Ten Commandment challenges spread

[zakur]

Ten Commandment challenges spread (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0804/p01s01-uspo.html?mostViewed)

Some 3,300 years after Moses descended from Mount Sinai, a debate over the Ten Commandments is raging in towns and cities across America.

From Cambridge, Mass., to Montgomery, Ala., to Everett, Wash., state and local officials are scrambling to defend the placement of the Ten Commandments in government buildings or on public land.

In some cases, monuments and plaques depicting the Ten Commandments have been on display for decades. But now their placement on government property is increasingly being challenged by groups who say such displays violate the US Constitution's mandated separation between church and state. "The rulings are now mostly against the Ten Commandments. The tide has turned," says Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation in Madison, Wis.

The disputes are part of a larger national debate over how much entanglement of religion and government the Constitution permits, including questions about the inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

"This is a culture war," says Edward White, a lawyer with the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich. "You have certain groups who are trying to secularize this country and stamp out every image of our Judeo-Christian heritage. The fight is being fought everywhere."

[Upchurch]

"This is a culture war," says Edward White, a lawyer with the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich. "You have certain groups who are trying to secularize this country and stamp out every image of our Judeo-Christian heritage. The fight is being fought everywhere."In a sense, that is true. However, instead of "certain groups trying to secularize this country", I'd say they're trying to bring the country back to it's original principles of a secular state.

Further, no one is trying to "stamp out every image of our Judeo-Christian heritage." As far as I can tell, they are only trying to remove one religion's symbolic presense from the government.
"The rulings are now mostly against the Ten Commandments. The tide has turned," says Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation in Madison, Wis.(my emphesis)

Quite. And it's about time we returned to this founding principle.

[Tmy]

I cant stand these people. These 10 commandment things always fail, why do they keep wasting everyones time.

I wish I was a Satanist. Then Id try to get devil prayer groups in public schools, have pentagrams displays at Town hall and do every dopey thing the bible thumpers do. Then sit back and watch there ironic and hypocritical complaining.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tmy
I cant stand these people. These 10 commandment things always fail, why do they keep wasting everyones time. What I don't really understand is the origin of this concept that the US is somehow a Christian country. By design, that is specifically what it isn't.

[Tmy]

They should get more creative. Like posting the 5 or 6 secular commandments and seeing if they can get away with it.

The dopeyest thing is that these people think that if they could post the 10 commandments all over, then the world would suddenly become a better place.

[Tricky]

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore has lost his appeal (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2029641) in Federal Court to allow his "Ten Commandment" monument to remain. The only place left to go is the Supreme Court, but he says he will do so.

And we wonder why the courts are overloaded.:rolleyes:

[Tony]

I wonder if this is really about constitutionality or ideology.

I have a feeling these groups wouldnt give a damn if the constitution was being ignored if they agreed with it.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tricky
Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore has lost his appeal (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2029641) in Federal Court to allow his "Ten Commandment" monument to remain. The only place left to go is the Supreme Court, but he says he will do so. Amazing that an Alabama Supreme Court Justice doesn't understand what America is all about...

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Amazing that an Alabama Supreme Court Justice doesn't understand what America is all about...
Not really surprising. Supreme court justices are elected in Alabama. If your constituency is full of bible-thumpers, then your elected officials will be bible-thumpers. Remember, this is Alabama we're talking about.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony
I wonder if this is really about constitutionality or ideology.It think it's both, actually. It is a Constitutional issue, after all, but there is also the ideology of the Founding Fathers to consider, which is what is being defended by removing these religious symbols from public government grounds.
I have a feeling these groups wouldnt give a damn if the constitution was being ignored if they agreed with it. Perhaps, humans being humans. However, you'll note that no one is trying to post anything else in the 10 commandment's place.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
....you'll note that no one is trying to post anything else in the 10 commandment's place.

Only because ya'all can't agree on anything. That's why you need the materialist/atheist Policy Manual (Mathematics of Morality for Secular Humanists). Note that writing it would just be the start; then you will need to convince a large enough group of followers, raise your own army, & then we will all do things "your way".

As it is you remain a tiny -- but vocal -- mini-minority in the US. Have moral anarchists like yourselves ever organized to effectively "govern" anything for more than a day or two?

Originally posted by Upchurch

It is a Constitutional issue, after all, but there is also the ideology of the Founding Fathers to consider, which is what is being defended by removing these religious symbols from public government grounds.
Too bad more people don't agree with the logic/premises you use to arrive at that conclusion. Unless you have defined "attack" to mean "defend"?

[ShowMe]

Originally posted by hammegk

As it is you remain a tiny -- but vocal -- mini-minority in the US. Have moral anarchists like yourselves ever organized to effectively "govern" anything for more than a day or two?

The number of people saying this is not significant to the argument. The separation of Church and State is clearly outlined in the Constitution; nobody here wants to do away with churches. We just want the government to follow the laws that the country was started upon.

Covering your ears and saying "nah nah nah nah" isn't going to do anything.


Too bad more people don't agree with the logic/premises you use to arrive at that conclusion.

Agree completely. Perhaps they should read that old piece of paper sometime, instead of trying to scream us down with the religious rhetoric that cannot stand up to logic?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by ShowMe


The number of people saying this is not significant to the argument. The separation of Church and State is clearly outlined in the Constitution; nobody here wants to do away with churches. We just want the government to follow the laws that the country was started upon.[/b]
Umm, but the majority is not always wrong either. And reasonable people can and do disagree with the meaning & intent of those words.

Remember the question you forgot to answer: Have moral anarchists like yourselves ever organized to effectively "govern" anything for more than a day or two?"

One thing this working long-term society provides is the freedom for you to complain.



...Perhaps they should read that old piece of paper sometime, instead of trying to scream us down with the religious rhetoric that cannot stand up to logic?
Or, maybe you are wrong. That's also a reasonable interpretation of the facts as we know them.

[Scorpy]

You would think that all the persecution Christians have suffered at the hands of their fellow Christians would make them just as determined to keep religion out of government as everyone else. :confused:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tricky

Not really surprising. Supreme court justices are elected in Alabama. If your constituency is full of bible-thumpers, then your elected officials will be bible-thumpers. Remember, this is Alabama we're talking about.

An interesting thought just occurred to me, as distinct from all the other mundane ones I am always having.

The US constitution was supposed to be set up to prevent the 'mob rule', so it is a 'constitutionally limited republic'.

Other countries also have tried to get away from the 'mob rule' problem with similar limitations in their constitutions.

However, nowhere else, to my knowledge, does the political process directly link to the legal process, as in, directly electing judges, DAs, etc. These areas, in Australia for example, are handled indirectly from the Political process to prevent the mob rule problem. If a government comes up with a bad law, it can be struck down by the courts. (Now, I am not naive enought to think that the courts are not subject to political views, but you get the idea, government elected, puts up laws, legal system, enelected, but answerable to the laws of the land).

By electing legal officials, you are corrupting one of the means of preventing mob rule. Perhaps that is a part of the reason the US has such a high prison population.

Already in Australia, the impostion of 'mandatory' sentencing is being imposed on the legal system, much to the concern of the judiciary, who see the political arm of government imposing too much on the legal arm.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk
Only because ya'all can't agree on anything. That's why you need the materialist/atheist Policy Manual (Mathematics of Morality for Secular Humanists). Note that writing it would just be the start; then you will need to convince a large enough group of followers, raise your own army, & then we will all do things "your way".hammegk, this is rather a quick conclusion to jump to, even for you. I'm not suggesting anything replace it, nor is anyone else that I'm aware of. Other than smart-alecs who recommend Muslim, Hindu, or Satanic passages, but I don't think they're serious. And if they were, I would oppose that as well.
It is a Constitutional issue, after all, but there is also the ideology of the Founding Fathers to consider, which is what is being defended by removing these religious symbols from public government grounds.As it is you remain a tiny -- but vocal -- mini-minority in the US. Have moral anarchists like yourselves ever organized to effectively "govern" anything for more than a day or two? First of all, "moral anarchist"? Where do you get anything akin to anarchy in anything I've said?

Second, this isn't explicitly a moral issue. It's an issue of ideology. If you are familiar with American history, you know that one of the primary principles that the Founding Fathers wanted included in the formation of this country was a government free of an institutionalized, government-mandated state religion. Heck, that was the very reason the pilgrams came to this continent in the first place. It was so important to them that they stated it in the first clause of the First Amendment.

This is ideology is summed up by the rather famous "seperation of church and state" quote by President Thomas Jefferson,Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
You'll note that in the entire Constitution, the only reference to God at all is the phrase, "In the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven", which was common usage then and equivalent to saying "1787 A.D." today.
Too bad more people don't agree with the logic/premises you use to arrive at that conclusion. Unless you have defined "attack" to mean "defend"? I agree that it's a shame that many of the more vocal/political evangelous leaders don't agree with the Framers of the Constitution when they say they want to bring American government "back" under the control of their Christian god, even though it never really was in the first place. That "logic/premise" I used to "arrive at that conclusion" wasn't mine. It was the Continental Congress's.

And when I say "defend", I mean "defend" because our country was started as a secular state and meant to remain a secular state. Causing the U.S. to become a Christian state is an attack on the ideals the country was founded on. In defending the secular state that we are, you defend the ideological foundations of the country.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk
Remember the question you forgot to answer: Have moral anarchists like yourselves ever organized to effectively "govern" anything for more than a day or two?" I forgot to answer it as well. I don't know about "moral anarchists" but the type of government I'm advocating has worked for a little over 216 years.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


An interesting thought just occurred to me, as distinct from all the other mundane ones I am always having.

The US constitution was supposed to be set up to prevent the 'mob rule', so it is a 'constitutionally limited republic'.

Other countries also have tried to get away from the 'mob rule' problem with similar limitations in their constitutions.

However, nowhere else, to my knowledge, does the political process directly link to the legal process, as in, directly electing judges, DAs, etc. These areas, in Australia for example, are handled indirectly from the Political process to prevent the mob rule problem. If a government comes up with a bad law, it can be struck down by the courts. (Now, I am not naive enought to think that the courts are not subject to political views, but you get the idea, government elected, puts up laws, legal system, enelected, but answerable to the laws of the land).

By electing legal officials, you are corrupting one of the means of preventing mob rule. Perhaps that is a part of the reason the US has such a high prison population.

Already in Australia, the impostion of 'mandatory' sentencing is being imposed on the legal system, much to the concern of the judiciary, who see the political arm of government imposing too much on the legal arm.

But aren't the laws used by the legal system written by the democratically elected legistlature?

The mandatory sentences being "imposed" on Australia are being done by the people's representatives. If they pass a mandatory sentence rule, how is that different from any other sentence law?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by hammegk
Umm, but the majority is not always wrong either. And reasonable people can and do disagree with the meaning & intent of those words.

Remember the question you forgot to answer: Have moral anarchists like yourselves ever organized to effectively "govern" anything for more than a day or two?"
Goody goody gumdrops, another "all atheists are immoral" whatchamacallit or somethin'... I'll explain this quickly:

"Moral Anarchy" sure is a harsh term to use, thats not nice. Atheism and Secularism teach no morality. Now now, a lot of people like to use that excuse as a way of saying "all atheists all immoral", that is entirely incorrect. Atheism and secularistics beliefs are moral-neutral. In a secular government, we would establish laws as a "make as many people happy as you can, hurt no one, everyone is equal, etc." fashion (which is very moral I would say). That isnt so hard to understand is it?

One thing this working long-term society provides is the freedom for you to complain.
Freedom of Speech, what's your point.

Or, maybe you are wrong. That's also a reasonable interpretation of the facts as we know them.
I dont follow... :confused:

[Upchurch]

I'm curious. Who here thinks that the writers of the U.S. Constitution intended the U.S. to be a religious Christian state and why?

(maybe I should make a poll...)

[shanek]

Here's the list of ten commandments they should be posting:

Article I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article II

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Article III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by hammegk


Only because ya'all can't agree on anything. That's why you need the materialist/atheist Policy Manual (Mathematics of Morality for Secular Humanists).

Which is really funny, considering that even with a supposedly holy bible, christians can't agree on what the ten commandments are. The ten commandments I learned as a catholic youth are different from those I see put out around here (and are different from those that the Alabama judge posts in his courtroom).

I want to know, how can he select to post that version of the "Ten Commandments" over the catholic version and _not_ be establishing one religion over another?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by shanek
Here's the list of ten commandments they should be posting: Golly. I agree with that.

Looks like us moral anarchists can agree on some things after all.

edited to add: Looks like I was wrong. I guess there really is something that I would like to see posted state and federal government buildings in place of the Judeo-Christian 10 Commandments.

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk

...

Remember the question you forgot to answer: Have moral anarchists like yourselves ever organized to effectively "govern" anything for more than a day or two?"

...I don't know who these so-called "moral anarchists" are, but I will say that people who think like I do founded this country. How's that for doing something effective?

Like me how? They don't believe that the government of said country has a religious basis.

Now I'll take a crack at "moral anarchy": I think it refers to the belief that slavery is really swell, such as you believe.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hgc
I don't know who these so-called "moral anarchists" are Okay, I've been thinking about the term "moral anarchist" and I think hammegk may have inadvertently been on to something.

Consider the following definition of anarchist (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=anarchist): "one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order"

Isn't this what the Revolutionists did? Now, granted, it's a fast and loose usage of the word, especially when you add "moral" to it, but it does work (kinda).

Now, what I object to is that we who advocate that the U.S. remain a secular state are the ones who are the "anarchists" in this scenerio. A secular state is the established order. It is those who advocate making the U.S. a religious state are the ones atempting "to overthrow the established order" and are, therefore, anarchists (kinda).

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc
I don't know who these so-called "moral anarchists" are, but I will say that people who think like I do founded this country.
I think you mistake "moral" for "political". They were sure political anarchists.

You might actually believe that the Founding Fathers might have wasted a millisecond of their valuable time discussing the "logical Reason" incest -- or homosex -- or cannibalism -- or screwing your sheep-- you get the idea -- was "immoral". When enough people share the "eewwww! factor", they can go on to worry about societally beneficial projects.


How's that for doing something effective?
That's my point. It's worked very very well. Why do folks like you want to Balkanize our population into god-knows-how-many special interest groups arguing that their "morality" is as good as that society has used as a cement to hold a given socio-econ-political system together aginst all comers?


Like me how? They don't believe that the government of said country has a religious basis.
Yup, and minorities like yours can be as wrong as majorities.


Now I'll take a crack at "moral anarchy": I think it refers to the belief that slavery is really swell, such as you believe.
I believe you prefer personal attack to substance, as I sometimes do too. :D

No, slavery was not moral; unfortunately for the slaves themselves it was legal. My comments above give you more of my thoughts on moral anarchy. Capische?

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk

I think you mistake "moral" for "political". They were sure political anarchists.I haven't mistaken anything for anything else. You're the one who introduces pointless terminology such as "moral anarchist." I haven't labeled myself or the founders.You might actually believe that the Founding Fathers might have wasted a millisecond of their valuable time discussing the "logical Reason" incest -- or homosex -- or cannibalism -- or screwing your sheep-- you get the idea -- was "immoral". When enough people share the "eewwww! factor", they can go on to worry about societally beneficial projects. No, I don't know whether or not they did. But then I also don't know what this has to do with our discussion. We're talking about putting putting religious symbolism (ie., 10 commandments) in/on or goverment structures, which is a blantant endorsement of religion by our government.That's my point. It's worked very very well. Why do folks like you want to Balkanize our population into god-knows-how-many special interest groups aruing that their "morality" is as good as that society has used as a cement to hold a given socio-econ-political system together aginst all comers?Once again you attribute motives to "folks like [me]" that I don't hold or espouse. People can believe anything they want to believe, religion-wise, and there is an incredible variety of belief in our country, which is a good thing. Is that what you call "balkanization?" But in order for us to have that freedom, it's important that the government stay out of it. It's really not so hard to understand. Why don't you get it?Yup, and minorities like yours can be as wrong as majorities.I'm not making a value judgement, in this discussion, about mine or anyone else's religious beliefs. So what am I wrong about? That the constitution spells out that our government should not be in the religious establishment business? That our the constitution provides protection for the minority against the potential tyranny of the majority?I believe you prefer personal attack to substance, as I sometimes do too. :D

No, slavery was not moral; unfortunately for the slaves themselves it was legal. My comments above give you more of my thoughts on moral anarchy. Capische?No, I don't prefer it, and I haven't done it. I attacked your previous statements that the descendents of slaves benefit today from slavery. This is morally very slippery, as it justifies all kinds of reprehensible things. Why you even slipped in a new equivocation just now -- it was legal. By your logic you might say that Jews who enjoyed the benefit of living in this country for the past many decades instead of having lived in communist eastern Europe ought to be thankful for the holocaust which brought them here.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

I think you mistake "moral" for "political". They were sure political anarchists.

You might actually believe that the Founding Fathers might have wasted a millisecond of their valuable time discussing the "logical Reason" incest -- or homosex -- or cannibalism -- or screwing your sheep-- you get the idea -- was "immoral". When enough people share the "eewwww! factor", they can go on to worry about societally beneficial projects. hammegk, do you see that this is a different thread than the one about the morality of incest? Is your position that America is not a secular state based on fact that those advocating a secular state have an opinion you don't agree with on an unrelated subject?

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk

I think you mistake "moral" for "political". They were sure political anarchists.

...
Well, I don't subscribe to the definition of "anarchist" quoted above by Upchurch. It should include that the established order they are overthrowing is to be replaced by no governmental authority whatsoever. This is obviously not what the founders had in mind or did. They were not political anarchists. I also don't know how such a political (non)system could ever be implemented and the result be called "civilization."

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hgc
Well, I don't subscribe to the definition of "anarchist" quoted above by Upchurch. I don't really either. I was just stretching to try to make sense of what hammegk said (and failing, apparently)

[Hexxenhammer]

I heard a story about seperation of church and state on NPR not too long ago. I guess no one really thought about it until the first half of the 20th century. Then it was turned into something that protestants used to keep Catholics from getting elected. Apparantly protestants were somehow secular since there were more of them. Reap what you sow says I.

And, in an argument similar to the ones my dad uses when talking about gun control, what happens when religion creeps into our government? Our government buildings have religious iconography all over them, kids are forced to pray in school, teaching of evolution is banned from science class, abortion is outlawed, women die in back alley clinics, independant thought is repressed, gays are persecuted, welfare and aid programs are dismantled for "faith based charity", race riots, muslims are lynched for being "terrorists", people have to carry firearms in the open to protect themselves from starving gangs...my God, it'll be a paradise. And then comes the infighting between the differing sects. Catholics vs liberal protestants vs fundamentalists vs jews and they're all against the muslims. Mass chaos.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
And then comes the infighting between the differing sects. Catholics vs liberal protestants vs fundamentalists vs jews and they're all against the muslims. Mass chaos.

In fact, many of the "prayer in school" lawsuits have been sect vs sect. One of the recent famous ones involving the football game prayer in Texas was Catholic/Mormon vs Baptist.

[c0rbin]

What I don't really understand is the origin of this concept that the US is somehow a Christian country. By design, that is specifically what it isn't.


Ask these people to locate the word "God" in the constitution.

Then laugh at them.

[Tmy]

Who really gives a shiznit what "the founding fathers would think" Theyre dead. And have been fora long time. Its not like they were Gods, just men. Politicians at that. Might as well ask "what would President Taft think?"

[c0rbin]

"what would President Taft think?"

More buttered confections, please.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tmy
Who really gives a shiznit what "the founding fathers would think" Well, I give a shiznit. they're the ones that defined what the U.S. is and what it means to be an American (not to be confused with the poster of the same name, in more ways than one).

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc
.....We're talking about putting putting religious symbolism (ie., 10 commandments) in/on or goverment structures, which is a blantant endorsement of religion by our government.
No bubby. What it is is a moral statement, albeit Judeo-Xian. If you can get ya'all together and write up something at least two of you agreed on, post your own moral statement.


That our the constitution provides protection for the minority against the potential tyranny of the majority?
Did you think no similar protection -- which allows the majority their freedom too -- makes sense.


No, I don't prefer it, and I haven't done it. I attacked your previous statements that the descendents of slaves benefit today from slavery.
I say the descendents are better off here than they would be in Africa. Care to refute that?


This is morally very slippery, as it justifies all kinds of reprehensible things. Why you even slipped in a new equivocation just now -- it was legal.
Slippery slope is right, and the moral anarchists (see also egotism of atheists) is pushing us down the slope.


By your logic you might say that Jews who enjoyed the benefit of living in this country for the past many decades instead of having lived in communist eastern Europe ought to be thankful for the holocaust which brought them here.
:eek: No, you said that, not me.

I note that Israel also exists, and also note that Liberia exists (as does Haiti).

The Third Reich is a perfect example of moral relativism in a society. What was "moral" was today's guess by his henchmen of the what The Boss really wants.

[Andonyx]

I'm sorry, "I am the lord thy god thou shalt have no other gods before me" is not a moral statment, it is a religious statment.

'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' Is not a moral statement on any civic or public level, it is religious.

'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.' Is not moral, it is religious.

'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' Is not moral it is religious.

If this is displayed on a Government building, why can I go that building and engage in business or commercial transaction on Sunday?

Or if it's Judeo / Xtian, why does the government do any business from sundown Friday to sundown Sunday?

If it IS a moral statment, then why is the government engaging in immoral behavior.

If statement number two is moral, and not simply religious, why then can they place these commandments in the same room with a statue of Lady justice, or why is our money engraved with the pyramid and the eye logo.

The government is engaging in some awfully immoral behavior.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

No bubby. What it is is a moral statement, albeit Judeo-Xian.What makes you think that a moral statement belongs on public property at all, especially at a site representing the government?
Did you think no similar protection -- which allows the majority their freedom too -- makes sense.The Boy Scouts are a majority in our society? I had no idea.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by hgc
.....We're talking about putting putting religious symbolism (ie., 10 commandments) in/on or goverment structures, which is a blantant endorsement of religion by our government.



No bubby. What it is is a moral statement, albeit Judeo-Xian. If you can get ya'all together and write up something at least two of you agreed on, post your own moral statement.
Well lets review the 10 commandments and analyze them for morality statements:
1. You shall have no other gods before me.
That in no way reflects a moral statement.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
That is not a moral statement.
3. You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
That is a suggestion so you dont offend religious folk... but not a moral statement.
4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
That is not a moral statement.
5. Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

And the final 5 are moral statements.

It would make alot more sense to list the Bill of Rights on the buildings rather than 10 commandments.

[Andonyx]

Psst. Above you.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Andonyx
Psst. Above you. Great minds post alike, I guess.

[Andonyx]

Gee Yahweh, our lists of the commandments seem to differ in some seriously significant ways. In fact after doing a serach I can't find any two lists that agree completely.

You'd really think this moral religious majority could get their act together and provide some sort of unified and coherent moral statment.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Andonyx
I'm sorry, "I am the lord thy god thou shalt have no other gods before me" is not a moral statment, it is a religious statment.

'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' Is not a moral statement on any civic or public level, it is religious.

'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.' Is not moral, it is religious.

'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' Is not moral it is religious.
Agreed. My bad. Sometimes I think before I type. :rs:


The government is engaging in some awfully immoral behavior.
Yeah, we agree on that. ;)

[JAR]

Originally posted by hammegk
[snip]
slavery was not moral
[snip]
I'm glad you think slavery is immoral. I think it's immoral too.

See, hammegk's not that bad.

[Random]

Originally posted by Andonyx
Gee Yahweh, our lists of the commandments seem to differ in some seriously significant ways. In fact after doing a serach I can't find any two lists that agree completely.

You'd really think this moral religious majority could get their act together and provide some sort of unified and coherent moral statment.

The religous right sometimes runs into this problem when they try to have the Ten Commandments posted in schools. Somebody will ask the question "Which Ten Commadments?" (http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm)

[hammegk]

Good description of pc'lib atheists:


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030812.shtml


At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good. As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism, and anything else that can let the individual off the hook.

A second naive liberal belief is that because people are basically good, talking with people who do evil is always better than fighting, let alone killing, them. "Negotiate with Saddam," "Negotiate with the Soviets," "War never solves anything," "Think peace," "Visualize peace" -- the liberal mind is filled with naive cliches about how to deal with evil.

Indeed, the very use of the word "evil" greatly disturbs liberals. It shakes up their child-like views of the world, that everybody is at heart a decent person who is either misunderstood or led to do unfortunate things by outside forces.


What is even more disturbing to atheists is the fact that they cannot answer questions of right/wrong (that is, good/evil) since they have no higher authority to turn to than their egos.

See again thread on incest.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk
What is even more disturbing to atheists is the fact that they cannot answer questions of right/wrong (that is, good/evil) since they have no higher authority to turn to than their egos. I'm curious, then, hammegk. What higher authority can/do you turn to? And how do you know that authority exists, if the only think you know for sure is that you think?
Good description of pc'lib atheists:


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030812.shtmlCorrect me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't a description of an atheist, be it pc'lib or otherwise, actually contain a description of atheism somewhere in it?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by hammegk
Good description of pc'lib atheists:


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030812.shtml



What is even more disturbing to atheists is the fact that they cannot answer questions of right/wrong (that is, good/evil) since they have no higher authority to turn to than their egos.

See again thread on incest.

I am an atheist and can answer questions of right/wrong with ease, I just need a topic and from what I read in Bible, Torah, Koran and other religious texts their definition of right/wrong may not be that good for humanity.

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by hammegk
Good description of pc'lib atheists:


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030812.shtml


What a load of smug, self-indulgent, self-serving crap!


What is even more disturbing to atheists is the fact that they cannot answer questions of right/wrong (that is, good/evil) since they have no higher authority to turn to than their egos.

See again thread on incest.

How do you know this "higher authority" exists? Faith? But what's faith except the egotistical belief in the infallibility of one's own intuition or instinct?

[DavidJames]

"What is even more disturbing to atheists is the fact that they cannot answer questions of right/wrong (that is, good/evil) since they have no higher authority to turn to than their egos."

yeah, kinda like those priests, who while believing in a "higher authority", still seem to have some trouble with the same questions :rolleyes:

[Upchurch]

Okay, having shown that this isn't representative of atheism in... well, in anyway at all since it has nothing to do with atheism.At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good.[/b]Although not strictly liberal myself, I feel the need to defend liberalism, at least from an atheistic point of view. The above line first assumes that absolute Good (big "G") exists and that people can be it on a basic level. The concept of absolute Good (or Evil) is not usually a part of an atheist's world view, from my experience, and thus already the author's concept of a liberal is dependent on an assumption.
As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism, and anything else that can let the individual off the hook.I find this to be a contradiction. How can one put blame on parents, capitalists or racists and not be blaming the individual parents, capitalists or racists? This claim doesn't even make sense on its surface.
A second naive liberal belief is that because people are basically good, talking with people who do evil is always better than fighting, let alone killing, them.Again, this assumes Good and Evil. (In this case I'll take "evil" to mean "something we don't approve of") However, I find it curious that this author seems to be advocating violence as the only solution for conflict.

Isn't this what civilization was formed to prevent? Didn't we generate a system of laws and justice to provide an alternative to resolving issues through violence? Ultimately, isn't it always more moral not to fight or kill?

On a personal note, hammegk, I find it interesting that you are accusing atheists of a principle that is commonly held in reverence by many religions.
"Negotiate with Saddam," "Negotiate with the Soviets," "War never solves anything," "Think peace," "Visualize peace" -- the liberal mind is filled with naive cliches about how to deal with evil.This is mostly just a straw man.

We did negotiate with the Soviets and the Cold War (which wasn't a "war" in the sense that violence was used by either side) was won through the use of negotiation, economics, and other non-violent means.

On the other side, if I may take the same liberties as the author, the conservative mind is also filled with naive cliches like "Nuke 'em till they glow so we can shoot them in the dark" and "Bring it on."
Indeed, the very use of the word "evil" greatly disturbs liberals.In my case, this is true. Not because it "shakes up my child-like views of the world" as the author claims but because it is a concept that can be used to rationalize actions that those same people who use the concept of "evil" might otherwise consider evil themselves. Good and Evil are intellectual crutches used to simplify and pigeon hole a complex and complicated world.

That's why "evil" greatly disturbs me personally.
It shakes up their child-like views of the world, that everybody is at heart a decent person who is either misunderstood or led to do unfortunate things by outside forces. Which, ironically enough, is the same view held by conservative fundamentalist Christians (or various other religions) who fear the Devil.

In conclusion, the author makes a great deal of assumptions in his depcition of a liberal, advocates actions that are the antithesis of civilization, and in many cases describes traits that are common to both liberals and conservatives. Frankly, this is a poorly thought out piece.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Upchurch
...

Frankly, this is a poorly thought out piece. As are hammy's arguments.

Let's review:

hammy:

Agreed. My bad. Sometimes I think before I type. ... in reference to the claim that the "10 commandments" are strictly moral, and not religious, statements.

So, now do you want to retreat from your position that the "10 commandments" should be allowed to be placed on government buildings?hammy:

What is even more disturbing to atheists is the fact that they cannot answer questions of right/wrong (that is, good/evil) since they have no higher authority to turn to than their egos.... to which you got this question:Upchurch:

I'm curious, then, hammegk. What higher authority can/do you turn to? And how do you know that authority exists, if the only think you know for sure is that you think?Let's have an answer, hammy, or perhaps another retraction instead.

[Upchurch]

Yikes. stupid typo. the last bit of that quote should be "if the only thing you know for sure is that you think?"

Didn't notice it until it was quoted and in bold. :(

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by hammegk
[...] moral anarchists [...]
Sounds great! Where do I sign up?

Originally posted by hammegk
At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good
Although this quote has a reductionism which smells of straw, I wonder how Mr Prager arrives at this conclusion? I'm unaware of any liberal consensus on the state of human nature, and the nearest explicit mention I've found is Adam Smith's suggestion that people are essentially selfish, but that's classical liberalism, not the modern variety. Hmmm...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc
So, now do you want to retreat from your position that the "10 commandments" should be allowed to be placed on government buildings?
Nope.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hammegk:

What is even more disturbing to atheists is the fact that they cannot answer questions of right/wrong (that is, good/evil) since they have no higher authority to turn to than their egos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... to which you got this question:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upchurch:

I'm curious, then, hammegk. What higher authority can/do you turn to? And how do you know that authority exists, if the only thing you know for sure is that you think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's have an answer, hammegk, or perhaps another retraction instead.
I'm getting closer to retracting my previous retraction. The 'god=higher power' aspect is what provides the ammo to sell a particular moral system to enough people to provide a viable & lasting society. It's what materialists/atheists will try to supplant with math & science -- scientists being the priesthood I'd suppose -- when you have your replacement manual (Mathematical Morality For The Society We Are Founding). Unless you actually do believe destroying current societal morality without providing a better -- broadly accepted -- version is a "good thing"? Do you?

BTW, my higher power is in part the morality of the society I'm a member of (even if all I know is that *I* think). ;)


BillyTK: I think you already have signed up; or I should say the persona you project here has.

Also -- Adam Smith a liberal? Was Machiavelli also a liberal (by your thinking)?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by hammegk
Also -- Adam Smith a liberal? Was Machiavelli also a liberal (by your thinking)?
Machiavelli strikes me as an archetype for neo-conservativism. But I don't see that many similarities between Machiavelli and Smith (male? European? wrote books?).

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by hammegk
[B]Good description of pc'lib atheists:


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030812.shtml

[quote]

At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good.


I think you will find this is one of the major teachings of Jesus.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I think you will find this is one of the major teachings of Jesus.

Umm. Not the way I interpret what I read.

Irrelevant anyway; the question is do you (and you, and you) believe it? If so, why?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

What is even more disturbing to atheists is the fact that they cannot answer questions of right/wrong (that is, good/evil) since they have no higher authority to turn to than their egos.
BTW, my higher power is in part the morality of the society I'm a member of (even if all I know is that *I* think). ;) And why do you think that atheists don't also conform to the morality of their societies? Even if you want to define "society" as a "higher power", why would that exclude atheists?
The 'god=higher power' aspect is what provides the ammo to sell a particular moral system to enough people to provide a viable & lasting society. It's what materialists/atheists will try to supplant with math & science -- scientists being the priesthood I'd suppose -- when you have your replacement manual (Mathematical Morality For The Society We Are Founding). Unless you actually do believe destroying current societal morality without providing a better -- broadly accepted -- version is a "good thing"? Do you?Your staw man asside (and this is truely a clumsy "No, you're the religious zealot!" strawman), how exactly do you imagine that "materialists/atheists" would supplant the current societal morality system if whatever it is supplanted with wasn't broadly accpeted?

Also, how do compare morality systems (to determine the "better" one) if there is no absolute morality system to judge it against? Morality systems carry their own definitions of "good" and "bad" and are therefore relative to the morality system against which it is compared.

I don't think you've thought your position all the way through rationally.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

Irrelevant anyway; the question is do you (and you, and you) believe it? If so, why? As I stated above, I don't think people are basically "good" or "evil" because I think those concepts are man-made and therefore nothing is inherently "good" or "evil".

The article still fails.

[BillyTK]

As anarchism is essentially the belief that self-government is preferable to state government (all the nihilistic definitions are the result of the Victorian equivalent of the "War on Terror") then a moral anarchist must be someone who believes that morality enforced on the basis of higher powers (whatever form they may take) is suspect. Morality must be arrived at by other means --such as logic and rationality--on the basis of mutual benefit, for human nature, if such a thing exists, must be essentially collaborative; we're disposed to acquiring language and we prefer to live in social groupings. All else is a matter of culture.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by BillyTK
then a moral anarchist must be someone who believes that morality enforced on the basis of higher powers (whatever form they may take) is suspect. Would "morally autonomous within the social structure" be a better phrase? It seems to me "morally anarchistic" would also preclude social constraints, but maybe I'm taking the definition of "anarchy" too far...

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Would "morally autonomous within the social structure" be a better phrase? It seems to me "morally anarchistic" would also preclude social constraints, but maybe I'm taking the definition of "anarchy" too far...
I'm proceeding on the basis that anarchy simply means "without leadership" which precludes imposed authority such as state government, but doesn't rule out voluntary co-operation (and which may incur social constraints). So for instance, between the two of us we might agree a moral code, which could incur penalties if I broke it, but which would still correspond with anarchism because it's a voluntary agreement. As long as I have the option to bugger off and agree to another one, then everything's groovy!