Ten Commandments before Supreme Court

[Special K 0]

Oops, you were talking about "in God we trust" and "under God" right? I thought you were talking about the first Commandment and saying it was just generally monotheistic. My bad.

 

What about all those Egyptians and Greeks and Romans then!

 

Thinking about it, is Hinduism pretty much the only surviving polytheistic religion? Though it could be considered monotheistic, since, if I understand correctly you could consider Hinduism as having 1, 3, 7(I think?) or a pantheon of gods.

[SuperJerk 0]

Using "God" means that you support the monotheism, which is a religious viewpoint.

No, that's a group of religions, not one specific one.

 

Are you honestly saying that making something plural negates any rules against it?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Well..

 

people certainly dont seem to have a a problem with all the currency in America..

 

"In God we Trust" written right on the front of just about all current US Currency.

 

Actually..just like everything else..theres an online petition:

 

Remove "In God We Trust"

 

And Im waiting for when the people who've been stamping $1 bills with messages over the "In God We Trust" to get fined $500 by the government, which they can by law do.

[Guest BDC]

Well..

 

people certainly dont seem to have a a problem with all the currency in America..

 

"In God we Trust" written right on the front of just about all current US Currency.

 

Actually..just like everything else..theres an online petition:

 

Remove "In God We Trust"

 

And Im waiting for when the people who've been stamping $1 bills with messages over the "In God We Trust" to get fined $500 by the government, which they can by law do.

 

 

I already posted this: it's been tried, the Supreme Court told them to find something better to do with their time.

[SuperJerk 0]

Anyone who thinks the motto "In God We Trust" actually fits America is deeply deluded.

[Justice 0]

Using "God" means that you support the monotheism, which is a religious viewpoint.

No, that's a group of religions, not one specific one.

 

Are you honestly saying that making something plural negates any rules against it?

God, let's miss the forrest for the trees...

 

Okay, look: God is a non-specific term. It's so vague and ambigious that you can't really tie it down as helping one religion over another. It's not specific enough for any one to really benefit, nor does it (In it's usage) infringe on the rights of any other people. It's not the plurality, it's the vagueness and it's harmless and minor usage (In the Pledge, on money) that makes it something that doesn't fall under a seperation of church and state. Again, look at the fact that you are trying to single out a 'religious' belief; the same can be said for your reason to get it off.

 

Seperation of Church and State DOES NOT mean that government must abhor religion or religious references. in this case, the term 'God' just isn't enough of a strong endorsement it it's wording or in it's appearance to do anything like promote a religion.

[SuperJerk 0]

God is a non-specific term. It's so vague and ambigious that you can't really tie it down as helping one religion over another.

Irrelevant.

 

You're arguing that M&Ms and Skittles are both kinds of candy, while I'm telling you some people just don't like candy, and have the right not to like candy, and that the government shouldn't be telling people to buy or not to buy candy.

 

Seperation of Church and State DOES NOT mean that government must abhor religion or religious references.

 

You're creating false alternatives.

No one is saying the government's position should be anti-religion. The government should have NO POSITION, for or against, religion. Government should be silent on it.

[Justice 0]

Irrelevant.

 

You're arguing that M&Ms and Skittles are both kinds of candy, while I'm telling you some people just don't like candy, and have the right not to like candy, and that the government shouldn't be telling people to buy or not to buy candy.

Not true. If that's true, then places like Los Angeles can't keep the little cross on their flag to represent their start as a Spanish Mission. Whether or not you think it's 'religious' means nothing if you can't find some sort of actual promotion of religion. What does putting 'God' in such things actually promote? Nothing. They are in useless and harmless positions, and they are too vague and ambigious to actually do harm.

 

You're creating false alternatives.

No one is saying the government's position should be anti-religion. The government should have NO POSITION, for or against, religion. Government should be silent on it.

 

No, this is abhorance of any sort of 'religious' reference. It's nothing else. Eliminating something as useless or harmless as 'God' on currency for the simple reason that it might be religious is exactly that.

[SuperJerk 0]

Not true. If that's true, then places like Los Angeles can't keep the little cross on their flag to represent their start as a Spanish Mission. Whether or not you think it's 'religious' means nothing if you can't find some sort of actual promotion of religion.

You're arguing that those crosses should be allowed to stay in as a nod to history, then I agree.

 

How do the words "In God We Trust" acknowledge history?

They do not.

The words "In God We Trust" promote religion, even if it is not a specific one.

 

 

Eliminating something as useless or harmless as 'God' on currency for the simple reason that it might be religious is exactly that.

 

If you think that the government promoting religion is harmless, then you do not understand why the First Amendment was put into place.

 

By putting the words "In God We Trust" on money, the government is telling us that (a) there is a God, and (b) that we should trust him. That's a religious message. The government should not be in the business of distributing religious messages.

[Justice 0]

Not true. If that's true, then places like Los Angeles can't keep the little cross on their flag to represent their start as a Spanish Mission. Whether or not you think it's 'religious' means nothing if you can't find some sort of actual promotion of religion.

You're arguing that those crosses should be allowed to stay in as a nod to history, then I agree.

 

How do the words "In God We Trust" acknowledge history?

They do not.

The words "In God We Trust" promote religion, even if it is not a specific one.

Simple. Early Christian Founders, if you really, really want to go into it. Seriously, you haven't proven it as a harmful or an actual sponsoring of a religion. That's what is matter. An ambigious term =/= a religious infringement.

 

If you think that the government promoting religion is harmless, then you do not understand why the First Amendment was put into place.

 

By putting the words "In God We Trust" on money, the government is telling us that (a) there is a God, and (b) that we should trust him. That's a religious message. The government should not be in the business of distributing religious messages.

 

No, you are too blind to see that those words do NOTHING. It's too small, in too an unassuming. How many people do you know have actually converted because of that little message? Prove to me the active harm in it. That's what it takes.

 

What you want is an utter abolition of Religion and Government. That's NOT shown in the Consitution at all. They didn't want a state government, that's about all that can be shown in the Amendment, if you've actually read it before. Saying 'In God We Trust' is not the establishment of a religion for the US.

[SuperJerk 0]

Seriously, you haven't proven it as a harmful or an actual sponsoring of a religion.  It's too small, in too an unassuming. How many people do you know have actually converted because of that little message? Prove to me the active harm in it. That's what it takes.

 

Here's my argument in three easy-to-follow points:

1. Making the words "In God We Trust" the OFFICIAL MOTTO of the U.S. is an endorsement of monotheism.

2. Monotheism is a type of RELIGION.

3. Endorsing monotheism contradicts the statement "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion".

 

Therefore, "In God We Trust" should not be on money.

 

 

No, you are too blind to see that those words do NOTHING.

 

I think what you don't understand is that while I oppose the term "In God We Trust" in theory, I do realize that having it as our national motto isn't the end of the world. You don't exactly see me rioting in the streets over it, do you? The only reason I even brought it up is because I beleive there's a strong case to be made that having it as our national motto violates the First Amendment.

 

Having said that...If the words really did "nothing", then you would see no harm in getting rid of them.

 

But the words actually do something. They reinforce the belief in God. Its not the government's job to tell people to believe in God.

 

Do you even acknowledge that people have a right not to believe in God?

Then why is the government telling me I should beleive in God?

 

They didn't want a state government, that's about all that can be shown in the Amendment, if you've actually read it before.

You know what a good sign is that I've read the First Amendment before is? The fact that I've been QUOTING IT repeatedly.

[Justice 0]

Here's my argument in three easy-to-follow points:

1. Making the words "In God We Trust" the OFFICIAL MOTTO of the U.S. is an endorsement of monotheism.

2. Monotheism is a type of RELIGION.

3. Endorsing monotheism contradicts the statement "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion".

 

Therefore, "In God We Trust" should not be on money.

Bah. Monotheism is not a religion, just as Atheism isn't a religion. Neither have an overarching organization, and there are huge difference between fanctions between them. To try and pass it off as something like Catholicism

 

I think what you don't understand is that while I oppose the term "In God We Trust" in theory, I do realize that having it as our national motto isn't the end of the world. You don't exactly see me rioting in the streets over it, do you? The only reason I even brought it up is because I beleive there's a strong case to be made that having it as our national motto violates the First Amendment.

 

Having said that...If the words really did "nothing", then you would see no harm in getting rid of them.

 

I don't want to because I don't see it as a proper use of the 1st Amendment. It firstly upsets balance and sets the precedent that we can literally have no 'religious' reference at all. I respect minority rights, but this goes a bit overboard. I guess you just don't understand the 'slippery slope' concept very well.

 

But the words actually do something. They reinforce the belief in God. Its not the government's job to tell people to believe in God.

 

Can you prove it is actively subverting people to God? Can you prove that religion has actively been gaining anything from this? If not, then the SCOTUS probably won't even look at you. The words have been on there long enough that they've lost that meaning. It's no longer the government telling anyone anything, it's just something traditional.

 

Do you even acknowledge that people have a right not to believe in God?

Then why is the government telling me I should beleive in God?

 

I acknowledge your right not to believe in God, but your rights do not overstretch over everything and everyone. There are limits. Grow thicker skin and come back.

 

You know what a good sign is that I've read the First Amendment before is? The fact that I've been QUOTING IT repeatedly.

 

No, you haven't. Because if you do, it only guards against a state establishment of a religion or the endorsement of a specific religion. No religion actively gains anything from this, and arguably they gain nothing passively. Nothing gained, nothing lost, nothing wrong.

[SuperJerk 0]

Grow thicker skin and come back.

 

I like the way you've made this personally about me.

 

Since we're playing THAT game, I think the reason you cannot grasp my point is because you lack the ability to step outside your Judeo-Christian bias and see that that the belief in God is religious by definition, and that not all religions are monotheistic (the motto CLEARLY implies that the government favors monotheistic religions over polytheistic ones, thus violating the First Amendment).

 

I guess you just don't understand the 'slippery slope' concept very well.

 

Heh. Good one. If *you* understood the slippery slope concept you know that once the government starts telling people to beleive in God, they'll soon be telling them which God to believe in, then which church to go to, then which doctrines to believe in. Each step is a simple justification away.

 

After all, this whole debate started because a government agency decided to put up a sign that said "Thou shall have no other gods before me."

 

 

I acknowledge your right not to believe in God,

 

Not just MY right, EVERYONE'S right. This isn't about me.

 

but your rights do not overstretch over everything and everyone.

 

If I was actually doing that, I'd be saying the government should be telling people NOT to believe in God. I'm *not* doing that. I'm saying the government should be nuetral and silent on the issue. Have you not been reading my posts all the way through?

 

No, you haven't.

 

Wow. Its amazing that I can type a quote from something over and over FROM MEMORY without actually reading it. I must have super-powers!

 

Because if you do, it only guards against a state establishment of a religion or the endorsement of a specific religion.

 

You're totally wrong on this. The First Amendment doesn't use the words "specific religion" at all.

 

According to YOUR version of the First Amendment, its okay for the state to mandate its citizens must believe in God so long as it doesn't specify which God of which religion?

 

Fuck that. I'm glad you're not actually the one in charge of interpreting the Constitution.

 

It's no longer the government telling anyone anything, it's just something traditional.

 

There have been plenty of stupid traditions in this country over the years. Saying something that is wrong and illegal should be kept around simply because its a tradition is a slippery slope.

 

You DO know what a slippery slope is, don't you?

[Justice 0]

Okay, I'll cut up all the crap and just get to the point:

 

Like the Supreme Court, I see this as a minor in irrelevant quibble. You can shout "It's an endorsement of religions!", and I'll say "Not any longer, it's only a traditional phrase." Hell, one could consider it now more a reference to American Spirit and how it binds us all together rather than an actual prayer or reference to a specific God.

 

Just because you quote something doesn't mean you understand it. Again, there's nothing about the abolition of religion from the government as you are talking about. Indeed, we try to be neutral in all affairs, but there are minor areas where using it is simply overstretching it: Harmless, meaningless references in procedures are, as a rule, generally protected since while they mention God, they are more of a tradition carried out and they aren't meant to endorse religion, nor are they strong enough to even register on the screen most of the time. I doubt many people, when looking at a dollar bill, instantly think of 'In God We Trust' and scurry off to church.

 

Yes, I know what the slippery slope is. Considering that people haven't been impelled to put monuments in because "In God We Trust" is on money (They'll like do that anyways...), I don't think you understand it much, either. With your version, any reference to God could and likely would be wiped out. "There's a reference to God in the Declaration of Independence! Get it out!" That's what power your precedent would afford.

 

No offense, but your argument reeks of when they changed 'O Canada' because it said "Brothers" and some people couldn't get their head around the idea that that STILL includes everyone, even if it's not explicitly mentioned.

 

But if you don't believe me and try to tout your 'incredible knowledge' of the first Amendment over me, let's check what the SCOTUS Justices have said on a similar subject (Pledge of Allegience).

 

In arguments Wednesday, many of the justices questioned whether the words "under God" represented government intrusion into religious doctrine or belief.

 

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said there "so many references to God" in public affairs, noting "In God We Trust" was on U-S currency and coins. She added the Supreme Court opens all its public sessions with the words, "God save the United States and this honorable Court."

 

Besides, noted Justice David Souter, even if the words "under God" represented religion "in actual practice, it's an affirmation in the mindset of a civic exercise."

 

Souter added the Pledge "is so tepid, so diluted, far from a compulsory prayer."

 

"God is so generic in this context as to be a neutral" expression of belief, continued Justice Stephen Breyer.

 

"The child doesn't have to say the words," said Justice O'Connor. "You have the right not to participate."

 

Wow, it's funny how my argument and the SCOTUS's view coincide. Your view is not how the First Amendment is used. It's not a way of getting all religion banned. It's about protecting both sides of the coin, religious and non-religious.

Edited March 4, 2005 by Justice

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Okay, look: God is a non-specific term. It's so vague and ambigious that you can't really tie it down as helping one religion over another. It's not specific enough for any one to really benefit, nor does it (In it's usage) infringe on the rights of any other people. It's not the plurality, it's the vagueness and it's harmless and minor usage (In the Pledge, on money) that makes it something that doesn't fall under a seperation of church and state.

I think you and I sorta agree but don't agree at the same time.

 

I agree that God as a vague all-inclusive term is fine, but there are examples in American society where God is used to specifically preach the values of the Christian God.

 

Vague terms include that reference to men being given rights to "their creator" in the Declaration of Independence, and the reference to God on money, which is based on the national anthem, and who knows what the author was thinking at the time when he wrote that.

 

However, there have been very real attempts at using God in government for that "our God is an awesome God and we are a Christian nation and this will symbolize that." The commandments in Texas originates as a tie-in to the movie "The Ten Commandments" and even says that on the monument itself. I don't have a problem with that.

 

The other case (Tenn.?) the Commandments are used to promote religious values and are thus not okay.

 

Roy Moore first said his big hunk of rock was to reflect on the origins of laws in our culture (fine), but then when put under oath about it said that it was a symbol of us being a Christian nation. Whoops, not okay, and the court rightly said so in it's statement.

 

Lastly, the pledge, which was forced in as a statement of religious belief, as idiots were superstitious enough to think that making kids say "under God" would turn them away from the godless Reds. There was nothing vague about the decision to add that to the pledge.

[Justice 0]

I agree with many of the points you make, though I'm not so sure "under God" still carries that meaning. It's become so diluted, plus the fact that you don't need to say it, has made it pretty much harmless.

[SuperJerk 0]

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said there "so many references to God" in public affairs, noting "In God We Trust" was on U-S currency and coins. She added the Supreme Court opens all its public sessions with the words, "God save the United States and this honorable Court."

O'Connor's argument you cited was circular. She's trying to argue that their doing something justifies fact that they do it.

 

Souter added the Pledge "is so tepid, so diluted, far from a compulsory prayer."

 

Of course the words "under God" aren't a prayer, but the First Amendment doesn't specifically ban prayer, it bans governemtn recognition of religion.

 

"God is so generic in this context as to be a neutral" expression of belief, continued Justice Stephen Breyer.

 

Breyer doesn't seem to get the fact that expression of faith in the supernatural is by definition religious, and that the First amendment forbids government recognition of religion.

 

I'm beginning to understand now why Scalia considers his colleagues such idiots.

 

Your view is not how the First Amendment is used.

 

Hardly. I can read the First Amendment as well as they can, and have a good enough understanding of the English language to understand what the words "no", "law", "respecting", "establishment", and "religion" mean when used together in a sentence.

 

It's not a way of getting all religion banned.

 

I never said religion should be banned. In fact, I said the opposite.

 

It's about protecting both sides of the coin, religious and non-religious.

 

The only people you seem to want to protect are the religious ones. I've been saying all along the government has no business either confirming or denying the existence of God. Government needs to be completely silent on the issue, and let people worship or not worship.

 

Wow, it's funny how my argument and the SCOTUS's view coincide.

 

Thomas Jefferson's opinion on the issue matters more to me than those hacks.

 

He said:

 

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate 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.

 

Amen.

[Justice 0]

O'Connor's argument you cited was circular.  She's trying to argue that their doing something justifies fact that they do it.

... Uh, no, she's arguing that many obiquous references to God found in government are generally harmless acts of tradition not meant at all to endorse a religion. Again, monotheism isn't a religion.

 

Of course the words "under God" aren't a prayer, but the First Amendment doesn't specifically ban prayer, it bans governemtn recognition of religion.

 

You're seriously dense. What does the word 'God' matter if it isn't some sort of prayer or other praising fashion, what does it matter?

 

Secondly, it doesn't ban 'government recognition' of religion. It bans the sponsor of religion that actively or passively benefits one religion over another, as it is in it's current form. The references above do neither. Just mentioning "God" does not inherently make something religious.

 

Breyer doesn't seem to get the fact that expression of faith in the supernatural is by definition religious, and that the First amendment forbids government recognition of religion.

 

The problem is it no longer serves that function. If you actually read what he said, it's no longer recognized as an act praising God, but something that lacks that meaning. Souter is right: It's no longer a prayer or recognition of a 'God' but more of an Affirmation of civic duty. With "In God We Trust", it now forms more of a trust in our own actions and the American Spirit than a literal belief in God.

 

Are you getting this, or do we have to play in the shallow end of the pool still?

 

I'm beginning to understand now why Scalia considers his colleagues such idiots.

 

You do know that Scalia holds a much stronger view of what they just said, right?

 

Hardly. I can read the First Amendment as well as they can, and have a good enough understanding of the English language to understand what the words "no", "law", "respecting", "establishment", and "religion" mean when used together in a sentence.

 

Perhaps you can point out, then, the clause where "In God We Trust" leads to compulsory church services? Or name the established religion of the United States? If you've read the Constitution, you'd realize that half the stuff you are exposing isn't even in there.

 

I never said religion should be banned. In fact, I said the opposite.

 

Ooooooookay.

 

The only people you seem to want to protect are the religious ones. I've been saying all along the government has no business either confirming or denying the existence of God. Government needs to be completely silent on the issue, and let people worship or not worship.

 

Sure you are. You are simply asking for an abolition of any sort of religious reference in government. That's not both sides of the coin, that's fairly anti-religious. You have to understand that not everything involving "God" is necessarily religious, nor that something taken from the bible (The 10 Commandments) is necessarily meant as a religious reference (JotW brings up the original and acceptable reason of historical references). You are determinedly anti-religious. I'll say I was wrong on Ray Moore when he started saying "This is because we are a Christian Nation".

 

Thomas Jefferson's opinion on the issue matters more to me than those hacks.

 

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate 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.

 

In the current case we are talking about:

 

1) No national religion has been established.

2) No one's free exercise has been prohibited.

 

Where's the problem?

Edited March 5, 2005 by Justice

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

You are simply asking for an abolition of any sort of religious reference in government. That's not both sides of the coin, that's fairly anti-religious.

Why on earth would something religious require any sort of validation beyond tolerance by the government?

[Justice 0]

You are simply asking for an abolition of any sort of religious reference in government. That's not both sides of the coin, that's fairly anti-religious.

Why on earth would something religious require any sort of validation beyond tolerance by the government?

Because it's not tolerance to eliminate anything that might possibly have any chance of being construed as religious. Religion, like it or not, is inherent in our culture. Some references will occur naturally. Of course, some of them will obviously be wrong, there are some which lack the activity but give with them not only a representation of our roots, but even a deeper idea behind them that no longer involves religion. Why does Congress begin with a prayer? Is it because it is religious, or does it show that they are devoted to a higher ideal, held to a higher power (The People), which is represented by taking such an oath.

 

Tolerance is not eliminating any and every reference to God. Tolerance is understanding what we can allow to stay and what we can't.

[SuperJerk 0]

You are simply asking for an abolition of any sort of religious reference in government. That's not both sides of the coin, that's fairly anti-religious.

Why on earth would something religious require any sort of validation beyond tolerance by the government?

Because it's not tolerance to eliminate anything that might possibly have any chance of being construed as religious.

I find that tolerant people are intolerant of non-religious people.

 

Having a government that constantly makes references to God, despite having a provision in its constitution that says it cannot establish a religion, shows an intolerance for non-religious people.

 

I also like the way you keep trying to confuse this issue by insisting we want to remove all references to religion. I already defended the President's right to say "God bless America", and would also defend his right to place his hand on the Bible when he is sworn in. That's not the same as the government adopting a religious slogan as its motto, which should be outlawed.

 

 

Secondly, it doesn't ban 'government recognition' of religion.

 

That's just crazy talk. OF COURSE the First Amendment bans government recognition of religion. You've completely twisted the First Amendment to make it a tool to reinforce your own religious views.

 

Perhaps you can point out, then, the clause where "In God We Trust" leads to compulsory church services?

 

You don't have to go to church to have religious views. Duh.

 

 

Sure you are. You are simply asking for an abolition of any sort of religious reference in government. That's not both sides of the coin, that's fairly anti-religious.

 

You just don't get it.

I'm saying there are THREE ways a government could act.

1) It could be pro-religious and insist everyone beleive in God.

2) It could be anti-religious and insist that no one beleive in God.

3) It could be non-religious and not tell people anything about God.

The first two are wrong, and the third one is right. You keep insisting that the 2nd and 3rd are indentifcal, which THEY ARE NOT.

 

Souter is right: It's no longer a prayer or recognition of a 'God' but more of an Affirmation of civic duty. With "In God We Trust", it now forms more of a trust in our own actions and the American Spirit than a literal belief in God.

 

So God = "the American Spirit"?

 

That's incredibly stupid.

 

I'm enjoying the kind of semanitic gymnastics you're needing to do in order to justify your belief. Not only is it amusing to watch, but it only helps prove my point for me.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

How have the Ten Commandments ever hurt anyone? It's not like if they are displayed on public property, that anyone is being forced to read them or follow them.

 

This country was founded primarily by Christians. The Ten Commandments are a huge part of the foundation for those people's views. To ignore that is to ignore the truth of history. It really gets to me when people try to discount the actual beliefs of our founders, and try to fall back on extremist interpretations of this country's laws.

 

Here's the actual first amendment that is so often misquoted:

 

"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. "

 

It says "make no law". It doesn't say that public expressions of religious belief are forbidden, or that acknowledgment of religion as a part of this country's history is forbidden, either.

 

Why do some people hate Christianity and religion in general so much? I think it's because they resent the fact that some people can have faith in something they don't understand. I really think it's a feeling of inadequacy that leads them to lash out against the majority religion of this nation.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Having a government that constantly makes references to God, despite having a provision in its constitution that says it cannot establish a religion, shows an intolerance for non-religious people.

 

And Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, Sikhs, Wiccans, Rastafarians, Scientologists, followers of traditional Native American religions, etc.

 

Pretty much anyone who's not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.

 

It really gets to me when people try to discount the actual beliefs of our founders

 

Deism?

 

Why do some people hate people who don't believe in the supernatural so much? I think it's because they resent the fact that some people don't accept whatever is told to them. I really think it's a feeling of inadequacy that leads them to lash out against the minority of freethinkers in this nation.

 

A few minor edits in there.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I'm enjoying the kind of semanitic gymnastics you're needing to do in order to justify your belief. Not only is it amusing to watch, but it only helps prove my point for me.

Somewhere I said that all you need to do to win an argument is just say "well you're proving my point for me!" regardless of whether said person really is.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

How have the Ten Commandments ever hurt anyone? It's not like if they are displayed on public property, that anyone is being forced to read them or follow them.

Read the rest of the thread; it's the issue of them being displayed somewhere particular. Private property, fine. Putting them on a courthouse--a government facility--is a different matter and, as RobotJerk has stated very simply throughout this thread, implies and endorsement of not only the values within the Commandments (many of which are not American law) but also the religious system that generated those specific words.

 

This country was founded primarily by Christians. The Ten Commandments are a huge part of the foundation for those people's views. To ignore that is to ignore the truth of history. It really gets to me when people try to discount the actual beliefs of our founders, and try to fall back on extremist interpretations of this country's laws.

 

No one in this thread is saying to ignore the "truth of history." Putting a display of the Ten Commandments in a museum as part of an exhibit explaining how Judeo-Christian values influenced some (but certainly not all) of the choices made in constructing our Constitution? Sounds good to me!

 

 

Why do some people hate Christianity and religion in general so much? I think it's because they resent the fact that some people can have faith in something they don't understand. I really think it's a feeling of inadequacy that leads them to lash out against the majority religion of this nation.

 

Some people hate Christianity and religion in general because they're 14 year-old kids who just discovered Nine Inch Nails. I don't think RobotJerk, bigolsmitty, myself, or really any of the other people posting in this thread whose opinions I'd care to read hate religion in the least. "Faith in something I don't understand" isn't for me; big deal. Your pseudo-psychology about "feelings of inadequacy" completely ignore all the simple, basic reasons that I, among others, don't want the Ten Commandments on a court building.

 

The government as a representative body of lawmakers should be entirely non-religious and take no stance at all on belief in God. That shouldn't bother anyone; unless you feel the need for your particular faith to have a political influence as a faith, you certainly don't need a government endorsement. And if you do believe you need or deserve a government endorsement, then you and I have different definitions of "faith."

[Guest MikeSC]

You are simply asking for an abolition of any sort of religious reference in government. That's not both sides of the coin, that's fairly anti-religious.

Why on earth would something religious require any sort of validation beyond tolerance by the government?

Because it's not tolerance to eliminate anything that might possibly have any chance of being construed as religious.

I find that tolerant people are intolerant of non-religious people.

 

Having a government that constantly makes references to God, despite having a provision in its constitution that says it cannot establish a religion, shows an intolerance for non-religious people.

I have actually found the exact opposite is true. Few people are less tolerant than non-religious people towards anything that even remotely sniffs of being religious.

 

The Constitution promises that the gov't will not fund a religion. It does not promise that an atheist's delicate sensibilities will not possibly be shocked by any display of religion on public property.

 

Heck, we teach global warming in school, and that doesn't have any more actual real truthful underpinnings than religious dogma.

I also like the way you keep trying to confuse this issue by insisting we want to remove all references to religion.  I already defended the President's right to say "God bless America", and would also defend his right to place his hand on the Bible when he is sworn in.  That's not the same as the government adopting a religious slogan as its motto, which should be outlawed.

Why?

 

Let's say they remove all mention of God.

 

I could then easily argue that the gov't is endorsing atheism, which would ALSO violate the Constitution --- if I used the logic of modern atheists.

Secondly, it doesn't ban 'government recognition' of religion.

That's just crazy talk. OF COURSE the First Amendment bans government recognition of religion. You've completely twisted the First Amendment to make it a tool to reinforce your own religious views.

No, it absolutely does not. It forbids the gov't having an official religion, ala the Church of England. Nothing more.

Perhaps you can point out, then, the clause where "In God We Trust" leads to compulsory church services?

You don't have to go to church to have religious views. Duh.

But you're trying to force atheism onto non-atheist people. How is that any better?

Souter is right: It's no longer a prayer or recognition of a 'God' but more of an Affirmation of civic duty. With "In God We Trust", it now forms more of a trust in our own actions and the American Spirit than a literal belief in God.

So God = "the American Spirit"?

 

That's incredibly stupid.

 

I'm enjoying the kind of semanitic gymnastics you're needing to do in order to justify your belief. Not only is it amusing to watch, but it only helps prove my point for me.

The First Amendment guarantees that you will have the freedom to worship whatever deity you wish. It guarantees that the gov't will not say "THIS is the religion of the US".

 

It does not guarantee that any mention of religion in public life will be shielded from you.

-=Mike

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

But you're trying to force atheism onto non-atheist people. How is that any better?

Mike, the problem I see with this argument is that it assumes religion as a starting point for what should be a basis of secular, non-denominational law. It wouldn't be forcing atheism on anyone, because a non-statement is not the same as a disavowment, unless you're operating on the principal that a religious belief is and should be a standard in our country. We don't ask that of our citizens.

 

The problem with the Commandments n' Courthouse connection is that it is a statement.

[Guest MikeSC]

But you're trying to force atheism onto non-atheist people. How is that any better?

Mike, the problem I see with this argument is that it assumes religion as a starting point for what should be a basis of secular, non-denominational law.

 

Mentioning the word "God" is not the same thing as endorsing a religion.

 

I can mention the name "Hitler". It does not mean I'm endorsing Nazism as a sound political ideology.

It wouldn't be forcing atheism on anyone, because a non-statement is not the same as a disavowment, unless you're operating on the principal that a religious belief is and should be a standard in our country.  We don't ask that of our citizens.

We ALSO don't ask them to swear off religion, either.

 

You want things to be how you want. Which is fine. But it's not how MOST people want it, so you might have to learn to deal with not getting all that you desire in this instance.

The problem with the Commandments n' Courthouse connection is that it is a statement.

Seeing as how most of modern law is actually BASED on the 10 Commandments --- no, it really is not.

-=Mike

[Guest Brian]

But you're trying to force atheism onto non-atheist people. How is that any better?

Mike, the problem I see with this argument is that it assumes religion as a starting point for what should be a basis of secular, non-denominational law.

 

Mentioning the word "God" is not the same thing as endorsing a religion.

 

I can mention the name "Hitler". It does not mean I'm endorsing Nazism as a sound political ideology.

We pledge allegiance,

to the flag,

of the United States of America,

and to the republic,

for which it stands,

one nation,

under Hitler

 

 

 

And for the dollar bills:

In Hitler we trust

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

The problem with the Commandments n' Courthouse connection is that it is a statement.

Seeing as how most of modern law is actually BASED on the 10 Commandments --- no, it really is not.

-=Mike

The rest of the stuff you've responded with has already been covered in-depth, so I'll pass it up for this one. We already did this too, but I'll do it again since it's just so fun and easy. I'll use the Catholic since they're the most familiar.

 

1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.

Not a law.

2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Not a law.

3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.

Not a law.

4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.

Not a law. Generally a good idea, though.

5. Thou shalt not kill.

That's a law.

6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Sorta. I believe adultery statutes are only state law, and adultery is only material in divorce proceedings. I'll be generous and say yes.

7. Thou shalt not steal.

That's a law.

8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

That's a law.

9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.

Basically the same, and definitely not laws.

 

3 or 4 out of 10 depending on your interpretation of adultery statutes, and the ones that don't qualify rarely even inform American legal policy.

 

The statement "Seeing as how most of modern law is actually BASED on the 10 Commandments" does not hold up unless you make some really big leaps.