First Amendment

Off Topic
41

SteelyEyes,

I figured it was just an honest mistake. I just couldn’t get this mental pictue out of my mind of a bunch of Jews discussing how offended they were by the 10 Commandments, too funny!

The thing that bothers me though is that no one else called you on that.

It sure seems fashionable these days to bash Christianity, but how many of the people bashing Christianity even really understand it? I’m not talking on a late-night televangalist level here, but on a deep academic level. My roommate can read Greek and has a B.A. in Religion, so we discuss this stuff all the time. I guess I take for granted how little the average person really knows about Christianity.

Yes, man has warped it over the last 2000 years, but if we would follow the teachings of Jesus as they were meant this world would be a lot better place.

42

No surprise concerning where this is happening.

Guess to this day things really do move slower in the South, which is not inherently a bad thing- but in the case of civil rights…well, the point has been made.

Some good points made here, especially concerning how those of various faiths may interpret a Christian symbol placed somewhere that ideally should be free of bias.

Now if we could just apply this thought process further than our borders.

43

“So theres some fundamentalists in the government… probably less of one than that empty vessel in the White House.”

I’d like to see you do a better job, Sunshine Boy.

Also, I’d like to see somebody show me where the Constitution of the United States talks about the complete separation of church and state.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” isn’t the separation of church and state. Thats the separation of church and lawmaking. So find me an example of the separation of church and state in the constitution.

44

MD2006: You can prolly blame it on organized religion, no offence anyone but the various churches (catholic, protestant, whatever) have screwed things up more than most people realize.

45

Jared NFS said:

ultrafilter - that’s one problem I have with some forms of education - separating every subject, when in fact, they do overlap in some areas. I’m all for having classes in science, math, literature, and the like, but to say that math does not relate to science nor science to literature is insane. I think it gives our children a better sense of the world to know that two different subjects can be related.

With that being said, I see nothing wrong with presenting the current theories of how the universe began, evolution, etc., alongside with some of the widely-held beliefs about the same subjects. I do NOT think our children should be told what definitely happened (as far as the parts that we don’t know for certain), only the most widely-held theories (creationism, evolution, big bang, etc.). This will better prepare them for the world and future discussions of our beginnings, no matter what side of the issue they or their parents are on.

ultrafilter - that’s one problem I have with some forms of education - separating every subject, when in fact, they do overlap in some areas. I’m all for having classes in science, math, literature, and the like, but to say that math does not relate to science nor science to literature is insane. I think it gives our children a better sense of the world to know that two different subjects can be related.

With that being said, I see nothing wrong with presenting the current theories of how the universe began, evolution, etc., alongside with some of the widely-held beliefs about the same subjects. I do NOT think our children should be told what definitely happened (as far as the parts that we don’t know for certain), only the most widely-held theories (creationism, evolution, big bang, etc.). This will better prepare them for the world and future discussions of our beginnings, no matter what side of the issue they or their parents are on.

To have a grasp on what 95% of the world believes is better than having a grasp on what 40% of the world believes.

…

This is a whole 'nother debate, but I feel it’s very important to make sure that people have the basics of a subject down before they start studying its relationships with other subjects. You’re right: no human endeavor exists in a vacuum. But how can you compare two subjects without knowing them?

Anything else I have to say on the matter is best reserved for a separate discussion.

46

The no establishment of religion clause came as a response to the Church of England in which the state actually gave money to the Church and supported it.
The protestants and Catholics in America never wanted their fledgling country to develop tithes (Church taxes) on its citizens so they came up with that clause.
In taking into account the Ten Commandment s in the court house that shows an establishment of religion: Government money is being used for the upkeep of a stone engraving of the Ten Commandments in a Court building–a clear violation of the First Amendment prohibition.
On the other hand, “In God We Trust” is innocuous because it just mentions “God,” not a God, or the God or a group of them. In not really saying anything specific the government can get away with it.
The government is trying to be aetheist, it is trying to balance out all the different religions–and all the contradiction therein without offending anyone.

47

“Yes, man has warped it over the last 2000 years, but if we would follow the teachings of Jesus as they were meant this world would be a lot better place.”

I agree. What I don’t think is necessary is advertising where you got your values from at every turn. If they are good and just then they will hold up for what they are without pointing to a designer label fo validity. Assuming I can still remember half of what Mr. Seick, the best teacher I ever had, taught me about trigonometry etc. it would still be valuable and accurate if I used it without invoking Ferd Seick’s name. It makes a poor example because I haven’t used a lick of it in 20 years but the idea is good and Ferd deserves mention.

48

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” isn’t the separation of church and state. Thats the separation of church and lawmaking. So find me an example of the separation of church and state in the constitution.

the state is a lawmaker, therefore the two statements are one in the same. welcome to the old english.

49

This is fascinating.

Neil, I don’t think the issue is whether the Ten Commandments would hurt anyone when displayed inasmuch as the USSC - or indeed any court - in a multicultural nation must be seen to display impartiality and inclusiveness.

Let’s face it, the separation of church and state, no matter what may be enshrined in law, is a nominal concept at best, personal belief and statement will always guide and define people, however, when it comes to the enactment of law or indeed the perception of that enactment, the state must be seen to be neutral; having a monument to a specific entity undermines that ostensible neutrality.

50

I don’t know where you are from…

Doogie,
I’m from Alabama. So I’ve seen this whole story from the beginning. One thing that’s not mentioned often is that the monument isn’t just of the 10 Commandments. It highlights them, but also includes quotes from the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other historical documents. The Supreme court has ruled in the past that this type of display is allowed because it shows the basis of our system of laws in the US. Judge Moore says that is what he is doing, showing the historical basis for our laws.
He’s also pointing out that according to the Constitution, federal government does not have total authority over everything that goes on in the country. The 10th amendment says that any rights not expressly withheld from the states or given to the federal government are states rights. And his contention is that this is a state issue, not something for the federal court to decide.

51

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

The constitution was a reactionary document. Most of it can be directly realted to the crap that the King of England was imposing on the colonies. The King took guns, so there is a right to bear arms in a militia.

Endland had a national religion (the Church of England), so the first amendment guarentes that there will never be a STATE religion. There would never be a 'Church of America'. The government could not force you to join a church, nor forbid you from joining one, nor rule that any church was against the law. You could not be punished for practicing your religion and you could not be forced to practice someone else's.

'Separation of church and state' is a new concept and is an interpretation.

Having the ten commandments on the courthouse steps does not have anything to do with making a law mandating Christianity for people to go to trial.

52

Amen Michelle.