DMiller said: "...I find it mildly amusing that those who wish for total separation of church and state, will go to a church, to cast their vote for the state."
That's easy. :)--> A church isn't a building. The places where people vote are simply buildings where church is held. I vote at an elementrary school building. That doesn't tempt me to become a third-grader again. :D-->
I also play bingo sometimes at a Catholic school building, which is attached to a Catholic church building, and the last time I made the sign of the cross was when I went to church with my Catholic friend in high school.
Back to the topic: I'm a Christian, but I don't think a judge should have the 10 Commandments embroidered on his robe, because he's there to represent the court, not his religious beliefs.
I'm highly suspicious of people who wear their religious beliefs on their sleeves, or robes, or bumpers. I don't know how many times I've been cut off on an interstate by a 19982 station wagon with 10 "Jesus" bumper stickers slapped on its backend. I'd rather see a sermon than to hear (or read or get run over by) one, y'know?
Oh, and no cracks about the association between old ladies and bingo, guys. I'd prefer a casino, but our conservative Republican politicans have so far prevented us from having any of those in our state! -->
quote: The amendment is that Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion
Actually, it says "respecting AN establishment of religion", not THE establishment of religion. Don't tell me this is irrelevant. The means the and an means an. Are you the resident of Florida, or are you a resident of Florida.
The 10 commandments do not constitute AN establishment of religion. They constitute morality with a God behind them, but not AN establishment of religion.
I disagree with you on that, but we've been through that many times before.
quote:Did you hear that news story about someplace in the Tampa area that had to remove Christmas trees from some public display because they supposedly were religious symbols. The insanity continues. Next, those of us who are born again will have to leave our holy spirit at the door when we enter a government building.
That would be prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Merry Christmas.
Without the use of illustrative analogies, can you define the difference between an establishment of religion and the establishment of religion?
While I do understand your examples, I question whether they are relevant to the point that you are tring to make.
I suppose I can come up with an analogy to show how "an" and "the" in one specific context could have equvalent meaning:
1. I drove my car through an intersection
2. I drove my car through the intersection
In both cases I am talking about the same intersection, in neither case is it any random intersection, but it is the one that i specifically drove through. Neither is the intersection "THE" intersection, as in, the only intersection.
The only point that I am making with the above is that the distinction between "the" and "an" does not necessarily exist.
Actually, since "an" is indefinite, whereas "the" is definite, I would think that would only serve to detract from Johniam's position, since "an" establishment of religion is for more flexible than "the" establishment of religion.
quote:Without the use of illustrative analogies, can you define the difference between an establishment of religion and the establishment of religion?
I'll sure try. TWI is AN establishment of religion. The catholic church is AN establishment of religion. If congress passed a law in which anyone who SITd for an hour per day didn't have to pay taxes, said law would respect TWI. Likewise, if they passed a law with the same benefit to those who did 10 hail marys and 10 our fathers per day, that law would respect the catholic church.
While I agree with your intersection analogy, I think in this case that there is no such thing as THE establishment of religion, or THE poster on GSC, or THE resident of Fla. because there is more than one of each of those.
These non stop cases where someone or something is penalized for supposedly having religious symbols is a rabid, foaming at the mouth liberal/atheistic agenda. A few years ago in MI (confirmed blue state) the warehouse foreperson at my job said that no one could wear tee shirts with any religious statements on them. Some dick head in the place must have called the ACLU. Interestingly, one guy continued to wear his Marilyn Manson Antichrist Superstar tee shirt after the warning. That's not a religious statement, is it? Yeah, right.
Garth: OK, I guess what I don't understand about your question is that the "socialist freeloaders" you refer to are receiving government money. I don't see how allowing the 10 commandments in a government building is giving money to anybody. Again, I say that the 10 c's are not AN establishment of religion.
Raf: I think I agree with Linda that voting in an elementary school doesn't tempt anyone to be a third grader. I do agree with you that if I'm charged with a hate crime I wouldn't want to see "black power" written across a judge's robe. That reminded me of an old Mad magazine cartoon where a guy was in a hotel room overrun with cockroaches and when he went to complain to the desk clerk, the desk clerk was a giant cockroach.
I agree with that, too, but all these cases strike me as the government telling me which God NOT to worship and what his name better NOT be, etc. These liberals want to make our country worse than the government portrayed in "1984". There's got to be a middle ground somewhere.
That's just not true. With most of the cases we've debated here, government is NOT trying to tell you that you can't worship God. People are trying to tell GOVERNMENT that GOVERNMENT can't worship God. Don't you see the difference? The moment our government decides who God is, it can tell you who God isn't, and that's NOT government's role.
I don't want government telling me I have to accept the trinity to be a true Christian. I don't want government telling me that I can deny the trinity and still be a true Christian. I don't want government in the equation, period.
Has the government ever gone into your home and told you to take down the Ten Commandments from your wall? (You DO have the Ten Commandments on your wall at home, don't you?)
Has any liberal told you that you cannot listen to a teaching tape in your car, or put a "picture" of Christ up in your home?
No. And it won't happen.
You want a middle ground? Here's a middle ground. Put the Ten Commandments up in your home. Carry a Bible with you. Preach. Teach. Love. Go to church. Put a Ten Commandments monument up outside your church building, on church property.
Why does government have to do any of those things?
Perhaps Zix or someone else with formal logic training can chime in, but there's a serious flaw in your reasoning.
Government has no more right to tell you which God NOT to worship than it has to tell you which God TO worship. You want a middle ground? There it is: I won't compel government to tell you which God NOT to worship if you don't compel government to tell me which God TO worship. Do we have a deal?
I doubt the ACLU was involved with a decision to ban religious t-shirts at work. Sounds more like management just didn't want to deal with dueling t-shirt slogans :D-->
It seems like you are viewing the Ten Commandments as somehow religiously generic and therefore okay, as opposed to Hail Marys and Speaking in tongues, which would be specific to some denominations only.
I've got news for ya:
I don't recognize the sabbath day, let alone keep it holy
I do not worship the biblical god
I've got a lot of graven images around casa de oak, mostly turtles, and a few Santa Clauses, but I don't worship them
I don't make a habit of taking Jehovah's name in vain, but I'd like the option if I feel the need
The others I can pretty much live with, but I have a hard time with the coveting sometimes.
I don't recognize the sabbath day, let alone keep it holy
I do not worship the biblical god
I've got a lot of graven images around casa de oak, mostly turtles, and a few Santa Clauses, but I don't worship them
I don't make a habit of taking Jehovah's name in vain, but I'd like the option if I feel the need
The others I can pretty much live with, but I have a hard time with the coveting sometimes
So even if the 10 commandments were posted all over the place, you are not penalized for said violations of them. Therefore, the government is NOT actually telling you which God to worship, what his name is, etc. Hey, I got a bunch of Grateful Dead concert videos and AC/DC and such. That probably trumps your turtles. I was melting all the gold and silver in my house in the fire place, and BAM, out came these videos. Honest!
I don't really put total stock in the 10 commandments. I don't have them up on my walls. This is the grace administration, right? I just don't like seeing the blatant bigotry being directed against Christians by the various media first, and later trickling down to the government.
Did you watch SNL last night? Nice Christian bashing, huh? Let's see...if you voted for Bush, you are a bigot who lives in Dumbfu*kland, you molest your daughters, and you're too emotional to have a discussion with if you rightly call the blue state people the bigots THEY are. Then on the weekend update that idiot who's supposed to be a Christian only talks about crushing the wicked people with God's help, of course. So anybody who talks about God must be like that. Fuzzy Zoeller gets in trouble for mentioning fried chicken and collard greens in the same sentence as Tiger Woods (took 'em till 10 days after that tournament to dig it up, I might add), but it's OK for SNL to blatantly spew their bigotry on network TV.
I couldn't care less if the 10 commandments are ever in a government building again, but forceably removing them is just one more building block toward the day when someone might actually be able to tell you what you can and can't have on your walls in your own house. Raf apparently wants to keep his blinders on.
quote:...removing them is just one more building block toward the day when someone might actually be able to tell you what you can and can't have on your walls in your own house. Raf apparently wants to keep his blinders on.
Ridiculous. The "slippery slope" argument works both ways: How would you like it if government REQUIRED you to put the Ten Commandments up in your own house, hmmm? Silly? Only as silly as your argument.
I have no blinders on regarding this subject, but it's okay that you think I do. (I do have the Ten Commandments up in my house).
I love how in the grace administration you want government (the law of the U.S.) to post the Ten Commandments (the Law of Israel), and those who oppose it are guilty of bigotry (!) when you don't even see the need to put it up in your own house?
Why do (we) Christians keep expecting government to do our job for us? We want a Nativity scene at City Hall, but won't put one up in front of our churches or homes. We want The Ten Commandments in a courthouse, but not in our living rooms. We want prayer in schools, but neglect it at the breakfast table (if, heaven forbid, we even eat breakfast together).
As for private businesses, I think it's hypocritical as all get out to commercialize the Christmas season while eliminating references to the first six letters. If you don't want to be a part of Christmas, then don't have a sale.
I should add that I have no idea how to handle the judge at the beginning of this thread. His reasoning is completely off base, and his support of Roy Moore, while within his rights, leads me to question his suitability for office. But no one would stop him from wearing a cross under his robes. What's the deal with judicial robes? Is it considered a uniform? Is there a code somewhere? What if he came in dressed as a rabbi one day, or an imam? Or a white hood? I mean, something's wrong here, no?
quote:And yet, by a crude and cunning strategy over the course of decades, we have seen them make the reverence for law the enemy of reverence for God.
THIS IS A FALSE ACCUSATION. Understand? A FALSE ACCUSATION. For the life of me, I can't figure out why Alan Keyes is so admired. He's a crackpot who uses false logic in favor of a predetermined conclusion.
YOU CAN REVERE GOD ALL YOU WANT. GOVERNMENT CAN'T.
Why is this so hard? I wonder if Keyes has the Ten Commandments up in HIS living room.
"Would someone please tell me why some folks get upset because the government isn't allowed to get involved with the matters of religion/spiritualty?"
This question and yours are the kind of questions are what I keep asking religious conservatives all the time, and to this day, I have yet to get back a satisfactory answer, if even any answer at all. Notice Johniam's dance of an answer when I asked him the same thing.
And now I hear rumor, rumor that I fear will be all too true, that Roy Moore is seriously thinking of running for governor for the state of Alabama.
While in many other states, including a good number of Southern ones, that boy couldn't make dog catcher, in Alabama he has wide spread support. Wide spread enough where, if I were to place even money on a bet, I'd wager that he would win that election. Yes, I said win.
((sigh)) And here I was thinking that Alabama couldn't get any lower in the governor's mansion than Fob James.
Recommended Posts
Linda Z
DMiller said: "...I find it mildly amusing that those who wish for total separation of church and state, will go to a church, to cast their vote for the state."
That's easy.
:)--> A church isn't a building. The places where people vote are simply buildings where church is held. I vote at an elementrary school building. That doesn't tempt me to become a third-grader again. 
:D-->
I also play bingo sometimes at a Catholic school building, which is attached to a Catholic church building, and the last time I made the sign of the cross was when I went to church with my Catholic friend in high school.
Back to the topic: I'm a Christian, but I don't think a judge should have the 10 Commandments embroidered on his robe, because he's there to represent the court, not his religious beliefs.
I'm highly suspicious of people who wear their religious beliefs on their sleeves, or robes, or bumpers. I don't know how many times I've been cut off on an interstate by a 19982 station wagon with 10 "Jesus" bumper stickers slapped on its backend. I'd rather see a sermon than to hear (or read or get run over by) one, y'know?
Oh, and no cracks about the association between old ladies and bingo, guys. I'd prefer a casino, but our conservative Republican politicans have so far prevented us from having any of those in our state!
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I disagree with you on that, but we've been through that many times before.
That would be prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Merry Christmas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
johniam:
Without the use of illustrative analogies, can you define the difference between an establishment of religion and the establishment of religion?
While I do understand your examples, I question whether they are relevant to the point that you are tring to make.
I suppose I can come up with an analogy to show how "an" and "the" in one specific context could have equvalent meaning:
1. I drove my car through an intersection
2. I drove my car through the intersection
In both cases I am talking about the same intersection, in neither case is it any random intersection, but it is the one that i specifically drove through. Neither is the intersection "THE" intersection, as in, the only intersection.
The only point that I am making with the above is that the distinction between "the" and "an" does not necessarily exist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Actually, since "an" is indefinite, whereas "the" is definite, I would think that would only serve to detract from Johniam's position, since "an" establishment of religion is for more flexible than "the" establishment of religion.
The bottom line is this: Government
does
not
get
to
tell
me
who
my
God
is
what
his
name
is
or
whether
I
can
erect
a
statue
to
another
God.
Please don't make me do this letter by letter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Oak:
quote:Without the use of illustrative analogies, can you define the difference between an establishment of religion and the establishment of religion?
I'll sure try. TWI is AN establishment of religion. The catholic church is AN establishment of religion. If congress passed a law in which anyone who SITd for an hour per day didn't have to pay taxes, said law would respect TWI. Likewise, if they passed a law with the same benefit to those who did 10 hail marys and 10 our fathers per day, that law would respect the catholic church.
While I agree with your intersection analogy, I think in this case that there is no such thing as THE establishment of religion, or THE poster on GSC, or THE resident of Fla. because there is more than one of each of those.
These non stop cases where someone or something is penalized for supposedly having religious symbols is a rabid, foaming at the mouth liberal/atheistic agenda. A few years ago in MI (confirmed blue state) the warehouse foreperson at my job said that no one could wear tee shirts with any religious statements on them. Some dick head in the place must have called the ACLU. Interestingly, one guy continued to wear his Marilyn Manson Antichrist Superstar tee shirt after the warning. That's not a religious statement, is it? Yeah, right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Garth: OK, I guess what I don't understand about your question is that the "socialist freeloaders" you refer to are receiving government money. I don't see how allowing the 10 commandments in a government building is giving money to anybody. Again, I say that the 10 c's are not AN establishment of religion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Raf: I think I agree with Linda that voting in an elementary school doesn't tempt anyone to be a third grader. I do agree with you that if I'm charged with a hate crime I wouldn't want to see "black power" written across a judge's robe. That reminded me of an old Mad magazine cartoon where a guy was in a hotel room overrun with cockroaches and when he went to complain to the desk clerk, the desk clerk was a giant cockroach.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Raf:
quote:The bottom line is this: Government
does
not
get
to
tell
me
who
my
God
is
what
his
name
is
or
whether
I
can
erect
a
statue
to
another
God.
I agree with that, too, but all these cases strike me as the government telling me which God NOT to worship and what his name better NOT be, etc. These liberals want to make our country worse than the government portrayed in "1984". There's got to be a middle ground somewhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
John,
That's just not true. With most of the cases we've debated here, government is NOT trying to tell you that you can't worship God. People are trying to tell GOVERNMENT that GOVERNMENT can't worship God. Don't you see the difference? The moment our government decides who God is, it can tell you who God isn't, and that's NOT government's role.
I don't want government telling me I have to accept the trinity to be a true Christian. I don't want government telling me that I can deny the trinity and still be a true Christian. I don't want government in the equation, period.
Has the government ever gone into your home and told you to take down the Ten Commandments from your wall? (You DO have the Ten Commandments on your wall at home, don't you?)
Has any liberal told you that you cannot listen to a teaching tape in your car, or put a "picture" of Christ up in your home?
No. And it won't happen.
You want a middle ground? Here's a middle ground. Put the Ten Commandments up in your home. Carry a Bible with you. Preach. Teach. Love. Go to church. Put a Ten Commandments monument up outside your church building, on church property.
Why does government have to do any of those things?
Perhaps Zix or someone else with formal logic training can chime in, but there's a serious flaw in your reasoning.
Government has no more right to tell you which God NOT to worship than it has to tell you which God TO worship. You want a middle ground? There it is: I won't compel government to tell you which God NOT to worship if you don't compel government to tell me which God TO worship. Do we have a deal?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
johniam:
I doubt the ACLU was involved with a decision to ban religious t-shirts at work. Sounds more like management just didn't want to deal with dueling t-shirt slogans
:D-->
It seems like you are viewing the Ten Commandments as somehow religiously generic and therefore okay, as opposed to Hail Marys and Speaking in tongues, which would be specific to some denominations only.
I've got news for ya:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Ditto what Oakspear said.
Only I collect bird statues.One kid collects dolphins.
And I covet my neighbor's wife's clothes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Oak:
quote:I've got news for ya:
I don't recognize the sabbath day, let alone keep it holy
I do not worship the biblical god
I've got a lot of graven images around casa de oak, mostly turtles, and a few Santa Clauses, but I don't worship them
I don't make a habit of taking Jehovah's name in vain, but I'd like the option if I feel the need
The others I can pretty much live with, but I have a hard time with the coveting sometimes
So even if the 10 commandments were posted all over the place, you are not penalized for said violations of them. Therefore, the government is NOT actually telling you which God to worship, what his name is, etc. Hey, I got a bunch of Grateful Dead concert videos and AC/DC and such. That probably trumps your turtles. I was melting all the gold and silver in my house in the fire place, and BAM, out came these videos. Honest!
I don't really put total stock in the 10 commandments. I don't have them up on my walls. This is the grace administration, right? I just don't like seeing the blatant bigotry being directed against Christians by the various media first, and later trickling down to the government.
Did you watch SNL last night? Nice Christian bashing, huh? Let's see...if you voted for Bush, you are a bigot who lives in Dumbfu*kland, you molest your daughters, and you're too emotional to have a discussion with if you rightly call the blue state people the bigots THEY are. Then on the weekend update that idiot who's supposed to be a Christian only talks about crushing the wicked people with God's help, of course. So anybody who talks about God must be like that. Fuzzy Zoeller gets in trouble for mentioning fried chicken and collard greens in the same sentence as Tiger Woods (took 'em till 10 days after that tournament to dig it up, I might add), but it's OK for SNL to blatantly spew their bigotry on network TV.
I couldn't care less if the 10 commandments are ever in a government building again, but forceably removing them is just one more building block toward the day when someone might actually be able to tell you what you can and can't have on your walls in your own house. Raf apparently wants to keep his blinders on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ridiculous. The "slippery slope" argument works both ways: How would you like it if government REQUIRED you to put the Ten Commandments up in your own house, hmmm? Silly? Only as silly as your argument.
I have no blinders on regarding this subject, but it's okay that you think I do. (I do have the Ten Commandments up in my house).
I love how in the grace administration you want government (the law of the U.S.) to post the Ten Commandments (the Law of Israel), and those who oppose it are guilty of bigotry (!) when you don't even see the need to put it up in your own house?
Why do (we) Christians keep expecting government to do our job for us? We want a Nativity scene at City Hall, but won't put one up in front of our churches or homes. We want The Ten Commandments in a courthouse, but not in our living rooms. We want prayer in schools, but neglect it at the breakfast table (if, heaven forbid, we even eat breakfast together).
As for private businesses, I think it's hypocritical as all get out to commercialize the Christmas season while eliminating references to the first six letters. If you don't want to be a part of Christmas, then don't have a sale.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I should add that I have no idea how to handle the judge at the beginning of this thread. His reasoning is completely off base, and his support of Roy Moore, while within his rights, leads me to question his suitability for office. But no one would stop him from wearing a cross under his robes. What's the deal with judicial robes? Is it considered a uniform? Is there a code somewhere? What if he came in dressed as a rabbi one day, or an imam? Or a white hood? I mean, something's wrong here, no?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
For an interesting take on Judge Moore and what the constitution says check this link.
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/speech...07hillsdale.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
THIS IS A FALSE ACCUSATION. Understand? A FALSE ACCUSATION. For the life of me, I can't figure out why Alan Keyes is so admired. He's a crackpot who uses false logic in favor of a predetermined conclusion.
YOU CAN REVERE GOD ALL YOU WANT. GOVERNMENT CAN'T.
Why is this so hard? I wonder if Keyes has the Ten Commandments up in HIS living room.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Raf,
"Would someone please tell me why some folks get upset because the government isn't allowed to get involved with the matters of religion/spiritualty?"
This question and yours are the kind of questions are what I keep asking religious conservatives all the time, and to this day, I have yet to get back a satisfactory answer, if even any answer at all. Notice Johniam's dance of an answer when I asked him the same thing.
And now I hear rumor, rumor that I fear will be all too true, that Roy Moore is seriously thinking of running for governor for the state of Alabama.
While in many other states, including a good number of Southern ones, that boy couldn't make dog catcher, in Alabama he has wide spread support. Wide spread enough where, if I were to place even money on a bet, I'd wager that he would win that election. Yes, I said win.
((sigh)) And here I was thinking that Alabama couldn't get any lower in the governor's mansion than Fob James.
Boy was I wrong.
:(-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.