On my way home from the gym this morning I heard something on ABC morning news. Shrub is going to propose that a display of the ten commandments be on display at all government office buildings, maybe other buildings as well, but at least gov't buildings. I have to ask again, where in this administration is the separation of church and state? I get tired of hearing the right wingers saying that the left is trying to cram gay marriage down their throats, but its okay for them to cram stuff like this down our throats? Oh the hypocrisy!!!

Dear right wing crazies,

Here is the first of many bones I shall throw you, enjoy!

Love,
George

Dear Raze,

If you are going to steal the form letter, at LEAST make it somewhat funny...

Thanks,

That red state 2 states over.

Sarcasm approaching:

Well, which version does he want posted, because if it is not the Catholic version (which is NOT the same as the other "Christian" versions), I won't support it. I was raised to believe the Roman Catholic Church was the only true Church, and the display of any other version of the Commandments would be heresy. Therefore he better follow the one, true Church or else!

Seriously, this is exactly the kind of religious infighting we should promote if this report is true. Let's show America just how narrow-minded and anti-values this "evangelical lifestyle" really is, by pointing out their heresy to other "Christians," not to mention the Jews (I have a feeling they like their version of the "big 10" the best). It may be the only way to derail this insanity.

Thou shalt not kill
(a petri dish of cells) but...

100,000 dead Iraqis = collateral damage

From Ferris Bueller's Day Off:

Economics Teacher: Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Simone: Um, he's sick. My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

White House Backs Ten Commandments Display

[ December 09, 2004, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Where in the Constitution is it? Hint: It's not there.

Interesting that the Supreme Court building, a government building, has it posted.

Regardless, there really isn't any reason to start posting it all over the place. Too many illiterates in this country couldn't read it anyway.

Is it posted in your court judge?

The beginning of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

Clearly making a choice about a specific version of the "Ten Commandments" to display means choosing a specific religious tradition to highlight. But Congress, and by extension government, cannot "establish" a religion as superior.

Granted, some of the pseudo-Christian right believe that the First Amendment merely allows people to choose which Protestant religion they may join - there being no protection for Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Hindus, Buddists, Muslims, et. al., but that is not the understanding of most of the civilized people of this country.

As for the Supreme Court, we are stuck with the "big 10" there, but if they can sandblast Mohammed off the building, as I believe they did a few years ago, sandblast the damn "Christian" sh*t as well.

I agree with MIB: discretion and restraint better serve reason than "in your face tactics" - whether from the right or left.

Speaking of Ben Stein, William, here's what he has to say about life in The Malibu 'Colony.'

Someone beat me to the punch, but I found this nice explanation of the First Amendment:

"...courts have found that the principle of a "religious liberty" exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.

Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist."

Oh you crazy commies.. and you wonder why people dont vote for you!

This, we cant have anything god around hogwash has to go. You folks arent this anti-religion are you? I mean come on, most normal sane people think ya'all are just plain crazy.

Now, do i care if the 10 commandments are at a court house? nah. Do i care if there is a manger set up for xmas, nah. Do i care if god is in the pledge, nah.

Do i think you folks are whackos for trying to get rid of these things i've grown up my entire life seeing.... YES.

If i walk into any of these place, recite the pledge or whatever... do i see it as the gov't trying to set religion? No. At the same time, am i religious, no.

This hogwash just turns people off. Given the choice to vote for someone who has "moral values" vs someone who tries to take this stuff away, who do people vote for? Well, just go look at the election folks. Right wing wackos get in because ya'all piss everyone off with this crap.

Yeah!!!! Let's all just be nice little boys and girls, and try not to upset those who would usurp the Constitution or take away our rights.

It still crystal clear to me who is holding the puppet strings for Shrub. Falwell and Reed are for sure.

i've grown up my entire life seeing.

Yeah, I grew up with it too, PhillyFan. I grew up the only Jewish child in the class over and over. I grew up having teachers demand of me, I'm talking when I was 7 or 8 years old, why I did not sing along when my public school class was singing "oh come let us adore him, Christ our lord". I grew up seeing those same teachers conveniently absent when I got the shit beat out of me on the playground because I, personally, killed Christ. I grew up being asked to write essays on "what Christmas means to me" or to draw a picture illustrating my favorite Christmas carol.
I grew up with that. And I'm damn glad today's children don't have to.
You want to put up your version of commandments in your home? Go for it! Nativity in your church? Fine!
But don't ask me to pay for it or to pray to it.

As i said before, you people are just plain crazy and nuts.

Seeing some of things you people think, which is WAY out of the mainstream... maybe it is time for you all to seriously start thinking of moving....

Fill me in. So who was the one with "moral values" that won the election?

OMG, is this the point when we all tell our 12 year old horror story of how mean kids are or have been to us.

This one time a kid got beat up for having a big nose. Another one cause his pants were too high.

Oh yeah, any teacher who allows that is just a moron.

Best PhillyFan sentence ever...

Ever since my first trip to Israel, I've realized it's very important that everyone experience living both as a member of the majority and the member of a minority in a society. As a minority member in America, I couldn't understand the priveleges and responsibilities the Christian majority is faced with. It wasn't until I spent a Hannukah in Jerusalem that I could see Christmas through the eyes of Christians. And I am convinced that the vast majority of Christian Americans have no concept of the perspective of those of us who follow a different path. At one point, I might have suggested Christians spend some time in Muslim countries to get an idea, but now it is too easy to dismiss such an experience because of Musllim extremism. One can claim nothing like that happens in the United States. So I'll suggest trips to places like Israel, India, Japan and the like. If you haven't had the experience, you can't fully understand the conversation.

This thinking is why the dems have completely lost control of the WH, the senate, and the house.

BTW, until Christians are prepared to follow the Ten Commandment, they should probably shut up about them. Check number four.

Since I am one of those people who are "plain crazy and nuts", explain to me how removing a monument from a federal building is keeping a so-called religious person from practicing his religion. I don't think the removal of a piece of granite/marble prevents someone from getting out of his chair and going to a church each Sunday, Wednesday, or whenever is desired.

All I ask is for someone to respect my right to not be religious, just like I respect his right to believe. But it doesn't happen. Religious people look at you like you're "plain crazy and nuts" for not believing in God, Jesus, etc.

Let's be serious and admit the truth. In this country, we only talk about Christians when we speak of religious people...no one else counts. I don't have a problem with somebody attending church services and praising a higher being, but the problem arises when that worshipping starts to come over into my life. Should I have to look at a religious monument in a government building? No. It's just "plain crazy and nuts" to believe otherwise.

And where exactly is this "separation of church and state" in that excerpt? Hint: It's not there. Period.

Freedom OF religion is far different than freedom FROM religion, something the Left has been advocating for years. There is a huge difference.

Do I advocate pasting the Ten Commandments being posted on every government building? No, but not for the illogical, fallacious reasons liberals oppose it. I just don't think it's necessary. Regardless, this separation of church and state crap is just another Supreme Court-created mythology.

Okay, I admit I'm dense here and may need to sign up for a course at my local community college, but let me see if I understand this. So because many people, including myself, think that George W. Bush's moral values are somewhat less than desirable, is the reason the Democrats lost control of the WH and Congress.

Dear Patty,

I quite often encourage many around here to enroll in a simple Tax or economic class at their local community college. Not for a degree but, quite often, they just need a refresher course on how the tax system works. Sometimes they are just in the need of a brush up on the fact that this is still capitalism. These classes are usually quite cheap and affordable to all.

With that said, common sense is not offered at your local community college.

The point is NOT what YOU think, it's what america thinks. It's not what some hollywood lib thinks when they sing their little song on stage to folks who will never vote. It's your suburban middle class family. FACT is they saw W as having morals he stood up for, while Kerry did not. I'm simply saying that getting in some tissy cause you dont like something... pisses everyone off.

What you have to realize is this.. as you or I may not be religious, most people in this country go to church, or consider themselves that way. When these everyday people see the ACLU trying to get rid of these things, they get mad. They, like me, say.. that's pretty dumb.

Then they vote.

Thanks for your time,

PF Common Sense Counselor and bad speller.

But it's not like the ACLU is trying to get rid of religious symbols from churches...they are completely happy with them being there. It's only a problem when the religious people need them to be outside of the religious buildings and their homes and private properties where it becomes a problem.

Keep it in YOUR life and there's no problem, but they can't do it. Their need to spread the word is the ultimate problem...well, that and their inability to NOT let me be a believer.

Since you are from TX and poke land on top of it... i'll go slow. I know how you people are... funny that you somewhat know the english language... however... Here is quick example for you...

50 Year old 10 commandments sitting at your local court house.

Pinhead CA visitor comes to visit.

Appauled THAT can be there, contacts pinhead at ACLU.

After wasting 100,000 of taxpayer money, commandments taken away.

Typical family sitting at home "WOW thats kinda dumb"

Kerry v W in election.

Check mark for W

[ December 09, 2004, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: PhillyFan ]

Thanks, Philly for your "common sense" explanation. I sort of understand what you're saying about what 51% of what America thinks as opposed to the other 49%. W. was able to portray, falsely, that he actually has decent moral values, and a lot of people couldn't see through it. I'm not making an argument that Kerry is more moral than W. (although I personally think he clearly is), but still wonder how someone like W. could get reelected. But enough with beating this dead horse.

For the record, the Ten Commandments issue is not that important to me. But I wonder why W. thinks it important enough to pursue, as if he doesn't have enough on his plate. But I guess that's what 51% of America wants.

Tally ho.

[ December 09, 2004, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

Yeah, that's what I figured. Instead of giving me a good answer to my questions (because there are none), you point out my location and proceed to call me slow. Thanks for taking the high road.

And by the way, since when is the way it's always been the right way? Change isn't necessarily bad...and the majority isn't necessarily right either.

Pucker, do you have a source for this particular claim - that George W. Bush is actively pushing for forced display of the TCs in ALL government buildings? If you heard it on ABC News, there's probably a link for it on their website. I found one Bush/TC-related story, but it's clearly not the same one you are talking about, since it doesn't involve Bush proposing anything or forcing anybody to display anything. So you must be talking about something different, and it would be nice if you would give us something a bit more concrete than your Simone-like account of what you think you heard.

As clear as that report you heard on ABC News, I'm sure.

Thanks poke fan, i've had much experience with poke fans... Let's just say they aint the brightest and they usually aint legal citizens either.

I'm simply saying that you folks in the PC/easily offended crowd are looked on by most of america... as crazy and nuts.

When we see you all get fired up over some baby jesus statue that gets put out once year we say... wow, couldnt they spend their time...

-volunteering at the local homeless shelter.
-showering
-picking up the trash on the side of the freeway
-getting a life
-Trying to fix REAL problems in their community.


That's all i'm saying...

We all have to pick our battles...one I've chosen is the persecution of the non-religious by the religious...

Oh, and seeing baby Jesus in public isn't the problem...it's those people who NEED to display religious symbols in public to somehow validate their religious beliefs. They are the thorns in my side.

Hello everyone. I'm relatively new to the Outsports Boards. I have a question. Is PhillyFan one of the frequent posters that everyone dislikes? Who are the others?

P.S. I wish Mel Brooks dropped all three tablets!

[ December 09, 2004, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: simontexas ]

Since the above quote is the basis of this thread, I tried to find the story on ABC's website. I couldn't find anything about it. I did read the Fox News version that William1865 provided a link to. It says nothing about Bush proposing that all gov't buildings should have a display of the ten commandments. What it does say is that the Bush administration is urging the Supreme Court to allow Ten Commandments displays on government property, especially courthouses. Big difference, in my opinion.

The initial post in this thread leads one to believe that Bush just issued a decree (or is about to issue a decree) that all government buildings MUST now post a copy of the Ten Commandments. Can anyone find an article that actually says that, or is the initial post just misleading?

I'm not going to bother debating the whole \"separation of church and state\" issue, because I don't think I can contribute anything that someone else hasn't already said.

However, MIB had the following quote:
I agree, the Constitution doesn't explicitly state that church and state must be kept separate. Certain phrases have been interpreted, however, to mean just that as legal challenges have arisen. Isn't it the role of the Supreme Court to interpret our constitution, rather than just follow it literally? The men who wrote it couldn't possibly have foreseen the future, so there's no way they could cover every possible future problem. If we don't allow for some interpretation, the only recourse would be to amend the constitution over and over and over to cover every new scenario that arises. I just don't see that as being a reasonable idea.

Yes

But i do have a small, but tight, group of fans. Fantom is the leader of the fan club, he can get you set up if he isnt too busy fighting racism...

Tally ho ho ho

Then you are just as bad as the nuts on the other side. What you do is waste the rest of our time and money by these little foolish antics.

I say, if the local court house in hickville TX wants to put up the nativity set, fine. If they also have a candle thingy those jewish folks dig, fine. If they have a statue of a 12 year old with a bomb stapped on them for the folks from palestine, fine. Put um up let us walk by.

Now if you want to do good, go fight the faldwells of this world when they spread misinformation. Go make some friends who are church go'ers and change their opinion.

Productive fights, not trying to change them name of xmas break.. to holiday break. Cause at the end of the day.. all us normal folks know why we get dec 25th off.

Being nuts on the other side is great...between the one in my head and the two between my legs, I've got plenty to keep me happy.

Jeez! I make the mistake of admitting I'm "tight," and PF's got to boast about it now.

Hey Judge/MIB/Ump/veritas/WM1865

Don't be talking about tight around raze. He's already got a stalking problem without knowing that.

Good point, PF/MIB/Judge/Ump/Veritas/William1865

How many more until I'm officially designated as Sybil?

You are the only JUDGE of that JUDGE...

Altho, JIP wants to be the judge now.

But remember, my fine, sexy friend, "judge not, lest ye be judged." wink

Oh great. He's talking to himself again. Let's all just back...away..slowly...don't make eye contact...

Was there ever a time when a meaningful discussion could take place on this messageboard? I swear I came here for a reason... :confused: :confused:

There actually is very good proof of "Seperation of Church and State" aside from:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

No, this clause does not explicitly state "There shall be a distinct seperation of Church and State."

However, you must consider historical evidence surrounding the First Ammendment to interpret it. That is exactly what the Supreme Court did. John Adams was the principle architect of the First Ammendment. It went through countless revisions before this wording was decided on. John Adams was very clear in his writings that:

". . . the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; . . ." (1797 Treaty with Tripoli)

His other writings echo that same sentiment and the fact the he and the framers of the ammendment did intend to establish a barrier between Church and State. Furthermore, the actual phrase "Seperation of Church and State" comes from a letter that Thomas Jefferson carefully crafted to the Danbury Baptists. He echoed John Adams sentiment regarding this issue.

I offer no opinion on this particular case. I do believe that George W's intent was to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed in federal buildings. If so, it does violate the concept of Seperation of Church and State. It establishes one religion as being superior to another. Whether you feel it is extremist or not, the Constitution and it's framers clearly did intend for Church and State to be completely seperate.

phil

Trust me, bitch, I'm way ahead of you on that one. Good thing about Canada would be not having to deal with morons like vous.

That's exactly the point. Freedom of one's own religion (or lack thereof, as the case may be) presumes freedom from someone else's (including from the obligation to pay for someone else's).

Even the so-called Christian "majority" in this country is actually a collection of minorities that agree on some points but differ quite strongly on many others (most notably, on who is or is not a Christian). America has a long history of strongly held religious beliefs -- and divergent religious beliefs (our founders ranged from Catholics to Quakers to Baptists to deist Masons and everything in between). We have churches out the wazoo precisely because none of them is the official, let alone mandatory, one.

"Separation" isn't the issue. "Establishment of religion" (the First Amendment term) is. "Free exercise" (same amendment) depends on the absence of state-sponsored religion. If European history isn't proof of that, consider Saudi Arabia. I prefer our way, thank you very much.

If it's not worth aruing about, why are MIB and Phillyfan putting so much effort into this thread (while I would normally put William in with those two, his points so far have been succinct and quite reasonable)? Obviously the presence of religious symbols in public life are major touchstones in our society. The more people like Roy Moore insist on ramming religion down the our throats, the more people of conscience will balk. In this instance, I can't tell whether the president falls into that category or not. Ignoring the unsubstantiated ABC report, I'm not happy with the federal government taking sides in the FOX story either, but it might not be an unreasonable intepretation of the First Amendment.

As for separation of church and state, the Constitution also doesn't explicitly state a person has the right to silence either. Yet, we don't tell people arrested that they have a right to not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. It also doesn't include women, have they not fifth amendment protections. The Constitution and its amendments are a framework, a roadmap. I don't see how a creche in a government office can be anything but an establishment of religion. The Ten Commandments on the wall of a courtroom announces to all that monotheism is the official religion of those in power here. Our founders recognized such displays would have a chilling effect on the free practice of religion in our society. It's unfortunate that over 200 years later there are those who still can't see that.

Isn't it pretty much common sense that if the government cannot pick and choose among the various religions (e.g., cannot "establish" a religion), they cannot pick and choose among the various versions of "the" 10 Commandments.

And the intent of most of these actions (e.g., the hanging of "the" 10 Commandments) is to explicitly or implicitly mark a government as being based on, or comprising, the values of only one religion. That is what concerns me the most, as we have a growing anti-American "religious" movement in this country to explicitly condemn certain thoughts and beliefs and set up one version of "Christianity" (a version, BTW, that has little, if any, connection to the group of followers of Jesus Christ that formed the first church) as the official moral value system of this country.

If that threat were not present, I doubt the ACLU would be this active. But the reality is we live in an age when there is a core group of "religious" fanatics who are actively arguing that they can discriminate against any and all religions they consider invalid, including any denomination that believes gay people are human beings, because the First Amendment applies only to the federal government, and only prevents its selecting among a small group of Protestant sects. That this idea has any traction at all is a serious and grave threat to our country.

Whether or not I believe the ACLU is choosing the best way to fight this battle is another issue, but I am firmly convinced the battle must be fought. We must retain the secular nature of our public institutions.