Ten Commandments monument controversy

[Guest SP-1]

What I said about the majority was operating out of the observation that most of the area this is taking place in is Christian. It appeared that way to me in my reading of some people's posts and whatknot.

 

If there was an order to remove it, then it becomes a sticky issue for the judge in question. On the one hand, I'm not entirely sure how bound he is by man's law, vs where his heart was in having the monument remain where it is. If I knew where he was coming from with it, I might be able to form a better opinion on it. There is a point where we're supposed to adhere to our local, Earthly laws, but there's also the point where God comes first. Thankfully, God isn't in the business of actively telling people to go kill one another, though there have been movements and stupid wars where it was claimed as such.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

On the one hand, I'm not entirely sure how bound he is by man's law, vs where his heart was in having the monument remain where it is. If I knew where he was coming from with it, I might be able to form a better opinion on it.

I guess I can scour for direct quotes if you want, but in the last page I mentioned he did not install this a symbol of justice, but as a way of worshipping his God. In that case, it's perfectly acceptable for his superiors in the system of checks and balances to step in and say "Whoa, you're abusing your position to decorate the courthouse. That has to go." We've talked about the various ways this could be purely symbolic and therefore legal, but he's opened his big mouth and taken the more controversial route.

 

He's also refused to accept the validity of other religions in this aspect:

 

http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs12021.htm

I'm not going to deny that this link isn't biased in the matter (they even say they were part of the people filing suit against Moore), but to the article's credit it makes direct quotes from the case:

 

U.S. District Judge Myron H. Thomp­son didn’t seem persuaded. From the bench he asked Moore, “Would you acknowledge that Buddhism is a religion?”

 

Moore replied, “Buddhism was considered a false religion by the forefathers. It is not my definition of religion, no. It was not their definition of religion under the First Amendment of the Constitution.”

 

“I wasn’t really asking that,” Thomp­son said. “I was just asking whether religion – within the confines of the First Amendment as you view it historically – [if] the term ‘religion’ includes Buddhists, the Islamic faith, the Hindus?”

 

Moore refused to budge.

 

“I don’t think so, sir, that Buddhists and other faiths – and I won’t speak to all faiths because I’m not a theologian – recognize the Creator, God,” he replied. “Some might, but if they do, it’s not the God of the Holy Scriptures. And that’s why the Bible is used for the very foundation upon which we take our oaths.”

 

Thompson was clearly troubled by Moore’s remarks.

 

“[T]he court cannot accept the Chief Justice’s proposed definition of the word ‘religion’ because it is, simply put, incorrect and religiously offensive,” Thompson wrote. “The court cannot accept a definition of religion that does not acknowledge Buddhism or Islam as a religion under the First Amendment and would in fact directly violate Supreme Court precedent by doing so.”

 

Here's more regarding the legality of it all:

 

http://www.everythingchristian.org/news/ps...id=2108&catid=2

 

“The court believes it is important to clarify at the outset that the court does not hold that is improper in all instances to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings; nor does the court hold that the Ten Commandments are not important, if not one of the most important, sources of American law,” wrote Thompson in his opinion.

 

Rather, Thompson ruled that Moore’s actions and intentions resulted in the ruling that installing the monument was unconstitutional. It was clear to the judge that Moore intended to “return to a knowledge of God in our land.”

 

(...)

 

“If all Chief Justice Moore had done were to emphasize the Ten Commandments’ historical and educational importance…or their importance as a model code for good citizenship…this court would have a much different case before it,” wrote Thompson.

 

“But the Chief Justice did not limit himself to this; he went far, far beyond. He installed a two-and-a-half ton monument in the most prominent place in a government building… with the specific purpose and effect of establishing a permanent recognition of the ‘sovereignty of God.’”

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

the country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs.

*sigh* No. This country was founded on the belief that there is a creator. As for what creator to worship, the founding fathers left that up to the people to decide for their own. Don't forget the ancestors came over here so they could practice whatever religion they wanted to.

*sigh* Wrong. The "all men are created equal... endowed certain unalienable rights" idea IS a Judeo-Christian idea based on Judeo-Christian beliefs in a Judeo-Christian God.

 

Islam certainly isn't interested in equal rights. Neither is Hinduism. And most eastern religions aren't terribly concerned with social issues.

 

To say this country wasn't founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic is ignorant at best.

[Anakin Flair 0]

I wonder if he thinks the 10 Commandments are a Christian thing. LAst I heard, Moses brought the tablets down from Mt. Sinai for the Hebrew people.

[Firestarter 0]

Islam certainly isn't interested in equal rights. Neither is Hinduism. And most eastern religions aren't terribly concerned with social issues.

 

To say this country wasn't founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic is ignorant at best.

Partially correct; uninformed nonsense nonetheless. America was based on Judeo-Christian values and Judeo-Christian cultural traditions; however, the most important of the values and traditions referenced by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence have nothing to do with Judeo-Christian religion. There are vanishingly few instances of dogma codified as law (save for anti-homosexual laws, which can have secular foundations) and in at least one formal treaty it is explicitly stated that America neither is nor ever has been founded on the Christian religion. It is primarily through association that western concepts such as liberty, democracy, and justice were incorporated into the Judeo-Christian tradition.

 

Oh, and if I were you, I'd shut my mouth about Islam and Hinduism unless I were prepared to get into Leviticus, original sin, fornication, and all the rest of that shit. I hate Islam at least as much as anyone else with more than two brain cells to rub together, but holding up the fucking Bible in contrast as the basis of American values is downright ridiculous. It contains more than enough immoral, dishonourable, cruel, murderous, disgusting, illogical, and fanatical sentiments to put it on the same level as the Koran.

Edited August 23, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[Guest SP-1]

I wonder if he thinks the 10 Commandments are a Christian thing. LAst I heard, Moses brought the tablets down from Mt. Sinai for the Hebrew people.

 

. . . you are aware that the Jewish faith is the foundation for what would break off into Christianity, right? The entire Old Testament is a Jewish work looking towards the Jewish Messiah, which Christianity believes was fulfilled in Jesus.

 

 

 

From a Christian perspective, I can't fault the man personally for not recognizing other faiths. You can't really believe that there's one God, that Jesus is His Son and Savior to mankind, and then turn around and say that the other things are right too. But that's more a personal thing. As for his using his position to put the monument there, legally he may be in the wrong. I have no problem with them removing it on those grounds. I tend to dislike church and state getting too very mixed, myself. The state would severely limit the church sooner or later in that scenario.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Islam certainly isn't interested in equal rights. Neither is Hinduism. And most eastern religions aren't terribly concerned with social issues.

 

To say this country wasn't founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic is ignorant at best.

Partially correct; uninformed nonsense nonetheless. America was based on Judeo-Christian values and Judeo-Christian cultural traditions; however, the most important of the values and traditions referenced by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence have nothing to do with Judeo-Christian religion. There are vanishingly few instances of dogma codified as law (save for anti-homosexual laws, which can have secular foundations) and in at least one formal treaty it is explicitly stated that America neither is nor ever has been founded on the Christian religion. It is primarily through association that western concepts such as liberty, democracy, and justice were incorporated into the Judeo-Christian tradition.

 

Oh, and if I were you, I'd shut my mouth about Islam and Hinduism unless I were prepared to get into Leviticus, original sin, fornication, and all the rest of that shit. I hate Islam at least as much as anyone else with more than two brain cells to rub together, but holding up the fucking Bible in contrast as the basis of American values is downright ridiculous. It contains more than enough immoral, dishonourable, cruel, murderous, disgusting, illogical, and fanatical sentiments to put it on the same level as the Koran.

The Bible certainly contains the things you mentioned, but it didn't result in discriminatory dogma, save female priests, as has been the case in the Koran. And, your personal opinions aside, I'd hardly equate "original sin, fornication, and all the rest of that shit" with "kill the infidel".

 

It is primarily through association that western concepts such as liberty, democracy, and justice were incorporated into the Judeo-Christian tradition.

I disagree.

 

Those western concepts were founded because of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

 

America was based on Judeo-Christian values and Judeo-Christian cultural traditions; however, the most important of the values and traditions referenced by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence have nothing to do with Judeo-Christian religion.

I don't see the point of differentiating between J-C values/cultural traditions and the religion. They go hand-in-hand and it is illogical to separate them.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And, your personal opinions aside, I'd hardly equate "original sin, fornication, and all the rest of that shit" with "kill the infidel".

Well congratulations! I guess it's A-OK if we stone virgins in the town square and execute anything resembling a "sorceress."

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Show me official Catholic Church teachings that allow that.

[Guest SP-1]

I'd like to see the Protestant teachings that call for that as well. In fact, as I recall, in the Gospel of John, Jesus saved an alduteress from being stoned by pointing out that none are without sin.

 

But of course, it's easy to typecast and assume the worst without knowing what the material and teachings actually are.

[Firestarter 0]

I'd hardly equate "original sin, fornication, and all the rest of that shit" with "kill the infidel".

Tell that to the Amalekites.

 

western concepts were founded because of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Bullshit. They were founded in ancient Greece and predate Christianity by centuries.

 

They go hand-in-hand and it is illogical to separate them.

Again, bullshit. They developed side by side but neither one was a foundation for the other.

[Firestarter 0]

Jesus saved an alduteress from being stoned by pointing out that none are without sin.

La de fucking da. I guess that excuses Matthew 15:22-24. The fact that he changed his mind after the Canaanite rebuked him doesn't excuse his initial racism.

 

it's easy to typecast and assume the worst without knowing what the material and teachings actually are

Even easier to use selective quotes to illustrate a demonstrably false position, it seems.

[Guest EsotericMaster]

Matthew 15:22-24 Jesus was testing the woman of Canaan. we find that out in Matthew 15:28. having Jesus tell you how great your faith is, was a pretty big deal in that time. Jesus did not even tell Peter he had great faith (Matthew 14:31) "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?"

[Guest JMA]

I very much doubt Jesus was a racist. Many of his parables seemed to say that it didn't matter where you came from, as long as you helped your fellow man. And no, I'm not a Christian--I'm an Atheist.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Show me official Catholic Church teachings that allow that.

The line about stoning virgins I'm not sure about, it just came about from an arguement The Media Whore got into with a fundie from CWA (hey, a time the Whore actually did some good. Amazing.)

 

The sorceress bit is from Exodus. Whether that's an "official Catholic Church teaching" or not is a straw man. Your arguement was that the ethics of the Bible is the basis of our laws.

 

I could find more, but I leave for another trip tomorrow (hey, it's free) and won't be back until September 1st. I suspect the monument will be gone and this issue will have died down by that point.

[Firestarter 0]

Matthew 15:22-24 Jesus was testing the woman of Canaan.  we find that out in Matthew 15:28.

What revisionist feel-good nonsense. James Carville would be proud of you. But let's set the spin aside for a moment and take a look at what the Bible actually says, shall we?

 

The Canaanite said: "Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil." Matthew 15:23-28 continues:

"But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour."

 

The passage clearly demonstrates that Jesus relented from his bigotry when the woman begged him further and demeaned herself before him. He wasn't testing her; he didn't say that her race wasn't worthy of him to her, he said it to his disciples. And when she importuned him a second time, he denigrated her. Only when she accepted his abuse did he change his mind.

 

I very much doubt Jesus was a racist. Many of his parables seemed to say that it didn't matter where you came from, as long as you helped your fellow man.

It doesn't matter what you doubt or what you believe. The simple fact is that the New Testament is internally inconsistent, as inconsistent as the Bible as a whole. Kill everyone who doesn't believe in God; butcher the idolators - but love your fellow man and turn the other cheek when struck upon the one. One person is a child, fit to eat at God's table; another is a dog, unfit even to receive the blessings of God - simply because of where she comes from. But everyone can attain the kingdom of God and no one's beyond redemption!

 

The whole goddamn book is full of contradictions like that. You can't just hold up the garbage and pretend it's gold; some of us Christians took off our blindfolds a long, long time ago.

[Guest EsotericMaster]

Those whom Christ intends most to honour, he humbles to feel their own unworthiness. A proud, unhumbled heart would not have borne this; but she turned it into an argument to support her request.

 

the Lord doesn't bless people at will. sometimes you have to beg for the power of Christ.

 

Matthew 18:4

 

"Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

[Firestarter 0]

True: "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." (Proverbs 51:17)

But that passage does not illustrate that principle.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Whether that's an "official Catholic Church teaching" or not is a straw man. Your arguement was that the ethics of the Bible is the basis of our laws.

The ethics of the Bible ARE the bases of our laws... not random inconsistencies. Official Church teaching has its foundation in interpretation of Scripture. That filters out BS like the treatment of the Amalekites.

 

They were founded in ancient Greece and predate Christianity by centuries.

You got me, there. *what a moron*

 

But those concepts did get more legitimacy because they were incorporated into the J-C tradition.

 

They developed side by side but neither one was a foundation for the other.

Couldn't disagree more. The religion has to be the foundation of the traditional values. Why stress specific values unless they are God-given and spiritually important?

 

One person is a child, fit to eat at God's table; another is a dog, unfit even to receive the blessings of God - simply because of where she comes from. But everyone can attain the kingdom of God and no one's beyond redemption!

Screw race... she's unworthy simply because she's human. Your criticism is the whole point... Grace. Only God can decide if you deserve His salvation.

[Firestarter 0]

The religion has to be the foundation of the traditional values. Why stress specific values unless they are God-given and spiritually important?

Excuse me? You admit in one breath that the traditional values associated with the Judeo-Christian values are in fact derived from pre-Christian "pagan" Hellenes who worshipped Zeus and Hera, and in the next breath you say that they're founded on the religion they predate? WTF! Can we at least agree on the concept of linear time?

 

SOMETHING MUST EXIST FOR ANOTHER THING TO BE FOUNDED ON IT.

 

As for such values gaining "legitimacy" from their association with religion, the very idea is ridiculous. For a very long period of time Christianity denied heathens and heretics the most basic of rights, like say the right not to be tortured to death, or the right not to be burned alive screaming. It took a massive secular bitchslap to turn the Church into an even marginally moral institution.

 

The ethics of the Bible ARE the bases of our laws... not random inconsistencies. Official Church teaching has its foundation in interpretation of Scripture. That filters out BS like the treatment of the Amalekites.

It doesn't do anything of the sort. That was an absolutely direct and absolutely immoral and unlawful command from God to Saul, which Saul disobeyed, and God punished him for it. It wasn't a "random inconsistency;" see Joshua and the Canaanites, the babies in Egypt, and countless others.

 

Screw race... she's unworthy simply because she's human. Your criticism is the whole point... Grace. Only God can decide if you deserve His salvation.

Again, a revisionist lie: "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" references a specific group within a specific race. Jesus denied her his blessing because she was not a part of it. The facts are stark and crystal clear. Spin it as much as you like; the facts will not change.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Excuse me? You admit in one breath that the traditional values associated with the Judeo-Christian values are in fact derived from pre-Christian "pagan" Hellenes who worshipped Zeus and Hera, and in the next breath you say that they're founded on the religion they predate? WTF! Can we at least agree on the concept of linear time?

Of course. But God and His gifts to man existed before the Greeks.

 

As for such values gaining "legitimacy" from their association with religion, the very idea is ridiculous.

No way. Because so many people followed the J-C tradition, its incorporation of certain values inherently increased their legitimacy.

 

For a very long period of time Christianity denied heathens and heretics the most basic of rights, like say the right not to be tortured to death, or the right not to be burned alive screaming. It took a massive secular bitchslap to turn the Church into an even marginally moral institution.

It doesn't change the fact that the Church has changed.

 

It doesn't do anything of the sort. That was an absolutely direct and absolutely immoral and unlawful command from God to Saul, which Saul disobeyed, and God punished him for it. It wasn't a "random inconsistency;" see Joshua and the Canaanites, the babies in Egypt, and countless others.

That's all Old Testament, old covenant, not part of current Church teaching, stuff.

 

Again, a revisionist lie: "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" references a specific group within a specific race.

A conveniently strict literal interpretation. You seriously take "house of Israel" to mean ethnic Israelites? To me, it means followers of Christ.

 

Jesus denied her his blessing because she was not a part of it.

Initially. He did ultimately give her his blessing. And He certainly doesn't owe you an explanation as to why she had to humble herself.

 

Marney, for someone with such a distaste for the Church and one who doesn't believe in supernatural salvation, why do you remain Catholic?

[Guest SP-1]

The Christian use of that passage is far from your way of looking at it, Marney. Thus, your view that Christianity is subscribing to your way of explaining it has no basis.

 

The point of that passage was Jesus showing the disciples that it didn't matter if she was from Canaan or not, only that when she appealed to him in faith would he hear her and grant her request. She was not submissive in that passage, she did not demean herself. Jesus used a common holding of the time to see if she would continue in faith, and she did. Thus, she was proven to be just as important as "Israel" to Him, because of her faith. This could also be used to support Peter's vision in Acts, and I would also note that the passage immediately preceding this in Matthew deals with what is clean and unclean.

 

But hey, believe what you want. Don't let a Christian who studies it academically from a cultural and historical perspective as well as doctrinal explain what we really believe.

[Guest SP-1]

And Hebrews, I believe, explains that Israel is no longer a strict racial/cultural thing. Christ's Covenant brings Jew and Gentile alike into the same holding as part of God's family. This New Israel, as it were, is explained several times in scripture.

[cynicalprofit 0]

man, so many people, so many different view points, and you wonder why god hasnt shown up in so long.

[Guest SP-1]

man, so many people, so many different view points, and you wonder why god hasnt shown up in so long.

That depends on how you look at it.

[Firestarter 0]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...

 

God can never lose. Greeks who didn't believe in him invented a certain concept BUT he must have put that concept in their heads because he's the source of everything; if Jesus said something that was clearly bigoted it's obvious that he meant something entirely different because Jesus COULDN'T have been a bigot; if the Church was once a font of immorality it doesn't matter anymore because it's CHANGED, and we'll just ignore the priests who still rape children; if the Old Testament tells you to torture, murder, and enslave, well that doesn't matter anymore because there's a New Testament which replaces it BUT we still have to revere the Ten Commandments which are in the Old Testament for some insanely delusional reason I can't be bothered to even speculate about.

 

What a reeking pile of unprovable, circular, self-justifying shit.

 

You two are a perfect spectrum of reasons for not taking Christians seriously. You're stupid, you're ignorant, you're illogical, you're deluded, you're intractable. Your minds are made up. You aren't arguing, you're preaching. Fuck you and fuck your childish dogma. I refused to blindly suck Jesus's cock when smelly old transvestites tried to make me believe this shit, and I won't blindly accept this garbage now. If being a Catholic means acting like a two year-old sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling at the top of his lungs, "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA I LOVE JESUS LA LA LA LA LA LA," then kindly take this post as my resignation from the Church.

[dutchse.cx 0]

*sigh* No. This country was founded on the belief that there is a creator. As for what creator to worship, the founding fathers left that up to the people to decide for their own. Don't forget the ancestors came over here so they could practice whatever religion they wanted to.

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong: The "founding fathers" were Protestants for the most part and I doubt that they had Muslim, Buddhists, and pagans on their mind when they instituted the First Amendment. I think the intention was more towards protecting Protestants. Now, obviously, it's worked out for the greater good, so I'm not saying it's a bad thing.

 

Another thing: Isn't the seperation of Church and State intended so that the State doesn't become a theocracy? I recall hearing that there was some sort of issue with a state government somewhere loaning a church money and some people got incensed over it.

[Guest EsotericMaster]

Fuck you and fuck your childish dogma.

 

is that even allowed?

[Firestarter 0]

Childish dogma? Unfortunately, yes. Being a thick-skulled, thin-skinned, holier-than-thou Christian is not yet grounds for banning.

[Guest EsotericMaster]

i meant

 

5. Flaming is allowed in No Holds Barred and is discouraged everywhere else. If you have a problem with someone, take it to NHB. Depending on mod’s discretion, flaming outside of NHB can be subject to a one-time warning. Absolutely TASTELESS comments are subject to ban via mod’s discretion regardless of the forum. Keep in mind, though, that a stranger calling you a name on the internet is just that: a stranger calling you a name on the internet. It's really not that important in the grand scheme of the forums. Many problems with "flaming" can be overcome by simply ignoring the other party.

 

8. Flame-Baiting. If you consistently attempt to engage someone in a flame war, you are subject to a one-time warning. Remember, if you have a problem with someone, take it to NHB. There's a quote button for a reason.