Posted: 9/8/2006 3:51:48 AM EDT
|
Having read many ARFCOM posts on the topic of religion, I think I now understand why the Ten Commandments are so offensive. Ten Commandments 1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Many people consider themself God, so let's nix this one. 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. This definately has to go. If I want to sound like a vulgar asshole it should be my right to do so. 3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day. No way on this one for getting drunk on Sunday is the only thing to look forward to in my life. This just has to go. 4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother. Which mother and father? This one is just two damn confusing and besides, I owe them nothing. They owe me. This has to go. 5. Thou shalt not kill. This has to go. It has no exceptions. Some people just deserve killing and I'm an internet warrior. 6. Thou shalt not commit adultery. You're kidding right? My pecker does all my thinking in that regard and little fun never hurt anyone, well maybe my ex-wife but we're not married anymore. This just has to go. 7. Thou shalt not steal. This is another absolute and has to go. After all, if I have a need and take it from a company like Walmart, that isn't stealing. It's against nature to deny a need and I'm a product of evolution and have needs. 8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. This doesn't take into consideration your neighbor is an asshole or posts on ARFCOM. Nix this one. 9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife. You're kidding again right? If he didn't want me to covet her then he should have put her in a sack so I can't see her. A man can't deny his nature. This one is just stupid. 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods. This one is just plain dumb. That asshole doesn't deserve anything I don't have. After all, in nature the strong take from the weak. This has to go as well Tj 
|
|
nah, I just like the other set of 10 Commandments better 1. Worship no other god than Yahweh: Make no covenant with the inhabitants of other lands to which you go, do not intermarry with them, and destroy their places of worship. 2. Do not cast idols. 3. Observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread for seven days in the month of Abib. 4. Sacrifice firstborn male animals to Yahweh. The firstborn of a donkey may be redeemed; redeem firstborn sons. 5. Do no work or even kindle a fire on the seventh day. Anyone who does so will be put to death. 6. Observe the Feast of First Fruits and the Feast of Ingathering: All males are therefore to appear before Yahweh three times each year. 7. Do not mix sacrificial blood with leavened bread. 8. Do not let the fat of offerings remain until the morning. 9. Bring the choicest first fruits of the harvest to the Temple of Yahweh. 10. Do not cook a goat in its mother's milk. I think the 10 Commandments of Solon are more useful to a free people. 1. Trust good character more than promises. 2. Do not speak falsely. 3. Do good things. 4. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made. 5. Learn to obey before you command. 6. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful. 7. Make reason your supreme commander. 8. Do not associate with people who do bad things. 9. Honor the gods. 10. Have regard for your parents. |
| The reason I at least find the public diplay of the ten commandments in tax supported buildings and institutions offensive is that they are exclusive. If one does not accept the judeao-christian belief or ethic can one expect a fair reception in that building or institution? |
|
Good stuff TJ Reminds me of George Carlins take on them. GEORGE CARLIN ON THE 10 COMMANDMENTS from "Complaints and Grievances" (HBO special) Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10? You simply do not need ten. The list of ten commandments was artificially and deliberately inflated to get it up to ten. Here's what happened: About 5,000 years ago a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to try to figure out how to control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so they announced that God had given them some commandments, up on a mountain, when no one was around. Well let me ask you this- when they were making this shit up, why did they pick 10? Why not 9 or 11? I'll tell you why- because 10 sound official. Ten sounds important! Ten is the basis for the decimal system, it's a decade, it's a psychologically satisfying number (the top ten, the ten most wanted, the ten best dressed). So having ten commandments was really a marketing decision! It is clearly a bullshit list. It's a political document artificially inflated to sell better. I will now show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a little more workable and logical. I am going to use the Roman Catholic version because those were the ones I was taught as a little boy. Let's start with the first three: I AM THE LORD THY GOD THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH Right off the bat the first three are pure bullshit. Sabbath day? Lord's name? strange gods? Spooky language! Designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious nonsense like this apply to the lives of intelligent civilized humans in the 21st century. So now we're down to 7. Next: HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER Obedience, respect for authority. Just another name for controlling people. The truth is that obedience and respect shouldn't be automatic. They should be earned and based on the parent's performance. Some parents deserve respect, but most of them don't, period. You're down to six. Now in the interest of logic, something religion is very uncomfortable with, we're going to jump around the list a little bit. THOU SHALT NOT STEAL THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS Stealing and lying. Well actually, these two both prohibit the same kind of behavior- dishonesty. So you don't really need two you combine them and call the commandment "thou shalt not be dishonest". And suddenly you're down to 5. And as long as we're combining I have two others that belong together: THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTRY THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE Once again, these two prohibit the same type of behavior. In this case it is marital infidelity. The difference is- coveting takes place in the mind. But I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife because what is a guy gonna think about when he's waxing his carrot? But, marital infidelity is a good idea so we're gonna keep this one and call it "thou shalt not be unfaithful". And suddenly we're down to four. But when you think about it, honesty and infidelity are really part of the same overall value so, in truth, you could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments and give them simpler language, positive language instead of negative language and call the whole thing "thou shalt always be honest and faithful" and we're down to 3. THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR"S GOODS This one is just plain fuckin' stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going! Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "o come o ye faithful", and you want one too! Coveting creates jobs, so leave it alone. You throw out coveting and you're down to 2 now- the big honesty and fidelity commandment and the one we haven't talked about yet: THOU SHALT NOT KILL Murder. But when you think about it, religion has never really had a big problem with murder. More people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. All you have to do is look at Northern Ireland, Cashmire, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the World Trade Center to see how seriously the religious folks take thou shalt not kill. The more devout they are, the more they see murder as being negotiable. It depends on who's doin the killin' and who's gettin' killed. So, with all of this in mind, I give you my revised list of the two commandments: Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie. & Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you. Two is all you need; Moses could have carried them down the hill in his fuckin' pocket. I wouldn't mind those folks in Alabama posting them on the courthouse wall, as long as they provided one additional commandment: Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself. |
LOL, This was funnier than my post. Yep, I can pretty much gurantee you you don't accept the ethic then you aren't going to be treated fairly. Taking a religious symbol or actually in this case an example of early law as well out of court still won't help you much if you broke "Thou shall not kill". You see that is the point of all laws, it really doesn't matter much what you think. As for that topic, well I really don't care if it is there or not there. I don't care if the Star of David was there, a Budda statue, crescent moon, or hell the Spagetti Monster. I do care that the federal government gives a shit one way or the other. The one thing I don't want is the federal government in the religion business pro or con. Especially con for athiestic governments have had historically dismal human rights and freedom records. The whole thing has gotten way out of hand. Recently a football coach in the liberal city near by me was repremended and actual temporary suspension cause he had to the odastiy to suggest to some trouble child they pray. Children have been suspended in the same city for having Bibles in their backpacks, yet Muslim children in the same school are given time off to pray. Look at your own schools and what federal intervention has done. Nobody left behind in some states has been disasterous and now taken as nobody has to know shit. One thing in my early life I learned through my military days was the federal government screws up everything they touch. It's best to keep them out of the micro business. Glad you other guys are enjoying the thread. I knew you would, hopefully both sides of the ten. This forum often takes it's self too seriously and a little levity can't hurt. Tj |
How about the 10 commandments of Throndox the Unkept 1. Thou shalt burn thy enemies village 2. Thou shalt burn thy enemies children 3. Thou shalt burn thy enemies mom 4. Thou shalt burn thy enemies cat 5. Thou shlat burn thy enemies nintnedo 6. Thou shalt burn thy enemies stash 7. Thou shalt burn thy enemies Jordans 8. Quick shower 9. Thou shalt burn thy enemies mix tapes 10. Lunch  |
Our Deist founders well illustrated that it is abundantly possible to subcribe to Judeo-Christian ethics without accepting Jewish or Christian theology. |
you're being disingenuous. Murder and theft were against common law (the basis for our legal system), which was around before the conversion to Christianity. They are points of commonality with Christian ethics, but they are not based on Christian ethics. The first 3 of the comandments you listed are not part of our laws and our freedom of religion guarantees they never will. Adultery is viewed as a moral failing, not a criminal one. I can go on if you'd like. I'm kind of surprised, your normally one of the Christians who seems to have a balanced view of matters. That little rant could have come straight from the Christian Nationalist playbook. |
DOes that include the first commandment? |
And herein we see the division between matters of ethics, and those of theology. The first commandment is purely a matter of theology. Deists do not subscribe to the hashem (respectful word meaning 'the name') of the G-d of the Bible. Deists are emphatically monotheistic as compared to polytheistic though. Ours is "The Creator". This concept we share with Jews and Christians to the extent of excluding other gods. Jews and Christians differ from Deists in ascribing revealed texts to that Creator, and anthropomorphic characterisation, among other differences. We do not. A Deist can accept the *singularity* of the "I" in "I am you G-d, you should have no others". We are simply much, much more abstract in what is the Nature of that Singularity. This is an excellent debate
|
Well since you got serious on me, no that post was pretty realistic. You see despite how anyone wants to change the world and the taking of the Ten Commandments out of the court, for now if you are in a US court odds are ten out of the twelve jurors deciding your fate will be in fact be either Jewish or Christian and it is there right to be so. Despite how a judge instructs them to not let things they consider a moral failing in their eyes to influence their decision or how much they try to not let it, it will still be. To put that bluntly using your example, if it comes down to his word against his word, the admitted adulterer isn't on as firm a ground as someone who isn't. A big big part of jury duty as any juror can tell you is weighing the truth of each testimony and in fact making a judgement. Everyones judgement is influnenced by what they perceive is ethical. Like it or not, that document represents well over 80% of America's concept of ethics. In some ways taking that out of the courts is almost an injustice for in many ways it was warning. BTW, The Ten Commandments was Jewish before it was Christian and Christs teachings changed the percepton of some of those laws paticularly the Sabbath which is another thread floating around this forum. Tj |
really? that would explain things like the well-known American habits for 1) refraining from cursing 2) respect for life such that we have one of the lowest murder rates in any devoped country 3) our nations excellent treatment of senior citizens 4) not working on Sunday or allowing commerce on sundays 5) low incidence of spousal infidelity 6) rejection of greed as a motivational principle ... oh wait  80% of American's claim to be Christian, very few seem to use the decalogue (either of them) as a moral guide. |
LOL, You know it's posts like this and of course others that bring me back to this forum from time to time. I always get such a kick how guys with your point of view post this stuff like it is some kind of revelation. You just listed many of the reasons I don't buy into organized religion and why I don't go to church. Not that I wouldn't but it's been years since I found one that wasn't 80% hypocrits. You see as a young man I saw first hand why Christ kicked the money handlers out of the church and no more buy into gain your salvation by pay your bucks, sprinkle some water, and live how you want to any more than the literal translation of the Bible. I too see the inconsistences in a book commissioned by a King to be poetic and non-contraversial a tranlation of a translation written by 75 men in committee. Adding me to a church would be paramount to just adding one more hypocrit. It tarnished me and even turned me from religion all together. For years I hated those folks and what they stood for. Then I met this man, a good friend, who claimed to be an Athiest yet he hated God. Turns out, his prayers to save his young daughters life went unheeded. It struck this inconsistency of how can you hate something you don't believe in? Oh, this didn't win me over but opened my eyes to my own self. It took meeting a few folks who actually do live the life to make me curious enough again to seek answers rather than automatically dismiss them. You see they all had one thing in common. This cat who just ate the mouse grin and happy beyond my imagination. I studied the teachings of Christ once again this time with an open eyes approach doing my best to not let the bias of my youth pro or con influence me. I realized of all the anchient writings this was the best by far for you got the same story from different eyes and no matter how you translate it the univeral truths are still there. Oh I can't say I was a Christian at that point but I did learn a thing. I have little doubt how much better the world would be if we all just tried a little to live up to those expectations. What a world we would have. Still I know only Christ could have lived up to that for I know I can't. I know I'm not perfect. Heck, I'm far from it. Heck, I am the last person to cast stones for my house's glass is so brittle a brease would break it. I can't tell you who's going to heaven or hell for I dare not have the audacity to speak for God. I read. I believe it is Luke 23, where Christ told the theif who asked for nothing more than to be remembered that he will be by his side with his father. Who goes where and what is the domain God, not man, least of all me an imperfect man. What I can tell you is I too once did not believe and didn't care for those who did especially the "You gonna burn boy" types. I actually hated them. I can tell you that I found my own peace with Christ/s teachings and through it lifted a bitter burden from my soul. I now feel more sorry for the hypocrit than the athiest for the hypocrit has seen the path but refuses to walk it. You see each man's path in life is his own and in walking, though surrounded by people, we are still alone. When we close our eyes at night, the world is gone and we ultimately alone face our concious and subconcious. It is then for the briefest moment we see into our souls. We can either burden our souls or lighten them. I an tell you my path to lightening the load but I can't tell you it is the only path for I'm not God. I can tell you I beleive it is a path others can follow, not me, but their own path to the same goal. I'm not here to convert anyone to anything. all I did was share how the burden was lifted from me. Oh we may say we love and thrive on the stress of life but one day your body just may tell you otherwise which was what happened to me. I was so stubborn it took a near death experience to see the light. Now I only know what a fool I am and have been on oh so many things from religion to what I thought was important in life. Oh, well. There's Tj and enough heavy stuff for one night. Now, its time to go back to my sinning ways and have a nice cold beer. Tj |
Just to play the devil's advocate here, I reckon several Romans fell short of the Virtues, and more than a few ancient Egyptians' hearts overtipped the scales when weighed against Ma'at. Quite a number of Buddhists have strayed from the Dhammapada's eightfold path, and it is rumored that quite a few Hindus observe the yamas and niyamas primarily in their breach. Every great civilisation has had a more or less excellent standard, codified set of rules for boths morals and ethics. And the majority of every great people has fallen quite short of them. And before our brothers of the revealed faiths correct us, I would offer that each set of standards has been set up as a goal to which one is to aspire, and that Christianity and Judaism each has its format for atonement when we humans fall short as we inevitably do. |
LOL, Very good. I love a learned man. Yes, I sure did. I wanted the numbers and the Catholic version was shorter. It's a freedom we non-denominationals take that yes the finger pointers tell us we will burn for. Tj |
Those sure look different than the ones Moses had. #10 got split up into 2 commandments? Sorry I prefer the classic Jewish version of the big 10. |
They were not all Deists just as they were not all Christians. Like today they represented many views. They were just not as hostile about it like todays liberals are. |
you convert to Islam? Beer isn't a sin. Beer and the Dallas Cowboys are the only two evidences for God's existence that I know of. |
Did I call it, or did I call it? Wildboar here has seen the original tablets complete with Roman Numerals separating each commandment  .
|
Just what did you call exactly? I said I prefer the older version better and I am sure most learned Jews here will agree that the numbered version posted is probaly incorrect. I am pretty sure the Jews know a thing or two about Moses and the 10 commandments. I dont need to see the originals but I feel secure in our Jewish friends and their long standing tradition of preserving the texts. As for Flames? No, not from me but you are certainly being the hypocrite by trying to kindle one. |
Now thats a topic for a different thread sure to get flames going. I propbably would avoid it all together myself. I dont have the cajones to start a thread like that let alone participate. |
When someone says "our deist founders" it could mean simply that she was referring to our founders who were deist. Our southern founders would refer to our founders who were from the southern states. Our non-Christian founders would refer to the founders who were not Christian. |
I actually completely read the thrad wrong. My apolgies to Psyops. I jumped the gun and assumed they were labeling all the FF as Deist or only the Deists worked on the religious freedoms. I have heard that from some antichristian Deists (not all Deists are rabid antichristians) before and I jumped the gun and judged you. Please accept my appology. |
|
Thomas Jefferson was a Diest with strong ties to Christianity. He regularly attended church, however with time and a heavy dose of Ben Franklin doubted the Holy Trinity. His writings on religion are interesting. He had a strong attachment to the teachings of Christ from a philosophical stand point. Despite this tie, he as other of our founders were students of history and not blind but saw the influence organized religion has on the people. This was espcially true at that time in the northern colonies which were founded in large part on religious freedom. They saw the need to separate church and state not only to keep religion out of government but government out of religion. This is very important these days that we not forget. Freedom is big word that never comes cheaply but with a high cost in blood and sacrafice. Our founders never intended this nation to be a nation without religion. In fact, God is prominently mentioned in all kinds of our founding fathers writings and early government documents. Under the guise now of polical correctness and not being offensive, our government has set out on a path which in fact limits religious freedom. I'm talking about prayer in school here for in many area it has gone way beyond that. The slippery slope we've slid is from the school not endorsing prayer to limiting the students from practicing relgion. Whether you are religious or not, losing the right to be so if you chose is losing freedom. Religous icons such as the Ten Commandments being removed from public buildings is such an example. I don't know about you guys but I'm not going to get religion by seeing some icon whether it is Christian or not. I am offended by an icon is a poor excuse to slide down the slope of limiting choice. It has gone so far that court decisions on the matter and even school school policy often slants to outright endorsement of a relgion in the sake of not offending certain minorities. Our founders never intended for the US to be a homogenous society with everyone living the same way let alone believeing the same religion. Intergration to eliminate prejudices such as race is an entirely different thing from integration forcing religion. Though I am not Amish, I totally support their freedom to not only be so but segregate themselves if they so choose. The age of religion also doesn't make it not a religion. We tend to label all segragated religious or heck non-religous espcecially non-Christian peoples these days as cults. The government in doing so usually applies Christian standards. The extreme example of course is Waco, where though they claimed to be Christian deviated from the Christian norm. Im not looking for a debate here for some groups are indeed cults and should not be allowed to deviate from common law on religious grounds. Still no matter how you shake that tree, it is the government making the call on what is normal and what is not in the religous realm. I can't stress this enough though Christian deviations are the ones who make the media coverage, it is non-Christian that is stomped on the fastest. There are political, votes, involved here. It is to all our benifits to get government out of the religion business in any form not only from endorsing relgion but limiting religous freedom. Every American should have the right to believe what he wants to believe. If you want a why, just look at the mess we have cause government wanted to get into the marriage business. Tj |
Shalom. Shalom, Friend No apology necessary, but it is very gracious for you to extend such an eloquent one.  Looking back, I should have worded that better: "Our founders who were Deist..." We freely and gratefully acknowledge the Judeo-Christian system of ethics, and always have. During the Age of Enlightenment/ French and American Revolutions when Deism sprang into conciousness as a distinct "religion", there was very little *overt* way to tell if one was Deist or theologically liberal Christian or Jew. The matters of how literally one accepted texts as "revealed scripture" or as "human writing" was generally considered matters to be decided inside a gentleman or gentlewoman's own mind and heart. Indeed many of our founders were invaluably strengthened and motivated by the literal version of fundamentalist Christianity. Others such as Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine totally disavowed anything in the way of "faith" that was not consistent with Science and Reason. Most were probably somewhere in between. BUT it was a time when the European settlers in North America held a cohesive set of values, be they Protestant, Catholic, Baptist, Jewish or Deist. And those values were -- and are -- very much those of the ethical commandments of the Decalogue. Nowadays, with the advent of forced "multiculturalism", when we are being taught that all religions are equal -- including things like satanism and wahabi islam -- we as Americans sadly do not share the ethical grounding of the Decalogue (and the Golden Rule, espoused by both Jesus and Rabbi Hillel) And it needs to repeated as often as necessary that we gratefully share the same ethics as Jews and Christians. Deists are not anti-Christian or anti-Jew in the least. Deists are anti-superstition. But we Deists have faith -- yes, faith -- that our Good Creator which endowed us with Reason and Science is the best when it comes to dissolving superstition from the human mind, and we feel no compunction to go around confronting what we percieve as superstition, but which is faith to others when that faith uplifts and comforts them in a wholesome way consistent with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We do however, strongly oppose the legalised imposition of fundamentalism of any sort upon the populace. Do I as a Deist actively favor posting the Ten Commandments in public places? Not if it is at taxpayer expense. I wouldn't favor posting monuments at taxpayer expense announcing that "Water is Wet" either. Do I have a problem with leaving the Decalogue there if it's already in place? Not at all. The Ten Commandments are a good thing. |
|
This is a very interesting thread to me because unlike the other "Christian" forums that I regularly participate in, this thread includes other faiths not necessarily Christian. I especially find the inclusion of deism interesting. When trying to understand the original intent of the founders, it is difficult to understand the contribution of deists without every meeting such a person. Is it not true that 90% or more of the signers were Christian and that many were practicing ministers? And is it also true that Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were the only two prominent founding fathers that were deists? And finally, is it not true that the deism that they espoused was never meant to hinder the free exercise of any religion? I have been told that both Franklin and Jeferson were very wealthy men and that they financially supported many many Christian groups with their money. My point and question is that these men did not personally believe that it was wrong to support the spread of religion as members of the secular government. Today. many claim that the seperation of church and state must be used to purge all government support of religion when it seems that these founding fathers who were deists practiced the opposite. They seemed to think that the best way to keep from a state sponsored religion was to support the growth of them all. Franklin in particular seemed to believe that diversity was healthy. He did not seem to believe that white-washing the public forum of all religious expression or discussion was the way to carry out the non-establishment of religion clause. He just seemed to believe that one denomination should not be exclusively state sponsored like the Church of England. Thus, the idea of a nativity scene along side a minorah makes sense to me as opposed to removing both. Also, allowing students to take turns leading in the morning prayer of their choice would also seem like a good non-establishment practice. Today, it seems that we way over-emphasize the "non-establishment" part of this amendment and way under-emphasize the "not hinder the free exercise thereof" part. Yet, the small minority of non-Christians among the founders seemed to have it the other way around in their personal lives and this reflects their original intent better than trying to disect the original meaning of their language. I am not a historian so feel free to correct my misconceptions at will. |
Franklin and Jefferson were not the only Deistic FF's. They are simply the ones very few Christians will argue about. Two other such FF's were Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine. You can make a case for several other FF's, but we lack authoritative statements like those we have for the men mentioned above, so an argument can be made they were Christians. This usually relies on attending a Christian Church, but Franklin, Jefferson, and Allen all attended Church regularly. Deism wasn't an organized religion so finding out who was Deist is kind of hard to do. Many of our FF's were not as famous as men like Franklin and Jefferson, so letters which might have shed light on the issue weren't as carefully preserved, or not preserved at all. I think you are correct that the FF's would have preferred to sponsor all equally. Unfortunately, modern Christians aren't so kind. They sometimes misuse the majority power to ensure other religions are not given equal support. Case in point: an organization by the name of Summum has won court cases against municipalities in Utah for refusing to allow the group to erect a monument of Summum aphorisms next to the Ten Commandments. The cases were won on the grounds that Summum's right to freedom of speech was denied and the governments had engaged in discrimination. Instead of allowing Summum to erect its monument, the local governments chose to remove their Ten Commandments. So much for equal treatment, eh. If modern Christians (as a whole) had the same tolerant attitude as our FF's, it wouldn't be an issue. Since they do not, we will continue to bicker over it. |
Oh, don't be such a weenie . . .  . . . besides, YOU brought it up . . .
|
|
At the time, the founders' most immediate concern was to disavow any attempt to establish a State Church, such as the Church of England. In modern times we face two primary challenges, and both Christians and non-Christians glean through the founders' personal writings looking for words in support of their position. 1) To what degree should or shouldn't the government in any way subsidise a religion (obviously in this case, Christianity)? The great tendency is that generally the government is not to use taxpayer money to support one religion over another. We obviously don't have a "Church of America". But valid questions come up regarding paid holidays for Christmas, but not for holidays of other faiths. 2) To what degree should government prevent expression of religion, such as in a case we recently debated here, about a Christian minister who gave a public school graduation speak in which he spoke of Christ as the only way to "salvation" and exhorted the audience to all become Christian. I too would be very curious what our founders would have recommended in individual cases like these. Personally I tend to favor policies which fully acknowledge our Judeo-Christian heritage, but I fully respect and often staunchly defend the position of 'people not of faith' or of 'another faith' who feel excluded and offended when one religion (obviously Christianity here in America) attempts to use public money to in any way promote their religion. |
|
I fully appreciate the concerns of other faiths when it comes to spending their tax dollars to support another religion or any religion in general. What I do get tired of is the concern that they have to 'see' the free exercise of another religion or that they feel excluded when religion is exercised freely in the public square. I do not have to stop and look if there is a minora in the lobby in city hall and I personally thank my God when I see this because it reminds me that I live in a country where our founding fathers had the foresight to permit this free exercise and to outlaw the hinderance of this free exercise of the Jewish faith (though it is not my faith). As I read the constitution and the language of the founders, I do not see that they intended to protect the intolerence of those of a different faith than mine or those of no faith. We should all be big enough to just look the other way and to go about our own business rejoicing that we live in such a melting pot country. The fact that Christianity is the majority faith here automatically assumes that there will be more Christian expression in the public square if the government does not hinder the free exercise of religion. An attempt to make the minority beliefs to have an equal amount of or lack of public expression will automatically promote a hinderance to free exercise. This is the price for living in a free society where your chosen faith is in the minority. I would expect the same if I chose to live in a predominantely Muslem nation. I would expect that being in the minority would mean that my Christian beliefs would be less visible, but hopefully equally tolerated in the public buildings and square. |
|
You know I always get a kick out of the argument the government subsidising religion as an excuse for the Ten Commandment removals. It totally doesn't take into account that for the most part, they were already there to begin with and it cost us tax dollars to remove them. At the same time this was a major contraversy, the Federal governmnent gave a grant to an artist in Cinncinatti to do a so called art exhibition that depicted Christ in a jar of urine. The whole argument pales tremendously when you look at the millions if not billions of tax dollars lost by allowing religious establishments to be tax exempt. How can this inconsistancy in policy exsist? Its a pretty simple principle. It is the will of the majority for the most part, however what erks those the most about the Ten Commandment contraversy was it was not congress or the will of the people but a minority through legal action and the supreme court changing goverment policy. Guys I could care less if a religous icon is displayed in a goverment building no more than if art is but I do care that the supreme court a non-elected position for life is making such calls. Claiming that would be the intent or will of the founding fathers in this place was total bullshit. As much bullshit as claiming the government has the right to take private property to turn around and give it to another private citizen for profit is. What we have is kings setting on their thrones wearing black robes rather than purple and I have little doubt how our foudning fathers, all of them, felt about kings. There is no doubt in my mind that our founding fathers never intended our government operate by the Supreme Court or court system establishing policy or law then putting the burden on congres, elected by the people, to either ratify or change that policy or law. You know I was a young man when the Roe vs Wade ruling was passed down. I don't want to even touch on the issue as right or wrong, moral or not, but I can tell you that there is so much bullshit surrounding that now that most Americans actually believe at the time of the ruling there was no abortion available in the US. That is a bold face lie. Just as now religous persecution is being thrown up as the reason to remove Ten Commandments. Grow up people, its not persecution to see a religious icon no more than it is to hear a prayer from a denomination that you don't particularly adhere to. It is religious persecution to tell an individual that he can't express his personal religious views which is NOW what we are seeing in our schools. Freedom of speach was and is the first admendment. The case I mentioned where the coach an individual told a student one on one to to pray and read the bible (no mention of Christ or salvation or which bible) has passed the point of government involvement in promoting relgion to government censorship of religion. An even more famous example was the school teacher censored for having the famous depiction of Washington praying. What bullshit surrounded that one. He really didn't do that was paramount to saying well Washington never really prayed. Give me a break. How stupid to they think the average citizen is? Pretty damn stupid I guess for we are givng up or freedoms as fast as we can and what boggles my mind it is for the stupidest reason I can think of which is we don't want anyones feelings hurt. By catering to the few, one day we will all wake up with a feelings hurt. Tj |
 My friend, I wouldn't stay up late waiting for that to happen.But such a comparison does serve to illustrate two things 1) How wonderful it is that we are indeed free to personally display our own faith, and 2) How very different various religions are in tolerating other faiths. I mean the local Christian fundamentalist evangelicals determined to convert me can be a bit annoying. But none of them has undertaken to stone me in the public square for wearing shorts. |
If punishment for murder (And I include abortion as murder) Was conducted the way they did in the Old School we wouldn't have such a high murder rate. It's trying to understand and communicate with and reafirm murderers that has turned this nation into an unsafe place. If folks knew they were going to be hung or beheaded or gutted two days after being found guilty of murder... I bet fewer people would do it. If you got your hand chopped off for stealing I bet we wouldn't have much of that either. Or your Dipity Doo got cut off for rape. Christians had a good system... Democrats messed it up. |