By norman

March 3, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this

Opus Dei was founded by a Falangist Spanish priest concerned with the leftward drift of European life. He was thus objectively trying to unite Catholicism with Fascism, an alliance which already informally existed but needed solidifying. Opus Dei works now to get elite indoctrinated with its particularly integrist Catholicism (that is, traditional, anti-democratic, anti-liberal, totally medieval) into positions of influence in secular spheres. In other words, it is a form of Catholic subversion. Modeled probably on the earlier Jesuits it does not have the Jesuit emphasis on education. It is a very dangerous group. Here in America one member is Robert Novak, an anti-diluvian political commentator who was the one who exposed Valery Plame as a CIA agent. A number of newspeople are threated with prison for their refusal to give their sources, but not Novak. He is being protected by Opus Dei which has influence in the Bush Administration as well as elsewhere.

The time will probably come when Opus Dei tries to take over the Catholic Church directly — when the next pope is elected perhaps. Vigilia pretium libertatis.

By Brian Curtis

March 3, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

Dan, I still have the same question as yesterday: What do you consider judges “making the law”?

So many people seem to think that the role of judges is simply enforcement; but high-school civics tells us (or SHOULD tell us) that enforcement is the executive’s job. The judiciary’s job is to interpret, i.e., to determine how to apply the letter and spirit of the law to specific cases and circumstances.

So what does “making the law” mean, exactly, when applied to judges? Are they suddenly not allowed to provide interpretations, even though that’s their job description?

By Boscoe

March 3, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

“It was a shock to find them on this forum saying the same things and with the same attitudes and stinking thinking” …Lozen that describes everybody on this blog, EVERYBODY! Nobody has changed their position on anything. Each one of must love to banter back and forth about our positions on these matters. But we say the same thing, time after time, forum after forum. We are all the same doll.

By Jack

March 3, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

You seem to know your enemies well Norman.

By lozen

March 3, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, what is meant by “we are all the same doll?”

By Jack

March 3, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

He should have said “Sweetie” instead of doll.

By Boscoe

March 3, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

Norman, it’s people like you that have made me build a bomb shelter on my property. For the rest of you the real story Opus Dei is a Catholic institution for lay people and diocesan priests, not a monastic order. Opus Dei’s approach to living the faith does not involve withdrawing from the world like those called to the monastic life. Rather, Opus Dei helps people grow closer to God in and through their ordinary secular activities. Not that you are really concerned about what it really is I just didn’t want our own “man in the circle” to give you his twisted veiw.

By lozen

March 3, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, if you were referring to me as “doll” please understand that is very offensive. I know you will claim it’s a term of endearment, but I know it’s a put down. How could a “doll” have ideas that must be taken seriously? Dolls don’t have brains do they? Call me sweetie or doll or anything similar again and I might have to start calling you “little limpy.”

By Boscoe

March 3, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this

Lozen, pretty girls are commonly referred to as “doll”. I’m sure you’re a pretty woman so I said it. I wasn’t trying to be fresh or disrespectful. If it was I apologize.

By Ed Buckner

March 3, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

Of course the Supreme Court should rule that no one’s religious rules—even if it doid include mine—should be posted in courthouses. And, no, they are NOT posted in the US Supreme Court room—that’s a myth and a lie (I’ve been there—there’s a symbolic representation of many, many sources of law—including Moses, Mohammed, Confucius, Hammarabbi, and many others—but NO posting of the Ten Commandments. If you agree, go to www.atlantafreethought.org —and join us!

By RS

March 3, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

Ooh, Boscoe, looks like you opened a can of worms! Tell me, what do you call not-so-pretty women? (Or, as you say, girls)??? See, terms like “doll” don’t offend me, I consider the source. What WOULD offend me is the attitude a lot of men have toward women they find unattractive. Lozen: “Little Limpy”- HA!!! Yes, I think what we’ve experienced reading some of these fundie posts is (lack of) culture shock. Hard to believe such thinking(?!?) still exists in this day & age. Yes, I also see religious nuts bothering people downtown. They DO seem deranged. Definately delusional. Are you referring to this past April’s Inman Park festival? My husband & I were there. In fact, one of my friends is with that Abominable Feed & Seed marching band. They do a lot of wonderful things

By Lyrazel

March 3, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, may you never need your bomb shelter for more than storing tulip bulbs, sweetie!

By J. Morris

March 3, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Sounds like Bosoce has been watching too much Film Noir…

By Seaborn

March 3, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

I don’t know…I was thinking of giving religion a try and then I saw that Bubba the lobster croaked. I mean how could a loving God let that poor lobster die after all these years? Just makes me cynical…

I don’t think they can have a funeral for him though…I heard that the body is missing from that zoo…and there is an unusual odor of melted butter wafting in the air :).

By lozen

March 3, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

RS, yes it was this past Inman Park Festival but I’ve been to every one since I moved back to Atlanta - in 1998 - and many before 1989. I have to see The Abominable’s every year! And the arts and crafts, the home tour, the music, etc. The only thing I don’t like is the cloggers. And I am not a pretty girl! I’m 60 years old which is one of the reasons that kind of patronizing “endearment” makes me angry. I find it very disrespectful to call a grandmother a “doll.”

By Dan

March 3, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Brian As I have said before they do need to interpret. However in some laws there is much more room for interpretation. You cited an as an example a fair trial. Well such language demands interpretaion, due to it’s ambiguity, and in that case it is fitting concerning the personal nature of each and every case. The first amendment is not so ambiguous, it says congress shall make no law. Had the intention been to have some leeway they would have used the words that many libs change them too, such as there shall be separation of church and state or congress will remain neuteral as to religion. I think there is a significant difference. Imagine if we had a traffic law that said you shouldn’t drive to fast as opposed to you can’t exceed 55mph. A judge of course could and should alter the 55 rule if there is a snowstorm say. Same with the 10 commandments if the offending court was compelling people to bow before the symbol or swear by it or were punished for not doing so I could abide a ruling. But as long as it is a symbol which to the majority of people is more historical and symbolic than religious I don’t think it is the supremes place to step in Now while I was raised Catholic I do not practice, so my perspective is not a matter of religion but civic structure. Fundamentalists from either side, inhibit rational debate and hinder the processes, and yes anyone who thinks having the ten commandents in a court will ruin our society is just as fundamental and just as looney as the one who thinks removing them will invite the wrath of god. I just think the former outnumber the latter and are more dangerous.

By lozen

March 3, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

Seaborn, thanks! A little levity is certainly welcome here.

By lozen

March 3, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

Dan, if the ten commandments are more historical and symbolic than religious why aren’t the people spazzing on their knees over it historians and symbologists?
”I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Yahweh is not my Lord - even the language is antithetical to the individualism and freedoms of today. Yes, there used to be lords who treated peasants like slaves!

By RS

March 3, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

Seaborn, you are a HOOT! Lozen, attending festivals like that is typical of people like us; at least we have the capacity to enjoy life & don’t feel the need to suck the joy out of everyone else’s existance. In fact, my friend in Seed & Feed has a tremendous capacity for enjoying life & has an endearingly childlike enthusiasm for whatever she throws herself into; that’s not to say she isn’t intelligent; beieve me, she is. Did you notice me calling Boscoe out about his referring to women as “girls”? That is SO patronizing, don’t you think? He probably uses the term “chicks” too, although to be honest, some women, by their actions, do deserve to be referred to as such.

By Steven

March 3, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

There are 431 posts on a topic that in the grand scheme of daily lives and public health has no real impact while there are only 31 posts between the topics of childhood obesity and flex lanes/traffic in Atlanta. I suppose that really does show that our priorities as a nation are completely screwed up. Don’t focus on real issues with immediate and tangible effects people! We need to talk about etherial and religious beliefs. Why should I be surprised in a country where the news media coverage of the range of Martha Stewart’s ankle bracelet to monitor her while on house arrest is of more importance than the out of control national deficit, oil at $55/barrel, poor education, federal and state government actively seeking to increase secrecy, Alan Greenspan warning that we’re on the verge of DECADES of economic stagnation due to over spending, etc.? We are so going to get to get what we’re asking for by not paying attention to the real problems while the rich and powerful laugh their way to the bank at our expense. Another round of tax cuts so I can bank more money than the average guy will make in a year, anyone?

By chuck

March 3, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Jaimi posted: so i challenge everyone who disagrees with RS and Tim and Bruce and myself: why, in one sentence, should the ten commandments be displayed? Well, here is your one sentence: It is traditional AND legal to post the ten commandments in courthouses and other public buildings because it reminds us that there is a higher power who is the ultimate judge of mankind.

By Jack

March 3, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Lozen & RS, Would it offend you if a 65 year old man referred to as a “doll”? Because you are 60 does that mean that a man cannot send a compliment your way without you thinking he is crazy?

By Lyrazel

March 3, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

My question is: If the monuments are removed from local courthouses…would these icons of removed religion become even more powerful to religious organizations because they were removed thus creating another rally point and new decisive flashpoint? I have noticed no one is driving around town with 10C on their cars…will they?

By Seaborn

March 3, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

Steven,

Your point is well taken. However, those issues you mention are not nearly as contentious as religion so they fizzle out fairly quickly. And you will notice that most of the posts here are from the same people arguing the same thing, issue after issue, week after week. I actually read some of the other blogs though…

By J. Morris

March 3, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

Dan, no one is saying that having the 10-Cs will “ruin our sociey”. We are saying that as a multi-cultural, multi-relgiious society that prides itself on its freedoms and Bill of Rights that it is inappropriate to display a symbol of one relgion in our courts - particularly when that display contains injunctions that are deeply religious in nature and are in fact contrary to the beliefs of many man and women who might find themselves appearing in those courts.

I will also reiterate the question asked by lozen - if the 10-Cs are nothing more than a historical tribute to law, rather than a religious disply, then why is it that most of the people arguing FOR the 10-Cs are doing so at churches, at revivals, at public meetings surrounded by preachers? Why are they shouting that it’s GODS law that we are flouting, and GODS will that we are violating? No one is saying anything about a tribute to law - they are all proclaiming that by being denied the 10-C displays, they are being denied the “truth” of their faith.

It doesn’t take much effort to deduce that they really aren’t worried about the historical significance of the displays.

And Chuck, thank’s again for showing us why religious fundamentalists are soooo dangerous. Basically, you’re saying: It’s legal and right to post the 10 Commandments because there is a god. Well, Chuck - that’s an article of faith…see, there are people who don’t believe that, and others who don’t believe that the god of the 10-Cs is the right one…You don’t get that, do you?

By lozen

March 3, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

Jack, first of all Boscoe does not hold me and my ideas “endearing.” He’s never seen me so how could he have any idea what I look like? How could it be meant as a compliment? I don’t think Boscoe is crazy, I think he was deliberately being patronizing. It is patronizing, I don’t care what a woman looks like, for a man to refer to her as a “doll.” If your hypothetical 65 year old man were black and someone called him “boy” it would be similar. And I cannot believe we women are still having to try to explain this to you boys.

By lozen

March 3, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

As usual, jmorris steps in with his rapier sharp logic and intelligence and blows the illogical out of the water!

By lozen

March 3, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

Okay Jack just a little clarification: If you are a 65 year old man and if someone who you’d been arguing with on a website called you “doll” would you take it as a compliment? If you want to call your wife “doll” and she’s okay with that and feels it as a compliment, great. If my dear friend wants to call me “sweetie” or “honey” as an endearment, that’s fine too. But when Boscoe, who is a stranger, calls me “doll” it is not a compliment.

By Jack

March 3, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

Lozen- I see your point. I do call females that I am associated with Honey, Darlin, Sweetie, etc.,though I do it out of love & friendship. If one responded by calling me “Lil Limpy”, I would probably use her real name from then on.

By chuck

March 3, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

JMorris, thanks once again for showing us why those on the left are soooo dangerous. You take words that are not there and try to make it seem like I said something that I did not say. Then you contradict things that you have said in previous posts to try to make your point in this one. You said: Well, Chuck - that’s an article of faith…see, there are people who don’t believe that, and others who don’t believe that the god of the 10-Cs is the right one…You don’t get that, do you? It has been well documented in many posts in this forum that the Founders had NO PROBLEM WITH PUBLIC DISPLAYS OF RELIGION. The Constitution itself HAS NO PROHIBITION of such displays. The “establishment clause” has been misinterpreted since 1947 by those of the ATHIEST FAITH, to say that ANY public acknowledgement of God is the same thing as establishing an “official” state religion. Certainly even your poor feeble mind can see that there is a difference between the two. In England there was a distinct disadvantage for those who were not members of the Anglican Church. Non-members were PERSECUTED. They were jailed, fired from their jobs, harassed on the streets, and excluded from basic governmental services. Tell me, pray tell, how having to see a couple of stone tablets with words that you nether believe or follow equates to persecution. Tell me how many people you know who have been fired for non-belief in Christ. Tell me how many people you personally know, whose houses have been burned or who were denied government benefits because they don’t believe. Tell me how many Americans have been forced to attend church by the government. Tell me how many have been forced to join a church? WE HAVE LAWS THAT WERE PASSED BY CONGRESS (REMEMBER THEM? THEY ARE THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.) To deal with discrimination because of reigion. We do not have laws that forbid the public display of religious icons. *Now, that being said, * I don’t care whether the government displays the ten commandments or not. As a Christian, to me it is a non-issue. It is certainly the right thing to do. The government should acknowledge the rightful place of God as creator and sustainer of this country. It is not likely to happen though, and even if it did, it is not likely to sway any of you to believe.

By Dan

March 3, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

Morris is impressing a few of the uneducated but the fact remains and it is a fact. Having the 10 C’s in a court is not in violation of the constitution for whatever reason. Doubly so in a state court. The constitution actually states that items not specifically enumerated in the constitution are to be controlled by the states. The supreme court does not have the jurisdiction to do it.

By RS

March 3, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

Well, Lozen & Jack, I’ve only been living in GA a little less than 3 years. I’m originally from up North so when I moved here it was a bit of a culture shock having men call me “Honey” “Darlin’” “Sweetie” & yes, “Doll”. (and I’ve since gotten into the habit of calling men “hon” “honey” “babe” & “sweetie”. I sound like a truckstop waitress! But hey, if my husband’s ok w/that, fine..)But I’ve gotten used to it along with other things like having my hand kissed (which I love) & having doors held for me, which I consider a courtesy; I myself always hold doors, whether for a man or woman. Believe me, I can tell if a man is using an endearment in a patronizing way. I’d rather be called “doll” than “Fatso” or something of that nature, if I had to choose. And Jack, when men compliment me, I DO think they’re crazy; or blind! I’m an overweight married lady who dresses bizarrely!

By Tim

March 3, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

‘… Certainly even your poor feeble mind can see …’

what a nice ‘Christ-like’ thing for you to say!… goodness

By J. Morris

March 3, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

Chuck, your argument had nothing to do with the Founding Fathers…you said that we should display the 10-Cs because they remind us that there is a higher power. That is, as we have come to expect from you, circular reasoning. I didn’t put words in your mouth, I paraphrased…

So…exactly what purpose, besides repeating the “Our Founding Fathers were religious” argument which, frankly, has been hashed out ad nauseum this week, did your post serve?

Atheism isn’t a faith, and I suspect you’ll find that the justices who first interpreted the Establishment Clause as forbiding any government support of religion were most likely devout Christians themselves.

As for the persecution - well…most of the things you describe in your discussion of persecution of those not belonging to the CoE in the pre-Colonial era are currently being done to gay men and women in this country. The people - like you - who are least sympathetic and, in many cases encouraging, of this treatment of your fellow American citizens generally claim that their persecution of these people is commanded by God. Some of them, like Roy Moore, are judges who swear by the 10 Commandments and insist on posting said 10-Cs outside their courtrooms. So, Chuck, you can see why, as a gay man, I would find the presence of the 10 Commandments in a court that is supposed to be treating me equitably under the law would be something of a problem, now can’t you?

I’ll tell you what else my “feeble mind” can do - it can divide my thoughts into an easily readable form - we call them paragraphs.

By mit

March 3, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

chuck, this is not atheists vs. christian. there are many other faiths that do not follow the ten commandments. As of today our government will allow taxpayer dollars to fund christian social services. This sounds like a non-issue and in fact it would be if the church did not discriminate. but they do discriminate, so everyone in this country who is not a christian will not get help from some of these christian social services. That is not right. Employers can’t discriminate who they hire but churches can discriminate who they help. funny huh.

oh, off topic but saw earlier. assisted suicide. why is it that it is thought of as humane treatment (i agree) to put a (say) horse out of its misery if it becomes injured or ill and will not recover. it is considered inhumane to let the horse live in agony. but the same is exactly opposite for humans. this perplexes me greatly.

By Jack

March 3, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

If looks are all a man cares about, I feel sorry for him.

By Boscoe

March 3, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

Lozen, I do beleive I apologized for the comment. RS is correct though I have used that term as well as “girl” to refer to a female without giving it much thought. To be honest with you RS I don’t make fun of a person’s looks; that wouldn’t be polite. lozen, my calling you “doll” wasn’t a term of endearment, but the intention most certainly wasn’t to be patronizing. Lyrazel, why do you say that’s the only use for my shelter?

By lozen

March 3, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

Jack, I’m glad you got the point and you’re funny. Steven I agree with you. There are so many more important things going on that we could be talking about. Such as: This week the Senate is debating the judicial nomination of William Myers III. He’s a career cattle and mining industry lobbyist who is now up for a lifetime appointment to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. He’s just one of Bush’s 20 judicial nominees that Democrats rejected last term, (compared to over 200 they approved). But Bush is still fighting hard to make sure every single one gets confirmed.
These 20 judges were singled out because they consistently picked corporate interests over basic rights, and want to roll back decades of progress on anti-discrimination, women’s rights, worker’s rights, and the environment. If we don’t act now to support a real opposition, these corporate judges will be given lifetime appointments to lock in Bush’s ultra conservative ideology for decades. Plus, the Bush administration has threatened to use this fight to take away the Senate Democrat’s ability to resist any future judges, including Supreme Court nominees. Tomorrow the house here in GA will vote on the bill that will require any woman seeking an abortion to wait 24 hours and watch a propaganda film produced by the state (isn’t that a scary thought). There’s so much going on it’s overwhelming. But you’re right, we have to start paying attention to what our government is doing to us instead of being distracted by the Oscars, American Idol, etc. But then again many of these problems have their roots in evangelical christianity don’t they?

By mit

March 3, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

boscoe, i can’t believe you build a bomb shelter in your yard. did you really?

i just don’t see you needing one and what might hit us will definitely take care of the bomb shelter too these days. you would need a saddam shelter now. (did you see that on the news, it was on FOX so i would just figure)

By Jack

March 3, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, mushrooms would probably grow good in the bomb shelter. Maybe even truffles.$$$

By RS

March 3, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

Jack, I (obviously) agree. By putting so much emphasis on the superficial, so many folks miss out on a lot & they are to be pitied. Boscoe, you seem to feel likewise; I applaud that!

By J. Morris

March 3, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

A lot of them DO have to do with fundamentalism, lozen - you are exactly right. Either that, or the conservatives USE religious fears and prejudices to prevent the average middle-class voter from wondering exactly why he is voting for a group of candidates who are dedicated to screwing said voter over while continuing to line the pockets of his very wealthy supporters.

By godsgift

March 3, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

Why does a traditional Christian like Boscoe need a bomb shelter? He should welcome the end of the world and the coming judgment.

By norman

March 3, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

My blessings for the end of the session. We can I fear expect oil prices to rise to at least $65 a barrel rather sooner than later — like by the Ides of March.

Boscoe had better find a soup kitchen and forget his bomb shelter.

By Zack

March 3, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this

RS—When people disagree with you, you immediately turn to buzz terms like “Neo-Nazi”, although abortion is actually worse than anything the Nazis ever did, and yet you’re a very adamant defender of it. You need to put aside your hypocrisy and look at yourself, as opposed to rationalizing and trying to defend your buddies on here like Norman, J. Morris, etc..

By Texas

March 4, 2005 07:48 AM | Link to this

Mr. Morris You Sir are entitled to your opinion. But let’s review the facts as they are:

Fact Thomas Van Orden challenged the presence of a Six Foot Marble Monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments. Van Orden wasn’t going to trial and had no official business with the U.S. District Court. He was merely walking the grounds, when he, like many other Anti Religious Fanatics felt offended.

Fact The U.S. District Court of the Western District of Texas REJECTED Van Orden’s challenge. You see, since 1961 42 years no one has complained. Most people don’t even recognize it. However, the Court sited that along with 16 other statues or memorials that commemorate significant people and events in Texas history the monument in question was on display in order to honor the Eagles’ work with young people, and to commend the secular moral code contained in the Commandments. Here’s the key Mr. Morris, the U.S. District Court found that the presence of the challenged Monument was Constitutional and in all it’s Glory still Stands to this day.

Fact Thomas Van Orden appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and, on November 12, 2003, a three judge panel of that court affirmed the lower court’s decision. Van Orden then successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

You and others with your narrow minded, anti-Religious view can cry foul all you wish Sir. But the Law of these United States say that the Monument is Constitutional. I believe, the U.S. Supreme Court will AFFIRM the Texas Courts decision because it is located on 22-Acre Capitol grounds with other monuments. In addition, the monument is inscribed with several patriotic and religious symbols, including the Star of David and the Greek letters Chi and Rho, which Christians use to represent Jesus Christ, and you and the rest of the Anti-Religious Fanatics will have to just look the other way!

By Boscoe

March 4, 2005 08:05 AM | Link to this

mit, actually I do have one. Nuclear weapons have been mass produced by mankind. Without a doubt these weapons will be used sooner or later. I would rather be prepared then cuaght off guard. norman I’m not sure I understand your comment about a soup kitchen…what does that have to do with the price of oil?

By J. Morris

March 4, 2005 08:06 AM | Link to this

I know that I said I wouldn’t get sidetracked by the abortion issue again, but I can’t help it…just this once.

Zack - I considered a number of ways to respond to your comment about abortion being “worse than anything the Nazis ever did”. The first involved tracking you down and putting a fist through your jaw, but I quickly discarded that as being both unproductive and childish; these are traits I’m sure you appreciate, but I tend to avoid them. I settled on explaining to you, as carefully as possible, how absolutely vile and offensive that statement is.

How dare you. How DARE you compare medical abortion to the atrocities of the Nazi regime. Do you know any concentration camp survivors? I do. Have you been to the concentration camps? I have. That you could compare the torture, abuse, humiliation, degradation, dehumanization and murder of living, breathing, cognizant human beings to the removal of an undifferentiated mass of cells lacking anything remotely resembling a nervous system tries the utter limits of my credulity and patience.

I have been rendered utterly inarticulate by your presumption and arrogance. Do you have any comprehension of the scope of Nazi activity? Do you realize how many mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, grandfathers, grandmothers, etc. etc. etc. were brutally murdered in cold blood by Nazi butchers? Can you imagine what it was like to be herded into ovens, or gas chambers…to be lined up in front of firing squads knowing that you and all the men and women around you were about to die? More than 6 million dead, Zack. 6 million in a few years.

It’s easy, isn’t it Zack. It’s EASY to feel compassion for “the unborn”. Yes - you can sit in front of your preacher and listen to him talking about “The New Holocaust”; you can get all weepy and maudlin about the lives that never were because their evil mothers chose to kill them. Yeah, you can do that…but when it comes to real, living, breathing human beings your compassion fails you utterly. When it comes to dead Hutus and Tutsis, or murdered Kurds, or tsunami victims, or countless millions of Africans infected with HIV, or innocent men who have died on death row, or 18 year old American soldiers blown to pieces in Iraq, or a young gay man tied to a fence and pistol-whipped - then it’s different, isn’t it.

Before now, Zack, I’ve questioned your reason. I’ve questioned your intelligence, your logic, your wit; hell, I’ve even had doubts about your personal hygiene…but I’ve never questioned your humanity. Now, I have to wonder.

Go back to your hole, Zack. Go back to that little room where you can agonize about the loss of “the unborn” and never give a damn about the real human suffering going around you all the time, to people who can see, think, feel, taste, love. Go back to the easy place where the people you pretend to care about aren’t real people at all - only ideas that you can put away when it’s your bed time. Leave the world to those of us who are equipped to deal with it. Pray to God that the hand of prejudice never falls on your not-so-broad shoulders.

By Lyrazeel

March 4, 2005 08:11 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, I remember when lots of families built bomb shelters. I think even June and Ward Cleaver had one… This was back in the time when nuclear fallout would produce 50ft women… Americans were told it was only a matter of time before we would have to use our Duck and Cover skills against commies. (Now civil defense is told to use duct tape and plastic sheeting…) So, when I said, may you never need your bomb shelter for more than storing tulip bulbs…it was a wish for a future of peace and sunshine to garden.

By chuck

March 4, 2005 08:11 AM | Link to this

I Will Try To Speak Real Slowly So That You Will Understand It JMORRIS. If The Founders Who Wrote The Constitution didn’t have any problem with these displays and practices THEN THEY PROBABLY DIDN’T MEAN TO PROHIBIT THEM. Therefore, any prohibition of them NOW by the courts is a usurpation of the powers of the Legislative and Executive Branches…also known as legislating from the bench. The religious backgrounds of those justices who overturned over a century of legal precedents makes no difference. They overstepped their bounds as justices when they created new legislation from the bench. How hard is that to understand?

By chuck

March 4, 2005 08:30 AM | Link to this

BTW Morris, homosexuality IS NOT a right that is protected by either the Civil Rights Act OR the Constitution. It is a BEHAVIOR.

By Lyrazel

March 4, 2005 08:35 AM | Link to this

norman, I agree but I think the 65/b price will be a low. Many OPEC nations are now selling their dollars and setting their price in Euros. As our deficit skyrockets our trade partners realize profit will be lost in our deflating dollar more and more countries will join the search for stable currency.

By Jack

March 4, 2005 08:41 AM | Link to this

I think in the event of nuclear holocaust, I would prefer to be at ground zero.

By norman

March 4, 2005 08:45 AM | Link to this

Boscoe: soup kitchens, great depression, get it?

J.Morris: you have put Zack in his place good! The comparison between Auschwitz and an abortion clinic, which that saintly old Polak in the Vatican has made, is despicable. It is used to gain sympathy for pro-life positions (which I happen to share) while also expressing hidden disdain for Jewish victims of the Nazis. I wish you would break Zack’s jaw!

Catholics: anyone defending Opus Dei which was a Falangist-Fascist creation must him/herself be a Fascist.

By Bewildered

March 4, 2005 08:45 AM | Link to this

Forget the 10 Commandments crapola and concentrate on the scientific.

Scientists working with powerful imaging computers say the spectacular “Hobbit” fossil recently discovered in Indonesia has distinctive brain features that could justify its classification as our tiny human ancestor. (The origin of the name Hobbit is probably holbytla, which means hole-builder.)

The 3-foot “Hobbit” specimen, which the scientists say had long hair and was “angelical” in appearance, has a brain unlike anything they have ever seen before in recent human lineage. The brain is chimplike in size, between 380 and 420 cubic centimeters. But its brain shape reflects the same features as those of modern humans, such as an expanded temporal lobe in the front and a fissure near the back of the brain known as the lunate sulcus.

More than a dozen anthropologists with impeccable credentials at the University of Paris, Oxford University and the University of Heidelberg have unanimously acclaimed “Hobbit” as the much sought after “missing link.”

By Boscoe

March 4, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this

Norman I understand what you mean I just wanted to hear you say it. Lyrazel is abolutely correct. The OPEC nations are or will soon, use oil as a weapon. My advise then is to stock up on some goods lest you get caught short handed without provisions. As far as the rest of what you say about Catholics or Christains in general….we all know how you feel so you can give it a rest with the bipolar violent tendencies….perhaps seek some professional help to determine what causes you such problems. You certainly don’t have anything to lose.

By norman

March 4, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this

Boscoe: who could be more bipolar than Christians, they are after all dualists, having imbibed Persian dualism through late Judaism.

You haven’t told us why you, as a believer in the end of the world, are concerned about surviving war or an oil scarcity or any other disaster. It simply brings the second coming (and I don’t mean orgasmic!) on.

By godsgift

March 4, 2005 09:05 AM | Link to this

Hey, second coming! That could be orgasmic! Maybe those crazy Christians have something after all.

By Boscoe

March 4, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this

Crapola? Anyway, Bewildered, if this “Hobbit” is where you think you came from and it makes you happy - go crazy. But let me ask you one question. If we all “evolved” to this heightened state of reason and logic from primordial ooze. Why then hasn’t any other species been able to obtain that very state and rival us? I mean if all species in the world evolved from a primitive species it was only a matter of mathematical odds that we became what we have. It goes without saying then the other species would have those same odds starting from the same place. How did we become so far ahead of every other creature on this planet when we compare how intelligent we are as compared to them? If you could explain that it would help me understand your point of view because after all I am just a dolt. Ask norman/JMorris he’ll tell you.

By Boscoe

March 4, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this

OOOOO! Good question norm. For those of us that believe in the Bible, even there it tells us “Woe to the people of earth”. God’s wrath will be unleashed and it is a terrible and mighty thing. Think about that in context to the weapons of mass destruction that we know exist and those that perhaps we don’t know, (i.e. high tech WMD). Kind of falls in line with that whole persecution of the good and death to 3/4 of the earth’s population thing. I’m thinking this stuff won’t be a good thing. And even though for us Christians we won’t have anything to fear in the second coming…there is that nagging little rule that says no man may know the state of his soul. That is, whether or not we do or don’t get to go to Heaven. I am reasonably assured that we would all be given proper warning and one last chance to make things right before we meet our demise.

By Sandy

March 4, 2005 09:33 AM | Link to this

Chuck—speaking of the Supreme Court overstepping boundaries—how about putting W.Bush in office?

Seems to be that conservatives want government in places where it should not be: the bedroom, the women’s clinics, and mixing in with articles of faith, with faith-based initiatives, etc., all in the name of morality. How about taking a really radical stand, like Jesus and Gandhi, for instance, and using government power for good and not exclusion and indifference. That is, to eradicate poverty (as much as we can); to alleviate suffering (as much as we can), to assure that the basic needs of our nation’s children have the food, clothing, health care, education, and are provided hope, not just for today, but for tomorrow. That kind of democracy is what we need to be spreading—both at home and abroad. The chance to make a living for our working families, not tax cuts for the rich, is what is needed. Religion should be personal, and while the personal is political to a degree, we need to assure that people on either side of the religious issues are not marginalized or demonized.

The notion of fearing God is really lost on me. The notion that God needs to be appeased debases both God and humanity. Hard core Christians in the political arena speak of sin and punishment, but rarely of forgiveness until some “faithful” political figure gets caught in a scandal. (Think Bill Bennett and W. Bush).

How about some compassion for the poor, all of them, working and not? The conservative lip service to motherhood for stay at home mothers who “sacrifice” things for their childrens’ sakes, but forcing welfare dependent families into a position where they have no monetary support or chance at a living wage and dignified standard of living with no real choices, but sacrificing all that the conservatives claim to hold dear.

I know, social programs have been abused in the past and all that Democrats ever do is throw money at problems causing abuse of the system, etc, etc.

The measure of a society is how it treats the weakest and most vulnerable. I don’t think we, as a whole society, not as red or blue states, are measuring up very well.

While I confess I am a FARC (fallen-away Roman Catholic) with a Buddhist twist, I credit Catholiscism to the point that free will is a major tenent. You have to want to come to faith, not have it forced down your throat.

By mit

March 4, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this

boscoe,

they have (as you put it) ‘rivaled’ us for thousands of years.

just look at the humans like us compared to aborginals in new zealand and australia.

they are different than us anatomically. they are also alot smarter. if you come across a patch of mushrooms and your starving do you know which ones to eat and which ones not to eat. i don’t. i would starve and the hunter and gatherers of today will inherit the earth when there are no more supermarkets for us.

i know this hasn’t fully answered you ? but refine your ? for me so i can see the details you want.

By Seaborn

March 4, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

Per Chuck: BTW Morris, homosexuality IS NOT a right that is protected by either the Civil Rights Act OR the Constitution. It is a BEHAVIOR

From Lawrence vs Texas - Justice Kennedy 2003

The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.

Seems pretty clear to me. After work today I’m going home, grabbing my partner and exercising my liberty under Due Process all night.

Chuck, Get away from the 13 year olds and spend some time with adults…

By J. Morris

March 4, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this

Chuck, I’ll speak slowly so YOU can understand, you slack-jawed bigot.

Law evolves. Common law is based on interpretation and precedent. A court interprets older laws in new contexts, and lesser courts rely on that precedent to make future decisions. So, the Supreme Court has every right, moron, to interpret the Establishment Clause as it did.

I’m guessing you failed Civics in high school. I’m pretty sure you never made it to college.

By Lyrazel

March 4, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

Sandy…we are a nation whose morality is based on capitalism and cannot justify welfare programs when they cut into our profit! The majority of large businesses in America operate for stock holders and these profits come before employees, environment and ethics. Americans repeatedly say we want cheap shirts and clothes but we want to pay 1950s prices so we turn a blind eye to the millions of overseas underpaid laborers paid pennies to produce shoes that sell $120 profit. Republicans advocate smaller government so more private sector capitalists can take over areas like health care, or prison management, so when there is a chance to look good on paper to shareholders, employees cut the pills to patients in nursing homes/jails hire at risk employees at lower wage. America taught the world the fundamental laws of the gods of capitalism and by using texts of any/all religious scripture we can twist proverbs to prove our cause. The weak and vunerable are pushed out of the loop because as you know the welfare programs run in this country were too expensive and did not make profit.

Its not just Democrats who throw money at ludicrous programs. Its not the recipients to blame for the demise of social welfare. Think about the benefits: housing, food, childcare, health care, dental care and think about how many can earn a middle class wage to cover all these government benefits working McDonalds/Wal-Mart or Publix. Americans were not dumb, clearly saw the benefits and raised generations on public assistance. One of the major factors of single family households in the 70-90s was the fact the government declared welfare families should never include both parents. Why there were no government programs of manditory social involvement (like staffing government child care centers, etc) were never proposed because we didnt want them competing for jobs we could get done cheaper by imigrants…since those born Americans would have wanted a decent living wage to get off public assistance…..

By Fay

March 4, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

OK Let me see if I have this straight, I can go with the liberals and at the end of my life go to Hell. Or I can go with the conservatives and go to Heaven. Wow! Hard choice.

By J. Morris

March 4, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

Gee Fay…that’s possibly the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Congratulations, you’ve surpassed Chuck and Zack in the idiocy parade.

By chuck

March 4, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

Miss Morris, The CONSTITUTION DOES NOT EVOLVE. It has a method by which it can be CHANGED. It has been changed 27 times LEGALLY. It has been changed illegally DOZENS of times by a judicial system run amok. The framers had enough sense to provide for changes to accomodate unseen future events. These changes are allowed for through the Elastic Clause and the Commerce Clause. These are found in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, which OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE NEVER READ. This so-called evolution of the law was never intended to be accomplished through the courts you sanctimonious twit. My 8th grade students know more about the Constitution than you do.

By Boscoe

March 4, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

The aborginals different than us anatomically? Aren’t they human beings? And that is my point. Humans have so much over the rest of life on earth. Why didn’t bears or dogs or cows evolve with a level of reason as we have? It seems like the rest of the life on earth reached a specific point and stopped, content with what they had, but only humans have the ability to reason the way we have. I don’t understand why that would be given are supposed origins.

By J. Morris

March 4, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this

Gee F***, my Law professor would disagree with you. And you called me Miss…is that a gay crack, you stupid s**?

By chuck

March 4, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

HMMMMM. It seems to me that you said in an earlier post that you have a Master’s degree in FINANCE. Now you are a lawyer? Your daddy must be so proud.

By AllaboutME

March 4, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

…fay…your comment is why I beg people never to pray for me…if there is a big cheese…I want to be certain the first person telling the ol-cheesehead about me is me….I dont know where them others been…boscoe I wouldnt lump half the respondents to WtoW in the human catagory…chuckie…the constitution may not change but society interprets it different every passing generation ya santimonious twit…

By J. Morris

March 4, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

Chuck, buddy, we have to study law in Business School, too.

By Jack

March 4, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

Your 8th grade students? If you teach in a govt school no wonder we’re 50th.

By Seaborn

March 4, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

J. Morris,

Let’s look at who we spend our day interacting with. I spend it with engineers, business executives, and clients from all over the world. You obviously spend your day with people of similar educations and life learned wisdom, and I assume in an urban area, like me, where we are apt to be exposed to lots of different people and ideas.

Now look at Chuck…he spends his day in a rural part of the state interacting with pre-adolescents (I base this on his previous posts).

Need I say more?

By Jack

March 4, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

Those who can do…those who can’t teach.

By J. Morris

March 4, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

Seaborn,

Thanks for the reality check. I really hate letting people like him get to me. I’m pretty sure it was the “miss” crack…

By Tim

March 4, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

J Morris… dont feel bad… that really got to me too… I had to get up and walk around for about 5 minutes… just look at it this way he is really showing his true colors right now and they “ain’t” looking to bright :)

By godsgift

March 4, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

Some of you seem to share Karl Marx’s disdain for “rural idiocy.” I am not sure that is justified. The country has its attractions as do the suburbs and the city. I think it depends on one’s age. I enjoyed growing up in the suburbs and living there until middle age. Now I enjoy being close to a city of interest and look foward to getting into the center of town as well to live. Remember, the word PAGAN in the Roman Empire came from the word for a peasant, since the rural folk were the last to accept Christianity, an urban religion. In that environment, the rural idiots were the smart ones and the urban elites the dumb Christers.

By Chuck Z

March 4, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

By Jack

March 4, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

J.Morris- You have to put some people on ignore or it’ll drive you nuts. I would like to see Chuck try to get under Norman’s skin. Not to fond of Norm but he would blow Chuck out of the water.

By Zack

March 4, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

J. Morris—You’d like to break my jaw, huh? Yes, I’m sure you, and a lot of other liberals here and elsewhere, would.

As for your attack on my argument, my friend, how dare YOU try to do so? You don’t understand what you’re saying. Abortion is murder. Period. A fetus is a life, just like a 29-year-old NBA player is a life. Life has different stages, and just because the moment of conception isn’t something that SOME would like to THINK of as being life, it’s still a stage of LIFE. Period. Therefore, to kill a fetus is to kill a human being. RS and others can make all the attempts in the world to try to excuse it, but they won’t do any good. Excuses are a dime a dozen. It’s murder, and it’s not up to us to try to play God, which means we also should refrain completely from cloning, stem-cell research, etc..

As for the Holocaust, it killed six million people—a horrific moment in history. Abortion exceeds that death toll about every 30 months, and you’re going to tell me there’s not a comparison here?

If only those who protested the public posting of The Ten Commandments would wake up about the myth of “Separation of Church and state” and realize that there’s nothing wrong or unconstitutional about posting them and then take that energy and re-direct that it toward a real problem in society, like abortion.

By RS

March 4, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

Zack, every time I think you’ve surpassed yourself in being a despicable idiot, once again, you outdo yourself. Kind of an amazing feat in a disgusting way. You’re certainly a fine one to accuse me and/or any others of name-calling when you bandy around terms like “liar” & “hypocrite” whenever anyone dares to have a mind of their own & express their opinions. By stating abortion is worse than the subhuman acts performed by 1930’s Zazi officials, you are truly revealing what a miserable excuse for a human being you, indeed, are. Here, I have a homework assignment for you: Read “The Diary Of Anne Frank”. If it’s over your head, which I strongly suspect, have someone read it to you as you nurse your scraped knuckles, you Neanderthal. I didn’t even have to defend myself against your revolting post as J. Morris did an admirable job (thank you, my dear!) of it. Chuck: Homosexuality isn’t a behaviour, it is a sexual orientation. Gay people cannot help being gay, just as you & I can’t help being straight.

By mit

March 4, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

boscoe, the thought that we have ‘so much over the rest of life’ is figurative. we are the highest on the food chain, well until a bear eats us. i guess i just don’t understand what you mean. humans’ reasoning has changed over time and will continue. other animals can’t tell you if or what they reason. so how do you know they can’t. they don’t need watches or calendars, they still know, so you could say they are smarter than us in some respect.

By J. Morris

March 4, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

Zack, STFU.

Thanks.

By Jodi

March 4, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

This forum reminds me of the tradition at Festivus (You know, “for the rest of us”) of “The Airing of Grievances.” Feats of Strength anyone? Perhaps Zack and J. Morris? This is the most hilarious forum…

By Zack

March 4, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

Well, you all see it: My reason-filled post gets attacked, I get verbally attacked, and no one doing so has any evidence whatsoever to support his claims. Such is not atypical of the left.

RS—Despicable? Actually, that’s what your personality is like, and the same goes for anyone else who defends injustifiable homicide.

To the person who said Norman would blow so-and-so out of the water, where’s your reasoning? Norman is somewhat book smart, but he greatly lacks reason and wisdom and has arguments that aren’t any more credible than the ones from the people who just attacked me.

By RS

March 4, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

Congratulations, Zack, you just surpassed yourself again! Stem cell research serves the purpose of curing diseases & saving the lives of already existing viable humans. How can any rational, intelligent human being possibly think (?!?) a fetus is more important? But then again, well, consider the source. By your “reasoning” (?!?), anyone of childbearing age who isn’t spending every moment conceiving babies is committing the sin of murder. Oh, my friend, you are truly a prime piece of work.

By J. Morris

March 4, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

Zack, you wouldn’t recognize a credible argument if it jumped up and smacked you across the face.

By RS

March 4, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

Ah! Funny you should mention it, Zack. So I can’t support my claims? Read the above as to WHY I’m in favour of stem-cell research. Would you like to know what I find despicable? Allowing viable humans to die of painful, debilitating diseases that CAN be cured in order to spare a clump of cells. THAT is murder.

By lozen

March 4, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this

As I said to Norman a couple days ago, I now understand why he is so blunt and abrasive to the thick headed, nasty religious fanatics on this forum. You can only take so much of them before you lose it. “Miss Morris” of course was a gay crack. You are gay and therefore you don’t deserve any respect; you are able to deal with the stupidity with logic and intelligence and so all they can do is make cracks. There is no bridge that’s going to bring us together. The chasm between religious fundamentalists and more moderate and open minded people just grows wider and wider. Boscoe says humans have so much over the rest of life on earth, only humans have the ability to reason the way we have. We may have the ability but not all of us use it! That’s another reason I’m not a christian - the egomaniacal belief that we humans are superior to all other creatures. We humans are animals too and we’re the only animal that wages war on other humans. As Mark Twain said, ” Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion — several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven….The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.”

By chuck

March 4, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

Sheborn, I think that the ones who should worry are the ones who are spending their time with you.

RS- I believe we’ve had that whole debate of nature vs. nurture. You are still wrong.

Miss Morris, getting a little touchy aren’t you?. So much for reasoned debate. You’ve proven yourself once again to be incapable of it.

By lozen

March 4, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

Zack, you’re not going to ever graduate from junior high if you keep using your class time to post on here. Go back to your school work and leave this discussion to the grown ups, please! And when you get to high school please try out for the debating team so you can learn a little bit about logic, supporting your argument, and making a point.

By RS

March 4, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

Lozen, some of the so-called “Christians” on this board use their religion to hurl vile names/accusations at anyone who thinks for themselves. Envy towards those of us who have brains? I suspect so. One of the only true Christians on here is Tim! I can tell, in real life, he’s most likely a very loving, compassionate individual who embodies the spirit of what Christianity is supposed to be all about, not a hateful knuckle-scraper like Zack. And Zack, I have a question for you. If you were to find out that you or a member of your immediate family was terminally ill & your only hope was stem-cell research, what would you choose to do? If you cannot/will not answer this question rationally, that proves what I’ve known all along; that YOU are the one without a leg to stand on & that you’re unable to support YOUR claims

By Texas

March 4, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

The Holocaust was a systematic, state-organized persecution of Jews and other targeted groups by the Nazi state and its collaborators. During the Holocaust two-thirds of Europe’s Jewish population was slaughtered which calculates to one-third of the world population of Jews. In addition, the Nazi’s genocide exterminated millions of Gypsies (Roma and Sinti), Soviets, Polish citizens, Catholics, homosexuals, handicapped, alcoholics, political and religious dissidents and Jehovah Witnesses.

The Holocaust is many times called by other names. The Nazi’s spoke of it as die Endlosung or the “Final Solution�

That was 50 years ago.

Today systematic, state-organized persecution of unborn childern targeted by state and its collaboratoring abortionist have slaughtered over 40 Million unborn children. The abortionist call it the “Final Solution”.

By lozen

March 4, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

It makes me shutter to think about any gay child that might be in Chuck’s classes.

By RS

March 4, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this

SHEborn & MISS Morris? Very mature, Chuck. Sorry, but I have evidence to support my claim. Every homosexual I’ve known & I’ve known a lot, is not happy that they are targets of discrimination..no one would ever CHOOSE that. Texas: A clump of cells is a far cry from a viable human. Abortion in no way touches what the Nazis did

By Crystal

March 4, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

TGIF! Will the present motley crew please take a vacation so we can have some difference in drivel?

By lozen

March 4, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

Texas, what are you talking about? State-organized persecution of unborn children? When my sister had an abortion the state had nothing to do with it! She has rheumatoid arthritis which was in remission at the time. If she had not terminated the pregnancy there was a very high chance that it would have kicked up again. You men who are so against abortion will never, ever have to face a choice like that and you should shut up until you do!

By Sandy

March 4, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel- Thanks for setting the record straight. The hard right has a way of redefining and obfuscating, and I get lost in the semantics sometimes. Appreciate your thoughtful response.

By J. Morris

March 4, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

Chuck, your homophobia and stereotyping is pathetic…are you a closet gay man afraid to admit it? Assuming that gay men are feminine or child molestors…Do you wonder why I am hostile towards you, you son of a b***?

I’m out of here until next. I am so sick of pathetic filth like Chuck.

By Jodi

March 4, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this

I think it’s funny that when Chuck wants to insult someone he uses female titles, i.e. Sheborn and Miss Morris. Gentlemen, you should be flattered! Don’t take it as an insult, take it as a compliment. Women rock! I despise how this culture associates insults with the feminine!

By Texas

March 4, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

RS you are clueless and you opinion is nonsense. I’ve seen what you call a “clump of cells” at ten weeks, have you? The murdered children have the potential to cure AIDS and everything that exists today.

By the Laws of Nature that child has a right to LIFE, and you and your foolish reasoning won’t change that!

By norman

March 4, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

It’s great to see pictures of Martha Stewart out on her property with her horses and dogs who undoubtedly missed her during her stay in that federal facility. Nothing like recommuning with Nature to put things in perspective. Notice she did not stop in Church to thank her redeemer for getting her out of jail.

By Seaborn

March 4, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

Touche’ Chuck :).

Sheborn?…I have to admit…that’s funny :).

By RS

March 4, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

Lozen: Hope your sister’s ok now. She made the RIGHT decision, of that I have no doubt. That makes me think, what if the wife of one of these ignorant Bible-thumpers was faced with that situation? J. Morris, that’s exactly what I’ve been saying all along; in most cases, homophobia is simply covering up one’s own gay tendencies, & not very well, I’m afraid

By chuck

March 4, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

RS- Stem cell research is nothing more than a bogus ruse to make senseless abortion seem to have a purpose. Stem cell research is NOT illegal, though in spite of the billions of dollars spent pursuing it, there has been very little medical advance at all. You are free to send all of your money to these research facilities if you like, to show your support. A few years ago, the lefties used the same argument to save the rain forests. (remember the film Medicine Man?)We might be able to cure cancer with a flower. As for your terminal illness non-argument, that too is infantile. Even the scientists who are conducting research in the field say now that stem cell research is DECADES away from making any significant contributions to curing disease. There are already dozens of stem cell lines being used for research NOW.

By norman

March 4, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

There is no way to resolve the different view of Auschwitz vs. abortion. Those against abortion will use the analogy whether appropriate or not because they feel strongly about their views and want to make an emotional appeal. Those on the other side cannot admit that abortion could be equal to murder. But in truth, abortion is viewed from both sides as an emotional issue, there is no way to know when life begins, when the soul (whatever that is) comes into the body. But any rational person should find something wrong with an argument that equates the killing of men, women, babies, and children to the prevention of the birth of a fetus. The pope uses this argument too, but as I have said before, he is a senile old Polak and does not need to be taken seriously. Catholics take him not at all seriously when he tells them not to use birth control, not to inforce capital punishment, not to invade Iraq, so they will when they get more courageous pay his abortion == genocide argument no mind.

Think also about babies that might be born with horrible defects physical or mental. Why should they be brought into life it that can be prevented: suffering for them and for their unfortunate families. Abortion can be wrong in many cases and is. It can be right in some limited number of cases. It is not a subject for pious moralizing but for ethical reflection on what life really is. Catholic moralists seem to think suffering is good, but I have not met anyone suffering who thinks that unless they have had a lifetime of brainwashing by integrist Catholic, late medieval sado-masochism — like that portrayed by Brother Mel Gibson in the Passion of the Christ. Man does not wish to suffer; it only can teach him to be a worm; he needs to be free from pain and suffering. Catholic faith is particularly hooked on suffering. It certainly cannot be denied that the Church has contributed more than its share of suffering. In that it is I guess consistent — consistently wrong and consistently evil.

By chuck

March 4, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

Thanks seaborn. You gay guys crack me up sometimes too.

By Tim

March 4, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this

Lozen, ‘It makes me shutter to think about any gay child that might be in Chuck’s classes.’ I have thought this many times myself… it is because of people like Chuck that those gay children end up committing suicide

RS… thanks for the kind words darlin (sorry I am southern too… I had to say that… but mine is honestly a term of endearment)

By Crystal

March 4, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

Good grief, Norman. You sure love to throw raw meat to the lions just so the Christians will get eaten. Boredom does rack the brain. I’m surprised you’ve lasted so long. Were you in jail with Martha?

By RS

March 4, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

Texas, I’ve seen X-rays/sonograms of a, er, clump of cells even at SIXTEEN weeks & I still maintain that as something that cannot exist outside of the host body, it isn’t human & its “rights” shouldn’t overpower the rights of humans. Ah, not only may “murdered” children grow up to CURE AIDS, but they might grow up to SPREAD it. Anyway, what’s so terrible about AIDS? Isn’t it a wonderful way of eradicating millions of (gasp, horror) EVIL HOMOSEXUALS?? Chuck: Even if steam-cell research IS indeed, decades away from making significant progress, doesn’t that mean it’s best to start working on it now since doctors & scientists have so much time-consuming ground to cover? Even if not for that, abortion isn’t senseless; it can & has, improved the quality of life for those who can’t & don’t wish to care for an unwanted child. Plus, it has spared children from entering the world to be diseased, deformed, abused, unwanted & desperately poor

By Boscoe

March 4, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

mit - other animals can’t tell you if or what they reason. That’s my point mit. They don’t have they capacity to communicate as we do, they, in fact, cannot reason at all. We are the only creatures on earth that can reason the difference between right or wrong. The definition of what right and wrong is varies among us, but all of us know the difference between right and wrong. Animals, on the other hand, don’t. They know basic instincts and their actions are derived from those instincts. How can we, as humans, apart from all other creatures on earth, be the only creature to “evolve” to that capability? Why haven’t others when all creature have “evolved” from the same source?

By Coach

March 4, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Man this Norman guy is a loon. Is he always this nuts?

By Boscoe

March 4, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

Lozen- It makes me shutter to think about any gay child that might be in Chuck’s classes. This is an interesting thing to say. Lozen have you ever seen a person that claimed to be gay that wasn’t at an age to know what being gay is? In other words, have you ever heard of a gay toddler?

By Billy

March 4, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

Maybe we need to get Norman a girlfriend, or at least have him move out of his mother’s house. His hatred is unbelieveable.

By Texas

March 4, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

Lozen, This is a forum where opinions are expressed. You may not agree with mine, you have every right not too. But to go around preaching tolerance and in the next post criticizing good people and in the next post telling me to shut up goes to show the Hypocrite you truly are!

By Frances

March 4, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

Do these people realize that they are playing with their eternal souls. Dangerous.

By Tim

March 4, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

Boscoe… Chuck teaches middle school… there are definitely children that age that know they are gay

p.s. does a toddler know they are straight?

By lozen

March 4, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

There are 600,000 children in foster care in America. Texas wishes there were 40 million more! Over 100,000 of those children can never return to their birth families. Many of that 100,000 will never be adopted because they’re too old, too troubled, handicapped, or not the right race. This nation can’t provide health care for the children we already produce. We can barely fund infant nutrition programs. This administration has cut money for head start programs, and all public education. You love those innocent unborns but abandon them once they’re here and don’t give them a thought! And stop stem cell research so they can never be cured of some of those diseases that keep them from being adopted! Zack says “it’s not up to us to try to play God.” He can’t even see that’s exactly what he’s trying to do! Motherhood has to be a choice, not something women are forced to do. I don’t expect Zack to have any empathy or compassion for the women who can’t take on the burden of motherhood for the next 18+ years of their lives. So let us take the next baby found in a restroom or dumpster directly to Zack so that he can be responsible for a child for the next 18+ years of his life. Zack has to take care of the baby day and night - the feedings and the diaper changes and the laundry and the worrying and the pediatrician visits. He has to figure out how to find day care he can afford while he works to pay for all those diapers, toys, bottles, and doctor visits. He has to start saving his money for the baby’s college. He has to worry about how to find a good education for his child. Zack would probably home school except that he has to work so when would he home school? If Zack will not agree to do this he is totally selfish and doesn’t care about anybody except himself.

By RS

March 4, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

My point EXACTLY, Norman! For the longest time I’ve been trying to convince a pack of mental subnormals here that adopting a smug, self-righteous rationalization in order to condemn innocent children to a life of horrendous pain, debilitaion & illness is inhuman. Tim, you can “darlin” me anytime; I KNOW you mean it in the warmest, non-sexist context. Why, you may even kiss my hand. Zack, however, is cordially invited to kiss my #!$%^!

By chuck

March 4, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

Do like I do Coach. If you see the name “Norman” just ig “nor the man”.

By Jodi

March 4, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

Um, not to pick, but the so-called laws of nature that Texas refers to most certainly DO NOT give any living thing the “right” to life. Sheesh. Don’t you ever watch the discovery channel? The animal world is fraught with death, particularly for the very young, old, and the weak. Staying alive is sheer luck, genetics, and not having any predators handy…

By chuck

March 4, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Lozen, I’m sorry to hear that anything I do causes you to become a wooden or fiberglass window adornment.

BTW Tim, there are NO gay children. Homosexuality is a choice that people make for whatever reason as young adults in rebellion against nature itself.

By Coach

March 4, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

This Norman guy can’t be serious, are any of these other people listening to his insane comments? I’ll take that back no one is that stupid, to believe his trash comments.

By Seabornj

March 4, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

Boscoe,

I’m not going to speculate how Chuck treats his students, but he’s mentioned that it’s 8th grade and that isn’t toddler age. Kids in the 8th grade are just starting to question themselves, some may identify themselves as attracted to the same sex and stay that way, some will grow out of it, but I definitely know that some kids will identify as “gay” at that age, so Lozen’s point is credible.

By Coach

March 4, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

I had a player on one of my teams years ago, with a attitude like Norman. He was a horrible player and still lived with his mother at home and he was like 28 years old(never even dated). Needless to say, he sat the bench and was off the team quick. I’d call him a girly-man but I don’t want to insult the girly-men.

By Boscoe

March 4, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Norman you do NOT speak for the Catholics of the world. The reason this Pope has not been forced into retirement up til now by those who wish to gain the power of his position is because the Catholics of the world would revolt. He IS that much loved and respected. For suffering, you must understand the practice of penance. You must understand the value of suffering; for each and every act of suffering, or discomfort, can be offered for the sins of mankind. As Catholics, we use the value of suffering to assist in the penance of others. Even the smallest act of penance can save another. In the way that Christ’s suffering benefits us, we can benefit others with ours. Whether you agree with this, as norman clearly does not, is up to you. I hope this kept in mind when religious people are called intolerant of others.

By Randy

March 4, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

I see Norman is up to his old tricks, we don’t call Norman the “Village Idiot” for nothing.

By filster

March 4, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this

Sorry to have been gone a while. I see we’ve all digressed in our behavior. I am dismayed at the outright hatred I’ve seen back and forth. If this is an example of how we truly are as a species, I see little hope for our future.
A special word for those who profess to be Christians. If you attack norman as he attacks you, what have you accomplished. We cannot convert anyone, or give them pause to reflect, or even, hoepfully, decide to try and seek out God, if we spout nothing but hatred in return. When Christ was being judged before Pilate, of the Sanheddrin, many accusations and insults were heaped upon Him. How did He respond? If insult is heaped on you in this column, is your response the same as His? If we are ever to get our brothers and sisters like RS, J. Morris, and yes, even Norman, to wonder if maybe, just maybe, there really is something more to this Christianity thing than judgment and dogma and “intrusion” into our lives and bedrooms and bodies, how will we ever achieve that goal, and hopefully share His word and love and hope, if we spout hatred and insults back. Stick to the very informative and factual arguments such as Texas and boscoe have set forth (barring of course the little barbs). Let’s use this column to put out true information so that everyone who reads can make up their own minds. Free will was both gift and curse. But in response to my contibutions, RS has been both polite and considerate responding to me, although I had sort of hoped she would have listed me under one of the more Christian bloogers here. (Just kidding RS) Sorry for the rebuke, and I know the issues discussed herein are emotional and trying, but insulting norman or J.Morris of seaborn or RS does not reflect well on Christian life. Be a good ambassador folks. It’s in your hearts.

By Tim

March 4, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Chuck… thanks for informing me that you know more about myself than I do… seeing as I from my earliest memories I have never been attracted to women how could I have chosen to be gay in my early adult life… was I asexual and poof said ‘hey let me be attracted to men so that I can be made fun of by ingnorant pieces of crap?’… yeah that makes sense… you are too much for words (actually you aren’t but I am practicing self-control this week)… just goes to show that they will let ANYTHING become a teacher in this state! (shoot one got out)… and man you are pretty bold calling people names considering what your name rhymes with :)

By Boscoe

March 4, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Tim,Chuck how old are the kids in middle school? I have to agree with Chuck though, that being gay is a choice. Which is why toddlers don’t exhibit these types of behaviors.

By Boscoe

March 4, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

Seaborn - Kids in the 8th grade are just starting to question themselves, some may identify themselves as attracted to the same sex and stay that way, some will grow out of it, but I definitely know that some kids will identify as “gayâ€? at that age. OK, I didn’t know how old the kids are in Chuck’s classes, but at that age what signs do they have that identify them as being gay?

By chuck

March 4, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Well said filster. Most of the time I follow that rule, but today I got a little exasperated with the falsehoods and misinformation being spouted about the Constitution. That, however, is not an excuse and I humbly apologize for the insults of JMorris and Seaborn. I do believe that I have resorted to name-calling on this forum. I’m used to them being heaped upon me, but I should not respond in-kind.

By Jodi

March 4, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

Well put Filster. Both sides really need to ratchet down the insults. What is this, third grade? Do we really need to name call to have a discussion? For the newcomers, what do you feel about the actual topic we’re supposed to be discussing? I’d like to hear some fresh voices (other than RS, Chuck, Zack, J. Morris, etc.) on this topic.

By Heather

March 4, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

I have been reading this comments and they seem to be mainly religious. Here is how I see it, I can listen to the Christians and since I believe in God, go to heaven when I die. Or, I can listen to, I guess the word is liberals, and I have no chance for anything past this life and this life being one of hopelessness. I’m going with the Christians as I think that life has meaning and a creator exists. I don’t see a upside to being a liberal, you don’t win anything, you just lose.

By chuck

March 4, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

ooops. Meant to say: I do believe that I have never resorted to name-calling on this forum prior to today.

By norman

March 4, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

Y’all have a good weekend. Coach: you are offensive indeed, mostly because you cannot face the light of truth.

Let me leave with this reiterated truth: Christianity is evil, sado-masochistic, genocidal, and utterly offensive to anyone with a real mind and commitment to reason. Even if there is a God, Christianity cannot be the religion desired by this God. It is a religion for fools, worms, and degenerates.

By Tim

March 4, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Boscoe… ‘at that age what signs do they have that identify them as being gay?’ they notice an attraction to the same sex

what signs did you have at that age that identified you as being heterosexual?

By chuck

March 4, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, Middle schoolers are generally 6th, 7th and 8th graders. They are usually 12, 13, and 14, though we do have a few 11 and 15 year olds. By the way Tim, my students are in the top 10 in the state in test scores. I’m a great teacher if I do say so myself.

By Boscoe

March 4, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

Norman. Thanks again. the best part was when you said * Let me Leave…* Tim, I understand that they notice an attraction but how do they display it. 8th graders don’t routinely have sex at that age, at least I hope not. So how do they communicate this attraction?

By mit

March 4, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

boscoe,

animals do communicate. just not like us. we didn’t have this capacity until recently. (alphabets are new ideas) to say other animals besides us can’t reason (tell right from wrong) is pointless. we humans don’t come out of the womb knowing what is right and what is wrong. We are taught. so in some cultures what might be ok (right) may not be (wrong) in others. it all depends on what your parents teach you.

killing is wrong. but in self defense, war, and other contexts it is ok.

By chuck

March 4, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

luck? duck? tuck? buck? puck? muck? What are you getting at Tim?

By Seaborn

March 4, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, your questions have something of an investigative tone that’s a little scary…but I imagine most gay kids are asexual until they are well out of high school…

Anyway, I don’t want to start a whole thing on this, but since it’s come up I have to give my two cents. I would say I was aware of my same-sex attraction around the age of six…or that’s the farthest back I can remember. I had a huge crush on this television actor, his name was (still is) Darby Hinton and he played Israel Boone on the Daniel Boone show (see Fess Parker). Of course I knew nothing of sex, but I really wanted to be his best friend, save him from the Indians…stuff like that. But the emotional attraction I felt then followed me well into adulthood, with the accompanying knowledge of adult activities…if you get my drift. Now I don’t know if I chose that or if I was born with it, and I don’t care…but whatever it is that made me gay was there as far back as I can remember and I don’t remember anything rebellious about it.

And with that I have nothing else to say except that Diane has fabulous legs :) (A gay guy can say that right?)

A good weekend to all.

By RS

March 4, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, Tim hit the nail right on the head;If a toddler doesn’t know if he/she is gay, by the same token, a straight toddler doesn’t know he/she is straight. Children that young don’t exhibit either behaviour, although what with kids becoming sexual at a younger & younger age, that may change in our lifetimes, I shudder to think. Chuck: NO ONE chooses their sexual orientation; you’re attracted to what you’re attracted to. I’ve known gay people who TRIED to live their lives as heteros & in every case, it was an unmitigated disaster. Would YOU want to be married to a woman who secretly preferred her own gender? Lozen, great minds think alike! case in point; I’ve already suggested to Zack that since he’s so rabidly anti-abortion, why doesn’t he take on some of these unwanted children? His response was that they are not his responsibility. Typical of his ilk. Filster, may I say the same of you? You have something that the Zacks of this world sadly lack: CLASS. You can disagree with someone’s views without resorting to childishness

By Tim

March 4, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

Chuck… good for your students… that says NOTHING about you as a teacher though… I was always at the top of the class as well and I had plenty of really bad teachers… just because the students do well does not mean that the teacher is the result of that… but I honestly don’t know if you are a great teacher or a terrible teacher… one thing I do know is that I truly feel sorry for any gay adolescents that happen to be in your classes because it is people like you that send some of them over the edge and then end up killing themselves

also… ‘luck? duck? tuck? buck? puck? muck? What are you getting at Tim?’

I am going way out on a limb here… but I think even you can figure out where I was going with that :)

By RS

March 4, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: Unfortunately, in this day & age, a lot of 8th-graders, & kids even younger, ARE having sex. I don’t like it either but we can’t stop it. That’s precisely why I feel its’ better to push condoms than bury our heads in the sand. Ohhh, Seaborn, not you too! Fellas, if you say something complimentary about one lady’s appearance, by all means, don’t forget the other one & Shaunti is certainly no slouch in the looks dept. (That’s OK, Seaborn, you still ROCK!)

By Tim

March 4, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this

RS… I think it would be fun to take both of them shopping… could you imagine the conversations! what fun :)

By Texas

March 4, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Chuck, your students being in the top of the State does reflect on your ability as a teacher. Being a Teacher is an honorable profession. My your students always remain high achievers. Keep up the good work my friend!

By RS

March 4, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Tim, you are 100% correct. The suicide ratio among teens is disproportionately higher among gay youth. I’m SO happy you & the other fabulous gay men on this forum & in my life were not among those tragic statistics; give thanks!!!! The answer to why these statistics are as they are is obvious; look at the way society discriminates against those who don’t conform to their ridiculous ideals of what’s “normal” (?!?) and what isn’t.

By mit

March 4, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

boscoe,

so an animal such as an elephant doesn’t know the right type of food to eat versus the wrong type.

false: elephants are taught by their parents what type of food is good to eat and where to find said food.

sounds like they reason pretty well to me. parrots can talk just like us. but they don’t have the brain power to calculate 2+2 or write it down. but neither did we. you and I didn’t know what 2+2 meant or what the answer was until we were taught. monkeys can do math when you teach them and they can use sign language too. they know the difference between right and wrong when we teach them what it is. They reason pretty well and they can use tools. nothing stops evolving. not even us.

By Tim

March 4, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

well said RS… unfortunately I knew a guy in High School who jumped off the 8th floor of the hospital because of what he went through at home (his parents kicked him out) and what he went through at school (from peers and teachers)… how do I know these are the reasons why he killed himself… that is what he wrote in his suicide letter

By lozen

March 4, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Boscoe I have known people who felt attracted to the same sex before they were six, yes. And I understand that boys have always played around with each other at an early age. Did you experience that?

By Tim

March 4, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

or how about a young man that I knew that when he was 16 he was caught trying to cut off his p***… the reason… because he was/is a Christian and was gay so he took the scripture where it talks about ‘cutting off your hand if it sins against you’ literally… but according to Chuck this young man chose to have homosexual tendencies

By filster

March 4, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Thanks chuck, jodi, RS. Norman, please try and look at Christianity from a purely logical perspective, especially the NT where Christ preaches about God and heaven and sin. Remember how he handled the crowd about to stone the adulter? That is the essence of His teachings, and judgment wasn’t a part of it. Sadly, too many Christian get caught up in the judgment aspect and lose sight of His fundamental teachings of love and forgiveness. Try to be patient with us though. Part of the backlash is because so much of our faith has been stripped away, such as the original discussion over the Ten Commandments, public prayer, etc. that it’s been a source of great frustration and anguish. Though I shouldn’t weigh in, what do ya’ll think about the thought that sex is really nothing more than our response to the firing combination of certain chemical responses, and whether one is straight or gay depends upon what combination occurs (or perhaps does not occur). After all, at it’s basic level sex is nothing more than continuation of the species, which except for a few invertebrates, etc., usually requies 1 male and 1 female. But, add a little here, suppress a little there, and viola! Your basic urge is no longer merely survival of the species. Thus, while one might be able to suppress the behavior they could not suppress who they are.

By chuck

March 4, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

I’ve never had a student commit suicide, though I did have one who, several years after he left my class, crossed the wrong drug dealer and ended up with a bullet in the back of his head. I have had numerous students come to me years after leaving my class to thank me for getting them back on track. I don’t think any of them were gay. Students appreciate hearing the truth believe it or not. Most of them never hear that from their parents who ignore bad behavior and poor habits that lead to failure.

Nope, I hate to tell you this, but it is not hearing the truth that causes them to commit suicide. It is the feeling of hopelessness and helplessnes that comes with being in a lifestyle of sin.

By RS

March 4, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Tim, take WHO two shopping? I assume you mean Shaunti & Diane? I’m with you; that’d be fun!!! Oh, no, how sad about the boy who jumped to his death. Even had he not written a suicide note, I’d have known the reason from what you posted. The story about the 16-year old chilled my blood; I can only hope & pray he didn’t succeed in mutilating himself; situations like that are precisely why Norman & I feel that religious fundamentalism often has deadly consequences. After all, look how many wars have been waged in the name of religion. Chuck: That is tragic about the student who was fatally shot. Actually, for gay teens, what leads to suicide is religious zealots CAUSING them to feel hopeless & helpless when they shouldn’t. Of cause they should be told the truth & that is that some of us are straight, some gay, some bisexual & a very few asexual & all are ok; we are what we are & real, monogamous love is not a sin.

By Boscoe

March 4, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

mit - parrots can talk just like us. But they don’t have the brain power to calculate 2+2 or write it down. but neither did we. you and I didn’t know what 2+2 meant or what the answer was until we were taught. monkeys can do math when you teach them and they can use sign language too. they know the difference between right and wrong when we teach them what it is. That is exactly what I am getting at. An animal’s ability to reason is severely limited as compared to ours. We have “evolved” at an astonishing rate. No other species on earth is as far advanced above another species as we are above ALL other species. Humans will continually solve problems until they find the most efficient means to perform a task, we find ways to make things even better than they are; animals can’t do that. An elephant will find the “right” food to suit its needs but to solve the problem if it can’t reach the food elephants knock down the tree. Elephants will then proceed to knock down the tree every time it cannot reach the food without ever concluding that by destroying the tree it is destroying its food supply. I don’t think it’s possible for creatures to evolve simultaneously and not be closer in the ability to reason. The opposite is true here, only one species is superior to all others, and I just can’t see how that happened through evolution.

By Tim

March 4, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

RS… yes I was referring to Diana and Shaunti

both the stories I shared were very tragic events and yes even without a suicide I would also have known why the one did kill himself… but with a suicide note there is absolutely NO doubt… and it certainly was not because of what Chuck said… the other young man fortunately did not succeed but only because someone intervened… if not he would have finished what he started… he did however have to live in a mental institution for more than a year… but as Chuck would have us believe it is simply a choice… I would just like to know in the case of the young man who tried to mutilate himself… why would he choose to have feelings that he obviously did not want? that just does not make sense… and the remainder of your post RS, well said :)

By Boscoe

March 4, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

Seaborn, my questions have an investigating tone because I’m trying to understand your point of view. That fact that you wanted to rescue an amiable character on a television program is not evidence of homosexual tendencies. A majority of kids want to be the hero of their favorite character. Many adults still envision themselves as a hero. Psychiatrists have studied this Hero complex for years. RS, you can and should prevent 8th grade kids from having sex. They can’t handle the responsibility that comes with those kinds of actions. Don’t recommend abortion because that is not being responsible. Abortion is nothing more than a way out of the problem. I also feel you’re being remiss when you suggest giving kids condoms. Condoms are not foolproof abstinence is.

By lozen

March 4, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

Heather, When you are listening to the christians and decide not to listen to the other side you might be not listening to Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, pagans, American Indians, new age thinkers, etc. There are two billion christians and three and a half billion who are not christians. Liberal is not the opposite of christian dear. Liberal is the opposite of conservative. Many liberals are christians and some conservatives are jewish and all those other religions. You may choose to go with the christians if you wish, but christians are not the only religious who believe life has meaning and that there is a creator. As an atheist, I believe my life has meaning because I create meaning in my life. I don’t know for sure (and neither does anyone else no matter what they try to tell you) whether there is anything after this life but I don’t believe there will be a duplication of this life in another life. Even christians disagree about what that would be like. Energy doesn’t die but it does change. Hindus believe in reincarnation and that we come back to live many lives. They’ve believed that for thousands of years; even some christians have believed that. When I was growing up I didn’t know anything except fundamentalist christian religion. I thought as a child. I woke up one night and saw lightning flashing over and over outside my bedroom window and was so afraid it was the end of time. My friend woke up and thought he heard chains rattling under his bed and was terrified the devil was coming to get him. I had a curious mind and I decided I would learn as much about religion as I could because it seemed very important to me. I wanted to learn for myself and decide what I really believed and not just practice something because that’s what my parents told me. I explored religion for myself. I read about religion, and studied religion. Mohatmas Gandhi said that all religions are true. Like many christian and jewish mystics I believe we cannot limit the great spirit with any name. It is bigger than any name given to it by any religious group. And I feel I’ve won much through my religious seeking. I have gone beyond the simple idea that there’s only one right way to believe or to worship. I can question everything without feeling afraid of going to hell because I question. I have faith that I am fine and everything will be fine whether death is the end or there’s another stage coming. I don’t have any guilt anymore about every natural human emotion and action. I know that people who claim to know exactly what god wants are really telling you exactly what they want. Sit down with 10 christians and you’ll get ten different versions of what god is and what god wants and what god will do if you don’t live the way they say you should. I don’t believe in hell. I don’t believe there is a devil. Yes, there is evil in this world but the evil comes from within us just as good comes from within us. Each of us has a choice every day of our lives whether to express evil or good. As Rabbi Hillel said, “What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to them. That is the whole of the Torah. Everything else is commentary”

By Dan

March 4, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

When take in whole this thread is very revealing. When people don’t understand an issue they transform it into one that they do, or think they do.

Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something. Plato (427 BC - 347 BC)

By Texas

March 4, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

I’m going home. Its been a long week but I’ll leave you with this story for Tim.

A teacher in New York decided to honor each of her seniors in high school by telling them the difference they each made. Using a process developed by Helice Bridges of Del Mar, California, she called each student to the front of the class, one at a time. First she told them how the student made a difference to her and the class. Then she presented each of them with a blue ribbon imprinted with gold letters which read, “Who I Am Makes a Difference.”

Afterwards the teacher decided to do a class project to see what kind of impact recognition would have on a community. She gave each of the students three more ribbons and instructed them to go out and spread this acknowledgment ceremony. Then they were to follow up on the results, see who honored whom and report back to the class in about a week.

One of the boys in the class went to a junior executive in a nearby company and honored him for helping him with his career planning. He gave him a blue ribbon and put it on his shirt. Then he gave him two extra ribbons, and said, “We’re doing a class project on recognition, and we’d like you to go out, find somebody to honor, give them a blue ribbon, then give them the extra blue ribbon so they can acknowledge a third person to keep this acknowledgment ceremony going. Then please report back to me and tell me what happened.”

Later that day the junior executive went in to see his boss, who had been noted, by the way, as being kind of a grouchy fellow. He sat his boss down and he told him that he deeply admired him for being a creative genius. The boss seemed very surprised. The junior executive asked him if he would accept the gift of the blue ribbon and would he give him permission to put it on him. His surprised boss said, “Well, sure.” The junior executive took the blue ribbon and placed it right on his boss’s jacket above his heart. As he gave him the last extra ribbon, he said, “Would you do me a favor? Would you take this extra ribbon and pass it on by honoring somebody else? The young boy who first gave me the ribbons is doing a project in school and we want to keep this recognition ceremony going and find out how it affects people.”

That night the boss came home to his 14-year-old son and sat him down. He said, “The most incredible thing happened to me today. I was in my office and one of the junior executives came in and told me he admired me and gave me a blue ribbon for being a creative genius. Imagine. He thinks I’m a creative genius. Then he put this blue ribbon that says ‘Who I Am Makes A Difference’ on my jacket above my heart. He gave me an extra ribbon and asked me to find somebody else to honor. As I was driving home tonight, I started thinking about whom I would honor with this ribbon and I thought about you. I want to honor you. “My days are really hectic and when I come home I don’t pay a lot of attention to you. Sometimes I scream at you for not getting good enough grades in school and for your bedroom being a mess, but somehow tonight, I just wanted to sit here and, well, just let you know that you do make a difference to me. Besides your mother, you are the most important person in my life. You’re a great kid and I love you!”

The startled boy started to sob and sob, and he couldn’t stop crying. His whole body shook. He looked up at his father and said through his tears, “I was planning on committing suicide tomorrow, Dad, because I didn’t think you loved me. Now I don’t need to.”

Addendum — John 13:34 (NLT) “So now I am giving you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other.”

By Zack

March 4, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

Boscoe—Not only are condoms not foolproof, but there is no clinical evidence WHATSOEVER to show that they are effective AT ALL against the VAST MAJORITY of STDs. This is just one of many reasons why I’m nauseated by the liberal agenda. Truth is discriminated against, while pushing an agenda is given priority.

By Sandy

March 4, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

Heather- See Boscoe’s comment from 1:34 about suffering. Interesting because this is what Buddhism teaches. For example, suffering a headache can alleviate thousands of years of bad karma; of course the ultimate goal is to reach enlightenment, as Boscoed described the whole Jesus dying for our sins thing. There is a type of Buddism, or vehicle, called Mayhayana, who will defer enlightenment until every other being is enlightened. (Hence my bumper sticker, “My other vehicle is the Mahayana.”) The point of Christianity or any other faith for that matter is really not to focus on the individual, or “what do I win,” but to lift each other up through love and compassion. To choose anything out of fear is kind of sophomoric at best and does not show real spirituality.

Of course, some discount Buddhism because it does not deal with creation and or creator in the linear sense of when time began. God is part of us, we are part of God. Namaste is the greeting that states I recognize the deity in you. It’s kind of freeing to not have to worry about who created it all and makes it easy to focus on what good we can do with what is here…

And then there’s satori—Enlightenment through a*-kicking, just when it all seems to get too dull.

I like to look at Buddhism as the monosodium glutymate of faith—whatever it touches, it enhances the flavor— and it does not overtly contradict major religions. I understand Catholicism better because of Buddhism, and I find it a whole lot less judgemental.

By Tim

March 4, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

Texas… I enjoyed that story… I have actually seen it before… I have been very blessed to have a family who has always shown me more love than anyone could possibly imagine receiving… the sad thing is that there are people (like the young man I mentioned) who unfortunately don’t receive that same love and do end up killing themselves

By Eirik

March 4, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

Seaborn,

I’ve never heard of that show or the actor but I remember being very attracted to several characters on television and at an early age also..I had crushes on several best friends growing up also…

I don’t know about the hero worship theory but I think most heterosexuals would grow out of that when they developed an attraction to the opposite sex. Never happened for me although I did try to be straight in high school. I would have never revealed being gay there though…it was hard enough to fit in pretending to be straight.

By Dan

March 4, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

Tim it certainly is a tough road, I have two first cousins who are gay, one died at 20 almost 20 years ago of aids the other lives with his partner in manhattan with various levels of support from his family. But ultimately it is the strength of the individual that prevails. People with many different problems resort to suicide, for a myriad of reasons maybe mommy is overbearing and wants her girl to be a beauty queen, or johnnys dad cant accept his not being quarterback. Or a child has the best parents anyone can ask for but still can’t handle life. One can never really know what is in anothers mind but any trial either makes you stronger or weaker and the only place anyone can look for answers is in the mirror