Page 2 of 3

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:33 pm
by Darth Wong
FF8Jake` wrote: It is a very, very trivial matter.

Because you say so? Re-affirmation of the separation of church and state is not a trivial matter. We are talking about a country in which minorities suffer discrimination for religious reasons; the State of Texas even has a clause in its constitution stating that those who do not believe in a "supreme being" cannot hold public office. People are being harmed by the common misconception that separation of church and state is not important or perhaps even not mandated by the constitution. This ruling is an important reminder that this misconception is false.

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:39 pm
by madcowbeef1
8O

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 6:21 pm
by Kanuck
FF8Jake` wrote: I am saying that considering the loads of other, more significant problems, something like this should be put on the back burner.

Yeah, I totally agree! I mean, why is the phpBB Team wasting its time creating and supporting online communities? There's much more important work to be done in combatting global poverty, after all. I think phpBB should be put on the back burner until nobody's hungry anymore; frankly, doing otherwise is just plain selfish.

Re: US bans Commandments in courtroom

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 6:28 pm
by iloserman
Magnotta wrote:
iloserman wrote:
nuckfan15 wrote:Nothing like freedom of religion. Maybe next it will be, lets alter the one dollar bill.



How is this freedom of religion? I don't see the 6 pillars of islam in there? So you can't claim freedom of religion, when you only show one.


Better none at all.


Uhhh, exactly the point, they're removing displays of the Ten Commandments from courts, in other words less promotion of Christianity.

Going along with your example though of the 6 pillars of Islam, I'd say America would likely be the last place to have displays on the Islam religion in their government buildings(I can just see the shear outpour of complaints if they did).



My point was, if you can't show them all equally, you're better not showing them at all. I am all for removing every shred of this so called religion from my government.


ILM

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 6:55 pm
by Rabidus_Lupus
I'd like to know how the 10 commandments being on the wall of a court house is keeping anyone in the USA from living their life. People want to keep seperating church and state more and more and quite frankly it's been done to death. This country was founded on the belief in god. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ . He is mentioned several times in there. Now, just because you have the right to your own religion doesn't mean you should be able to abolish the christian religion from the U.S. which was founded on it. And the government is the U.S.
If you don't want to work in a place that has something about god on it's walls don't work there. If you don't want to go to court because there is something about god on the walls don't commit crimes.
The people that made an issue about the 10 commandments are whiners with nothing better to do. Complain to someone about potholes in roads. For those who talked about writing the bible is crap or whatever, hell yeah I'd be offended. That actually is offensive. No, I'm not christian. I believe there is no god, but I believe some people need it in their lives and should not be insulted for it. If a judge wants to put a picture of budha on his walls, go for it. So long as the laws are upheld in a way that makes sense.

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:09 pm
by Darth Wong
Rabidus_Lupus wrote: I'd like to know how the 10 commandments being on the wall of a court house is keeping anyone in the USA from living their life. People want to keep seperating church and state more and more and quite frankly it's been done to death. This country was founded on the belief in god. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ . He is mentioned several times in there.

No, the Christian God is not mentioned once. There is "Nature's God", but that's not surprising since many of those guys were deists. Not to mention the fact that the Declaration of Independence has no legal status, which is why you can't appeal to your "right to pursuit of happiness" in court. Just try to find the word "God" in the Constitution. Go ahead, I dare you.
Now, just because you have the right to your own religion doesn't mean you should be able to abolish the christian religion from the U.S. which was founded on it. And the government is the U.S.

Since when is removal of the Ten Commandments from a courtroom tantamount to "abolishing" the Christian religion? :roll:
If you don't want to work in a place that has something about god on it's walls don't work there. If you don't want to go to court because there is something about god on the walls don't commit crimes.

If you don't agree with the First Amendment, don't live in the United States. There are plenty of countries out there which gladly mix church and state. Saudi Arabia, for example.
The people that made an issue about the 10 commandments are whiners with nothing better to do. Complain to someone about potholes in roads. For those who talked about writing the bible is crap or whatever, hell yeah I'd be offended.

So you'd be offended at someone writing "The Bible is for idiots" on the wall, but you don't see why a Buddhist should be offended at being "commanded" to worship the Christian God? :roll:
That actually is offensive. No, I'm not christian. I believe there is no god, but I believe some people need it in their lives and should not be insulted for it.

And why should nonbelievers be told that they're somehow violating the spirit of the nation by NOT worshipping God, which is what those Ten Commandments displays in government buildings do?
If a judge wants to put a picture of budha on his walls, go for it. So long as the laws are upheld in a way that makes sense.

The point here is that the Ten Commandments specifically order people to worship the Christian God. That is, in fact, commandment #1. So no, it's not any more appropriate to put that in large print on a courtroom wall than it is to put "The Bible is for morons" on that same wall.

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:13 pm
by Pit
Rabidus_Lupus wrote: This country was founded on the belief in god. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

You have proven, conclusively I dare say, that the US was founded almost entirely on dislike of the King of England. Good show, old boy! 8)

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:34 pm
by Pezzoni
Rabidus_Lupus wrote: This country was founded on the belief in god. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ . He is mentioned several times in there.

I belive there was a topic a while back when the exact opposite was shown to be true, with many quotes from the founders supporting this.

As for the actual point under discussion - Excellent, the more seperation of church and state, the better imo.

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:41 pm
by Darth Wong
The ironic thing here is that many countries with less religious influence in government actually have more religion associated with state institutions on paper. England has an official church (the Anglican church). Canada has the word "God" in the national anthem. And yet, people in England and Canada don't bother suing over these things. And do you know why? It's because the religious people in our country are not trying to shove their religious beliefs down everyone else's throats while using these imagined church-state links as justification. Religion does not hold as much sway over our government as it does in the USA.

So if you want to ask why atheists and non-Christians in America launch lawsuits over the Pledge of Allegiance or Ten Commandments displays, look not to the atheist, but to the evangelist. If the UK and Canada are any examples to go by, atheists and other non-Christians would not worry about getting rid of these things if they weren't constantly being used to justify religious interference in state matters. A piece of symbolism stops being a trivial matter when people use it as justification to violate your rights.

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:44 pm
by FF8Jake`
Kanuck wrote:
FF8Jake` wrote:I am saying that considering the loads of other, more significant problems, something like this should be put on the back burner.

Yeah, I totally agree! I mean, why is the phpBB Team wasting its time creating and supporting online communities? There's much more important work to be done in combatting global poverty, after all. I think phpBB should be put on the back burner until nobody's hungry anymore; frankly, doing otherwise is just plain selfish.
Who said I give a crap about combatting global poverty? I'm not doing a damn thing about any of it cause I don't care enough to. But apparently the people up in the air about the commandments in the courtroom do care about the world, and I don't understand why they waste all their time on things that aren't of critical importance. :)

And if you want to bring phpbb into the matter, what do you see the team doing when a security hole is found in 2.*? Olympus hits the back burner.

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:49 pm
by Darth Wong
FF8Jake` wrote: I don't understand why they waste all their time on things that aren't of critical importance. :)

Allow me to translate:
I don't understand why they waste all their time on things that aren't of critical importance TO ME.

For millions of gays in the country (as an example), the propensity of recent governments to allow church to interfere with state business is anything but a trivial matter. Their rights are being decided on what are essentially religious grounds. Small wonder they are fighting to get rid of any hint that church has a place in state.

And pursuant to my previous post, nobody in Canada is suing to change the national anthem, but oops! Surprise, we're legalizing gay marriage. Maybe that's why we feel less of a sense of urgency about removing any hint of church/state connections from our society.

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:16 pm
by Rabidus_Lupus
Darth Wong wrote:
Rabidus_Lupus wrote:I'd like to know how the 10 commandments being on the wall of a court house is keeping anyone in the USA from living their life. People want to keep seperating church and state more and more and quite frankly it's been done to death. This country was founded on the belief in god. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ . He is mentioned several times in there.

No, the Christian God is not mentioned once. There is "Nature's God", but that's not surprising since many of those guys were deists. Not to mention the fact that the Declaration of Independence has no legal status, which is why you can't appeal to your "right to pursuit of happiness" in court. Just try to find the word "God" in the Constitution. Go ahead, I dare you.
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/d ... ndence.htm
Now, just because you have the right to your own religion doesn't mean you should be able to abolish the christian religion from the U.S. which was founded on it. And the government is the U.S.

Since when is removal of the Ten Commandments from a courtroom tantamount to "abolishing" the Christian religion?
It's part of abolishing the christian religion from government. I guess I didn't word it correctly. My apologies.
If you don't want to work in a place that has something about god on it's walls don't work there. If you don't want to go to court because there is something about god on the walls don't commit crimes.

If you don't agree with the First Amendment, don't live in the United States. There are plenty of countries out there which gladly mix church and state. Saudi Arabia, for example.
Do you disagree with a single law in your country? Please leave if so. You do realize that's a dumb comment to make, yeah? Quite frankly all the first amendment says is that the government can't make a law saying everyone has to follow one religion.
The people that made an issue about the 10 commandments are whiners with nothing better to do. Complain to someone about potholes in roads. For those who talked about writing the bible is crap or whatever, hell yeah I'd be offended.

So you'd be offended at someone writing "The Bible is for idiots" on the wall, but you don't see why a Buddhist should be offended at being "commanded" to worship the Christian God?
Are you offended when someone says you should buy their product? I'm offended by an insult to the religion, not a sale of a religion.
That actually is offensive. No, I'm not christian. I believe there is no god, but I believe some people need it in their lives and should not be insulted for it.

And why should nonbelievers be told that they're somehow violating the spirit of the nation by NOT worshipping God, which is what those Ten Commandments displays in government buildings do?
Because the pledge of allegiance says "one nation, under God".

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:22 pm
by Pezzoni
Rabidus_Lupus wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: So you'd be offended at someone writing "The Bible is for idiots" on the wall, but you don't see why a Buddhist should be offended at being "commanded" to worship the Christian God?
Are you offended when someone says you should buy their product? I'm offended by an insult to the religion, not a sale of a religion.


What if someone forced you to buy their product: 'I don't care what you believe, or wether you want this product, you're buying it anyway'.?

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:25 pm
by Darth Wong
Rabidus_Lupus wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:No, the Christian God is not mentioned once. There is "Nature's God", but that's not surprising since many of those guys were deists. Not to mention the fact that the Declaration of Independence has no legal status, which is why you can't appeal to your "right to pursuit of happiness" in court. Just try to find the word "God" in the Constitution. Go ahead, I dare you.
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/d ... ndence.htm

Is that supposed to be a rebuttal to my point?
Since when is removal of the Ten Commandments from a courtroom tantamount to "abolishing" the Christian religion?

It's part of abolishing the christian religion from government. I guess I didn't word it correctly. My apologies.

The First Amendment banished religion from government a long time ago. People have simply been trying to ignore it, that's all.
If you don't agree with the First Amendment, don't live in the United States. There are plenty of countries out there which gladly mix church and state. Saudi Arabia, for example.

Do you disagree with a single law in your country? Please leave if so. You do realize that's a dumb comment to make, yeah? Quite frankly all the first amendment says is that the government can't make a law saying everyone has to follow one religion.

Obviously, you completely missed the point, which was that I was making fun of your "if you don't like it, go elsewhere" argument.
So you'd be offended at someone writing "The Bible is for idiots" on the wall, but you don't see why a Buddhist should be offended at being "commanded" to worship the Christian God?

Are you offended when someone says you should buy their product?

If he's doing it as a representative of my government, hell yes. If my local representative was hawking deodorant or something, I would be up in arms asking why he is allowing some company to influence the way he performs his job. In fact, I would be demanding an investigation since he is probably misappropriating state resources for private gain.
And why should nonbelievers be told that they're somehow violating the spirit of the nation by NOT worshipping God, which is what those Ten Commandments displays in government buildings do?

Because the pledge of allegiance says "one nation, under God".

It originally said "one nation, indivisible". It was changed to "one nation under God" in 1954 under McCarthyism. Perhaps you should have paid closer attention in history class. Besides, even if you disregard this hole in your argument, the Pledge of Allegiance hardly overrides the Constitution anyway.

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:55 pm
by MHobbit
The First Amendment banished religion from government a long time ago.


IIRC, it actually prevented the government from establishing a national religion. It also allowed for freedom of religion. So, it didn't necessarily ban religion from the government.