Court upholds 10 commandments on public land

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080327/us_nm/court_commandments_dc

Maybe its just me, but I dont feel like "You shall have no other gods before me" is freedom of religion. We're using public land to say that only the Christian God is the right God?

 

That pretty much sums up how dumb these cretins are. The 10 commandments are entirely religious.

 

Sorry to reprint something I've earlier posted, but I have thought about the lay of the constitutional land on the subject. I wrote the following op-ed in a local paper a few years ago, and it will be interesting for me to see how this plays out. For decades, the Court has seemed to swing to the "Wall of Separation" over the "No-Preference Doctrine" pole. As this is at the level of the U.S. Court of Appeals, it will be interesting to see should it make bench at the U.S. Supreme Court. Anyway, my earlier op-ed:

 

Beautifully written editorial NorthPoint. I agree with it.

The problem with situations like this is that they tend to be offensive to a minority within a society that tries to be open to all.

The issue doesn't go away. Your op-ed piece is a nice commentary in an effort to protect the rights of minorities.

 

At the same time, progressivism wants us to turn our back on the very past that produced the the Constitution they claim gives them the right to do so. Can you say Grandfather paradox?

I'm certainly no devout or practicing Christian, but just the same, there is a very clear line between intolerance of all religions, and not endorsing one over another.

To deny that America has a Christian tradition, is to deny the Founders, and their belief in natural law which the Bill of Rights is predicated on.

 

Thanks Earl. "Wall of Separation" seems to me to mean what it's 3 words say - a division between the private practice of faith and the providing for that practice under the public weal. I do not construe these simple 3 words as something other than what they are - I do not see "the wall" as intolerance for any, or indeed all, faiths. I see it as the embodiment of the Framers' intent, namely, the Framers' desire that we would never return to a time of state/religion collusion - a dangerous climate from which we, as a people, had only recently come. I said it earlier, and please forgive the reprint as well - but I think it's germane:

 

Hmm, I wonder what the Founders would say....

George Washington

John Quincy Adams

Thomas Jefferson

James Madison

So again I repeat, to deny that America has a Christian heritage and tradition, is to deny the founding of the very document that gives a secular society a chance.

 

For anyone who wants to know, here is a listing of the religions of all the Founding Fathers:

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

 

Wait, where are all of the atheists?!?!?!!



Thanks btw brwntown.

 

"In God We Trust" is on all paper money from the US. The Pledge to the Flag has the line "One Nation Under God" in it. We have the ten commandments displayed in courts... I think people should just leave it alone as its history and part of our tradition. Plus its the bases of our country's law.

 

I will repeat: Many of the Founders, as I said, were deeply religious. This did not translate to a view that religion had a place in public, governmental life.

Here's Jefferson's take - his words - as to the wall of separation regarding religion and the public weal:

And here's James Madison's. Long - please see emphasized points.

(Emphasis mine)
(Madison's letter is quite long, but it's in the President's public documents Look it up.)

As I said, it is a myth that the Framers framed a "Christian nation." With utter respect to - and defense of - anyone's right to whatever faith they wish, it is simply false that the Framers - the above but two - believed religion and government should have anything other than a "wall of separation" between the two. As sacred as their religious sensibilities were, so were their beliefs in avoiding what they just came from. In the name of liberty, they believed as they wrote, above. Now, the wall of separation was by no means universal - and this is why I mentioned the constitutional process I mentioned in my original post, to determine what, exactly, was meant. But it is clear that at least some, quite decisively, meant what they say it meant.

 

Well, since the percentage of "Christians" adds up to 108.7%, fairly hard to say, folks. In addition, I think this is accurate:

From my read of the intellectual and cultural history of the Enlightenment and the genesis of "The American Experiment," the rationalism inherent to deism - not Christianity, but deism, embodying a belief in a deity, rational, who basically set natural law in order and then retired - is replete. I misspoke when I said "theists," as I did mean the rationalist deists of the enlightenment.

This squares with what I've previously read:

Deism in America

There also appears to be somewhat of a disconnect between private belief and public testament - as with all times. John Adams, for example, had this to say, in his authorship of the "Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli": (Article 11):

(by the way - I earlier posted on the forum that it is also a national myth that the U.S. was, from its inception, isolationist in viewpoint. This international treaty is but one example of many)

Washington died without asking for or benefit of clergy, and on and on.

At the end of the day, who cares whether every Framer was devoutly Christian, convincingly deist, or patently atheist? What is important - from their own words - is whether government should be involved. As I hope I have shown, at least with a goodly portions of the Founders, it would appear, no.

 

Basically, atheists want to use the separation concept to remove any religion from the public sphere. Reading posts from a certain centrist-liberal poster on this forum, one gets the idea that he absolute cheers on the fact that Christians are not allowed to educate their children in a Christian manner.

Now surely the Founders, being for the most part, Christians themselves, did not intend a nation where the state taught their children in contradiction or confrontation to their own beliefs.

Sexual and lifestyle education in particular.

So again, the atheists (which I consider a religion myself, as it is the absolute belief in nothing divine as opposed to an "everything" divine) really enjoy this separation business. They use it as a platform to advocate for the removal of Christian monuments, destroying history for no other reason than to promote their own belief system by suppressing all others.

I am not really religious. I just find atheists to be just as zealous, hateful and misguided as the most hardcore theologians. At least agnostics have the humility to admit they don't know anything, one way or another.

 

Like libertarianism, you also do not understand isolationism. It's a word that is used as a pejorative. No one with a so-called "isolationist" philosophy would ever be caught referring to themselves as "isolationists".

I believe the preferred term, is non-interventionist.

An isolationist wants to retreat from the world. A non-interventionist doesn't believe ruling the world is manifest destiny. An interventionist does believe in manifest destiny, or as Will.Spencer would say, Pax Americana.

An isolationist might be for trade tariffs. A non-interventionist would be for free trade. An interventionist or mercantilist would be interested in sanctions.

An isolationist may prevent travel. A non-interventionist believes that diplomacy and travel are key to good relations.

An interventionist goes where he is not wanted or allowed, using as much force as necessary.

 

It's interesting that:

Becomes grossly false, pandering appeals to emotionalism, without a shred of evidence:

When in fact, relying on

those Founding Fathers did say:

(Lengthy - see Post #11).


***

Saying what "the atheists" "are" and "want" sure seems like a collectivist judgment, to me, that flies in the face of:

It especially flies in the face of what this particular atheist stands for:

***

Well, again,

And, finally, nothing of the above is relevant, actually. Abandoning the constitutional question when convenient, and resorting to pandering and collectivist smears may seem like something that "works," but it is meritless. Everything I see, anyway, shows that the Founders of the United States sought to strongly defend the rights of any citizen to practice his (at the time - unfortunately, what constituted "citizen" at the time was not what it is today) faith, and, at the same time, exhibited a strong desire that government should have absolutely no hand in religion's sustenance.

 

We have numerous religious items on display in public - the Egyptian wing of any museum contains nothing but religion - even the mummies are so because of religion. I don't hear you saying to rip out such things of the museum (mainly publicly funded) - what about Roman artifacts - most of the fine statutes are of various roman gods - even the days of the week you are using are named after gods - Thursday - thor's day, Saturday - saturn's day, Sunday - suns day, etc. Do you seek to remove these religious things in your life?

Why is it only the Christian things that must be removed by "atheists" and never the pagan religious things.

As a Christian I recognize the importance of other artifacts - despite there obviously religious significance which is an opposing world view to my own.

 

Guess my usage has always been more or less in line with what others use:

For as I said once,

And it seems close enough for me. However one constructs it, the idea that America has been in so many ways uninvolved in world affairs - that America is not naturally "globalist" in outlook, isn't supported by history. Foreign Affairs says it well, and I'm a bit cashed, so forgive the cut and paste, all:

(Excerpt)
The Myth of American Isolationism

Side topic, discussed previously, but America's involvement in the world is historically embedded.

Oh, and, uh, I'm for mutually profitable engagements, and not for meddling in other affairs in a way that redounds harm to America, and harm to the country meddled with.

 

I personally don't have any issue with historical artifacts on public grounds; religion is part of mankind's history, and its importance as a historical resource is undeniable. (Part of why, by the way, on this forum I could not (and cannot) justify the calls by some on this forum to censor Wikipedia's choice to include historical images of the Prophet of Islam).

I haven't mentioned it here, though I have elsewhere. Beyond the apparent belief on the part of the Founders I discuss above that a Wall of Separation was constitutionally demanded, part of my problem with the debate comes to the ridiculousness of the "No Preference Doctrine," in terms of its implications.

By this doctrine - the only other doctrine discussed, with respect to the constitutional issues of Church and State - are we to truly make room for every single faith known to mankind, on every single piece of public ground? From marble copies of the Mosaic covenant to the copies of the Banana Leaf Scrolls of the Great Hawaiian Chant of the Divine, the Kumulipo? From Scenes from the Crucifixion to Scenes from Santeria? Even by this doctrine, should government allow one, it must allow all. And that is untenable.

 

It may seem like a collectivist judgment to you, but it is not.

 

And that surprises me how?

Right, because peace and friendship is a uniquely libertarian idea...

It defines how you define globalism, but either way, you are splitting hairs.

I'm right, and you misuse the term isolationist.

Off topic, you do realize that the Founders set up a libertarian state? That the Constitution is like 98% good enough for libertarians? Probably more so than most if not all other political ideologies?