Hundreds Show for Ten Commandments
N9NWO
Hundreds Show for Ten Commandments
By AMY FORLITI
Associated Press Writer
PAOLI, Ind. (AP) - Shrugging off the threat of lawsuits, Orange County
officials became the first in the state to take advantage of a new Indiana
law that allows government entities to post the Ten Commandments.
Renditions of ``God Bless America'' and scripture readings echoed from the
steps of the county courthouse Saturday as nearly 300 people who began
gathering just before midnight watched officials unveil a plaque with the
religious tenets the moment the new law went into effect.
``You talk about being moved. Those people were really full of spirit -
they were just so excited that it was happening,'' said County Commissioner
Charles W. Hall.
The new state law requires that the commandments be posted with other
historical documents, and the county did just that, displaying the Ten
Commandments in a glass case between a copy of the Declaration of
Independence and the Bill of Rights.
``I'm real pleased,'' said State Rep. Jerry Denbo, who sponsored the
legislation. ``We wanted to set the tone for the rest of the nation.''
No lawsuits had been filed over the county's display Saturday, but Indiana
Civil Liberties Union attorney Kenneth Falk said earlier in the week that
the group likely would sue if complaints were registered.
The group already has sued the state over plans to place a Ten Commandments
monument on the Statehouse lawn, claiming doing so would violate the U.S.
Constitution by representing establishment of religion by the state. The
proposed monument is to be inscribed with the Bill of Rights and the
preamble to the U.S. Constitution in addition to the Ten Commandments to
conform with the new state law.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued over a similar display of the Ten
Commandments at a county courthouse in Wilkesboro, N.C., but a judge in May
declined to order the display's removal after commissioners pledged to make
it part of a larger display of historical documents. The ACLU said it
wanted to see the display, completed about three weeks ago, before it would
decide how to proceed.
The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on the issue in 1980, ruling that posting
the Ten Commandments in schools violates First Amendment protections
against government promotion of religion.
---
And remember, the governor is a democrat. And democrats control
the state legislature.
Bruce Finkelstein
not murder".
Craig
Bruce Finkelstein <Highp...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:395EABF5...@prodigy.net...
> I wonder how the sixth commandment reads "Thou shall not kill" or "Thou
shall
> not murder".
I think it's more like "Thou shall not do murder."
--
Craig Irish
"Duane" K/ Kelly
>
> I wonder how the sixth commandment reads "Thou shall not kill" or "Thou shall
> not murder".
The Septuagint reads "ou phoneuo".
ou, oo; also (before a vowel) ouk, ook; and (before an aspirate) ouch,
ookh; a prim. word; the absol. neg. [comp. me, may; a prim. particle of
qualified negation] adv.; no or not:--+ long, nay, neither, never, no (X
man), none, [can-] not, + nothing, + special, un ([-worthy]), when, +
without, + yet but.
phoneuo, fon-yoo'-o; from phoneus; to be a murderer (of):--kill, do
murder, slay
phoneus, fon-yooce'; from phonos; a murderer (always of criminal [or at
least intentional] homicide; which anthropoktonos does not necessarily
imply; while sikarios is a spec. term for a public bandit):--murderer.
phonos, fon'-os; from an obsol. prim. pheno (to slay); murder:--murder,
+ be slain with, slaughter.
anthropoktonos, anth-ro-pok-ton'-os; from G444 a kteino (to kill); a
manslayer:--murderer. Comp
sikarios, sik-ar'-ee-os; of Lat. or.; a dagger-man or assassin; a
freebooter (Jewish fanatic outlawed by the Romans):--murderer. Comp.
lit: not murder
> N9NWO wrote:
>
> > JULY 01, 17:50 EDT
> >
> > Hundreds Show for Ten Commandments
> >
> > By AMY FORLITI
> > Associated Press Writer
> >
> > PAOLI, Ind. (AP) - Shrugging off the threat of lawsuits, Orange County
> > officials became the first in the state to take advantage of a new Indiana
> > law that allows government entities to post the Ten Commandments.
--
========================================================
"A government which will turn its tanks upon its people for ANY reason,
is a government with a taste for blood and a thirst for power, and must
be smartly rebuked, or blindly obeyed in deadly fear"
-Jack Salter
=========================================================
Osmo Ronkanen
Bruce Finkelstein <highpo...@home.com> wrote:
>I wonder how the sixth commandment reads "Thou shall not kill" or "Thou shall
>not murder".
Well here it says "Älä tee aviorikosta" (Do not commit adultery) :-)
Btw do you normally use words like "thou"?
Osmo
N9NWO
shall
: >not murder".
:
: Well here it says "Älä tee aviorikosta" (Do not commit adultery) :-)
:
: Btw do you normally use words like "thou"?
Only because so many still use the King James Bible.
The Hebrew, as you pointed out, has a much simpler
sentence structure.
Rob Strom
>
> JULY 01, 17:50 EDT
>
> Hundreds Show for Ten Commandments
>
> By AMY FORLITI
> Associated Press Writer
>
> PAOLI, Ind. (AP) - Shrugging off the threat of lawsuits, Orange County
> officials became the first in the state to take advantage of a new Indiana
> law that allows government entities to post the Ten Commandments.
>
> steps of the county courthouse Saturday as nearly 300 people who began
> gathering just before midnight watched officials unveil a plaque with the
> religious tenets the moment the new law went into effect.
This is so ironic, since they did this on Saturday, in
violation of the 4th Commandment.
Exodus 20:8ff from JPS translation:
"Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy.
You can work during the six weekdays and do all your tasks.
But Saturday is the Sabbath to God your Lord.
Do not do anything that constitutes work. [This includes]
you, your son, your daughter, your slave,
your maid, your animal, and the foreigner in your gates.
It was during the six weekdays that God made the heaven,
the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,
but he rested on Saturday.
God therefore blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
alt.survivalism, and talk.politics.guns deleted
since this seems to have nothing to do with either
survivalism or guns.
...
>
> The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on the issue in 1980, ruling that posting
> the Ten Commandments in schools violates First Amendment protections
> against government promotion of religion.
So in one stroke, they've managed to violate both
religious and secular laws, including one
of the very laws they posted on the courthouse.
--
Rob Strom
jjwhitej...@usa.net.invalid
4 commandments? Seems to me they were honoring the Sabbath and
keeping it holy.
Could you explain your thinking here? If not could you tell me
where you get the stuff your smoking?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
sal...@my-deja.com
doubt but that it'll be effective in Indiana as well.
This is actually a good litmus test, rather like newsmax.com. You find
someone who actually believes in this stuff, you know....
I hope they can get Pat Robertson to read the "covet thy neighbor's
wife" one. He can tell it to Newt Gingrich.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
mahabarbara
>How does displaying and honoring the Ten Commandments violate
the
>4 commandments? Seems to me they were honoring the Sabbath and
>keeping it holy.
>
>Could you explain your thinking here? If not could you tell me
>where you get the stuff your smoking?
>
He explained it in the message. On the Sabbath (Saturday) one is
not supposed to do stuff. Hanging a poster is doing stuff.
BTW, are those of us who are neither Christian nor Jewish
supposed to just ignore this fragrant violation of the
establishment clause of the First Amendment?
I say the 10 Cs could be boiled down to these five:
1. Do not kill.
2. Do not steal.
3. Don't be promiscuous.
4. Don't tell lies.
5. Don't fog your brain with recreational drugs, including
alchohol.
I think these are much better than the 5Cs. The fact that these
are the Five Precepts of Buddhism and I am Buddhist are mere
coincidence.
B.
Rob Strom
> keeping it holy.
Putting up a plaque on Saturday violates the
commandment to do no (creative) work on Saturday.
It's just ironic that they were having
a ceremony in honor of putting up a list
of commandments one of which was violated
by the very act of putting up the plaque.
>
> Could you explain your thinking here? If not could you tell me
> where you get the stuff your smoking?
Are you always rude to people you don't understand?
--
Rob Strom
Lone Haranguer
mahabarbara wrote:
>
> jjwh...@usa.net <jjwhitej...@usa.net.invalid> wrote:
> >How does displaying and honoring the Ten Commandments violate
> the
> >4 commandments? Seems to me they were honoring the Sabbath and
> >keeping it holy.
> >
> >Could you explain your thinking here? If not could you tell me
> >where you get the stuff your smoking?
> >
>
> He explained it in the message. On the Sabbath (Saturday) one is
> not supposed to do stuff. Hanging a poster is doing stuff.
>
> BTW, are those of us who are neither Christian nor Jewish
> supposed to just ignore this fragrant violation of the
> establishment clause of the First Amendment?
>
The word you were trying for is "flagrant" and NOTHING is
being established. The plaque is posted along with other
"historical documents". I see no reason why similar
"historic documents" from other religions should not join
them. I gather that would void objections to the
"establishment" clause.
LZ
David Annis
wrote:
>
>
>mahabarbara wrote:
>>
>> jjwh...@usa.net <jjwhitej...@usa.net.invalid> wrote:
>> >How does displaying and honoring the Ten Commandments violate
>> the
>> >4 commandments? Seems to me they were honoring the Sabbath and
>> >keeping it holy.
>> >
>> >Could you explain your thinking here? If not could you tell me
>> >where you get the stuff your smoking?
>> >
>>
>> He explained it in the message. On the Sabbath (Saturday) one is
>> not supposed to do stuff. Hanging a poster is doing stuff.
>>
>> BTW, are those of us who are neither Christian nor Jewish
>> supposed to just ignore this fragrant violation of the
>> establishment clause of the First Amendment?
>>
>The word you were trying for is "flagrant" and NOTHING is
>being established. The plaque is posted along with other
>"historical documents". I see no reason why similar
>"historic documents" from other religions should not join
>them. I gather that would void objections to the
>"establishment" clause.
>LZ
>
>
The obvious question, then: Is that what is being done? Along with the
Declaration of Independence and (irony alert!) the Bill of Rights, are
"historical" excerpts from the Koran, the Book of Mormon, some Papal
encyclicals, any Buddhist writings, or other such documents planned
for that "exhibit"? If I'm not mistaken, the Church if Wicca is fairly
represented in Indiana. Will they be included?
Might I suggest some excerpts from Andrew Greeley's "The Sinai Myth",
where he corrects a few major misunderstandings surrounding those 10
commandments? (e.g. "Using the Lord's Name in vain" is not about
profanity; it's about using religion for personal, social, or
political gain).
==================================================
Dave Annis With age comes wisdom, if you
Sheboygan, WI stay awake along the way.
mahabarbara
>
>
>mahabarbara wrote:
>>
>> jjwh...@usa.net <jjwhitej...@usa.net.invalid> wrote:
>> >How does displaying and honoring the Ten Commandments violate
>> the
>> >4 commandments? Seems to me they were honoring the Sabbath
and
>> >keeping it holy.
>> >
>> >Could you explain your thinking here? If not could you tell
me
>> >where you get the stuff your smoking?
>> >
>>
>> He explained it in the message. On the Sabbath (Saturday) one
is
>> not supposed to do stuff. Hanging a poster is doing stuff.
>>
>> BTW, are those of us who are neither Christian nor Jewish
>> supposed to just ignore this fragrant violation of the
>> establishment clause of the First Amendment?
>>
>The word you were trying for is "flagrant"
Yes, thanks.
> and NOTHING is
>being established. The plaque is posted along with other
>"historical documents". I see no reason why similar
>"historic documents" from other religions should not join
>them. I gather that would void objections to the
>"establishment" clause.
Historical documents, my ass. This entire historical document is
a dodge to get around the fact that SCOTUS generally considers
religious displays on public property to be a violation of the
establishment clause. See, for example, ALLEGHENY COUNTY v.
GREATER PITTSBURGH ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989). The "historical"
significance of the 10Cs is a religious historical significance.
This is not too far from re-labeling the Biblical creation story
as "science" in order to get it taught in biology class.
Answer this: Would people be putting together this "historical
display" if it DIDN'T include the Ten Commandments? Isn't
getting the Ten Commandments on the wall of a public building
the real point of it?
Would the use of other "historical documents" from other
religions make things better? What you'd end up with is a
religious display, not a historical display.
Most Moslems disapprove of the Koran being translated into other
languages, and I suspect they would consider a public display of
pages of the Koran along with documents from other religions to
be a gross insult to the Prophet, at the very least.
Speaking for the Buddhists, most of us wouldn't want most
Buddhist "historical documents" to be used this way for reasons
that would be difficult to explain without going into a lot of
Deep Religious Stuff, and I don't want to do that on this
newsgroup. The Five Precepts would be an exception, but they
don't really work as a "historical document" unless you posted
them in the original Sanskirt.
I can't think of anything short and punchy from Hindu
literature. I love the Bhagavad-gita, but it goes on for a lot
of pages.
mahabarbara
>On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 14:57:00 -0500, Lone Haranguer
<lin...@uswest.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>mahabarbara wrote:
>>>
>>> jjwh...@usa.net <jjwhitej...@usa.net.invalid> wrote:
>>> >How does displaying and honoring the Ten Commandments
violate
>>> the
>>> >4 commandments? Seems to me they were honoring the Sabbath
and
>>> >keeping it holy.
>>> >
>>> >Could you explain your thinking here? If not could you tell
me
>>> >where you get the stuff your smoking?
>>> >
>>>
>>> He explained it in the message. On the Sabbath (Saturday)
one is
>>> not supposed to do stuff. Hanging a poster is doing stuff.
>>>
>>> BTW, are those of us who are neither Christian nor Jewish
>>> supposed to just ignore this fragrant violation of the
>>> establishment clause of the First Amendment?
>>>
>>being established. The plaque is posted along with other
>>"historical documents". I see no reason why similar
>>"historic documents" from other religions should not join
>>them. I gather that would void objections to the
>>"establishment" clause.
>>
>>
>The obvious question, then: Is that what is being done? Along
with the
>Declaration of Independence and (irony alert!) the Bill of
Rights, are
>"historical" excerpts from the Koran, the Book of Mormon, some
Papal
>encyclicals, any Buddhist writings, or other such documents
planned
>for that "exhibit"? If I'm not mistaken, the Church if Wicca is
fairly
>represented in Indiana. Will they be included?
If I'm not mistaken, the Moslems would put a fatwa on your ass
in a big hurry if you were to display pages of the Koran
as "historical documents" along with works of other religions.
There's very little of Buddhism that I would want to see on a
wall like that. A lot of the really good stuff is esoteric in
nature and doesn't make sense until you've had some instruction
in the religion.
>
>Might I suggest some excerpts from Andrew Greeley's "The Sinai
Myth",
>where he corrects a few major misunderstandings surrounding
those 10
>commandments? (e.g. "Using the Lord's Name in vain" is not about
>profanity; it's about using religion for personal, social, or
>political gain).
Irony alert, indeed.
B.
>==================================================
> Dave Annis With age comes wisdom, if you
> Sheboygan, WI stay awake along the way.
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
PBarker
> He explained it in the message. On the Sabbath (Saturday) one is
> not supposed to do stuff. Hanging a poster is doing stuff.
+ On Sundays, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work
or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper
to the Lord's day, the performance of the works of mercy, and
the appropriate relaxation of mind and body. Family needs or
important scial service can legitimately excuse the faithful from
the obligation of Sunday rest.
+ Hanging a poster shouldn't be considered work.
+ Especially if doing it in reverance of God and good works.
Lone Haranguer
mahabarbara wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer <lin...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >mahabarbara wrote:
> >>
> >> jjwh...@usa.net <jjwhitej...@usa.net.invalid> wrote:
> >> >How does displaying and honoring the Ten Commandments violate
> >> the
> >> >4 commandments? Seems to me they were honoring the Sabbath
> and
> >> >keeping it holy.
> >> >
> >> >Could you explain your thinking here? If not could you tell
> me
> >> >where you get the stuff your smoking?
> >> >
> >>
> >> He explained it in the message. On the Sabbath (Saturday) one
> is
> >> not supposed to do stuff. Hanging a poster is doing stuff.
> >>
> >> BTW, are those of us who are neither Christian nor Jewish
> >> supposed to just ignore this fragrant violation of the
> >> establishment clause of the First Amendment?
> >>
> >The word you were trying for is "flagrant"
>
> Yes, thanks.
>
> > and NOTHING is
> >being established. The plaque is posted along with other
> >"historical documents". I see no reason why similar
> >"historic documents" from other religions should not join
> >them. I gather that would void objections to the
> >"establishment" clause.
>
> Historical documents, my ass. This entire historical document is
> a dodge to get around the fact that SCOTUS generally considers
> religious displays on public property to be a violation of the
> establishment clause. See, for example, ALLEGHENY COUNTY v.
> GREATER PITTSBURGH ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989). The "historical"
> significance of the 10Cs is a religious historical significance.
> This is not too far from re-labeling the Biblical creation story
> as "science" in order to get it taught in biology class.
>
If all other religions are given equal space it's a long way
from what you use as a parallel.
Since other religions weren't very well represented at the
time this country came into being then I guess they lack
"historic significance".
Can you document otherwise?
> Answer this: Would people be putting together this "historical
> display" if it DIDN'T include the Ten Commandments? Isn't
> getting the Ten Commandments on the wall of a public building
> the real point of it?
I really haven't followed the news on this. I understand
the state passed a law which says it's legal and the county
took advantage of it. I'm sure we can expect a court
challenge.
>
> Would the use of other "historical documents" from other
> religions make things better? What you'd end up with is a
> religious display, not a historical display.
Do you have any that relate to the same time period?
>
> Most Moslems disapprove of the Koran being translated into other
> languages, and I suspect they would consider a public display of
> pages of the Koran along with documents from other religions to
> be a gross insult to the Prophet, at the very least.
Since there are Moslems in many nations and they speak
different languages I suspect that is baloney.
>
> Speaking for the Buddhists, most of us wouldn't want most
> Buddhist "historical documents" to be used this way for reasons
> that would be difficult to explain without going into a lot of
> Deep Religious Stuff, and I don't want to do that on this
> newsgroup. The Five Precepts would be an exception, but they
> don't really work as a "historical document" unless you posted
> them in the original Sanskirt.
>
> I can't think of anything short and punchy from Hindu
> literature. I love the Bhagavad-gita, but it goes on for a lot
> of pages.
Sounds like a skimpy argument. I say let the courts hear
any challenges and the legislature can rewrite the law to be
in compliance.
LZ
>
> >
> >> I say the 10 Cs could be boiled down to these five:
> >>
> >> 1. Do not kill.
> >> 2. Do not steal.
> >> 3. Don't be promiscuous.
> >> 4. Don't tell lies.
> >> 5. Don't fog your brain with recreational drugs, including
> >> alchohol.
> >>
> >> I think these are much better than the 5Cs. The fact that
> these
> >> are the Five Precepts of Buddhism and I am Buddhist are mere
> >> coincidence.
> >>
> >> B.
> >>
mahabarbara
So you admit this entire exercise is just a means to jam the
teachings of the majority religion down everyone's throats?
>Can you document otherwise?
There were a lot of native American religions, sir. And
Buddhists were here by the mid-19th century. Chinese Buddhists
built the railroads out West, you know. That does not
have "historical significance"?
>
>> Answer this: Would people be putting together this "historical
>> display" if it DIDN'T include the Ten Commandments? Isn't
>> getting the Ten Commandments on the wall of a public building
>> the real point of it?
>
>I really haven't followed the news on this. I understand
>the state passed a law which says it's legal and the county
>took advantage of it. I'm sure we can expect a court
>challenge.
You are denying the obvious, in other words.
>
>>
>> Would the use of other "historical documents" from other
>> religions make things better? What you'd end up with is a
>> religious display, not a historical display.
>
>Do you have any that relate to the same time period?
To what time period? The Mosaic sections of the Bible? Some of
the Hindu Vedas are older. Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism
are all older than Christianity but not quite as old as Hindu or
Judaism. But what does that have to do with AMERICAN history?
>
>>
>> Most Moslems disapprove of the Koran being translated into
other
>> languages, and I suspect they would consider a public display
of
>> pages of the Koran along with documents from other religions
to
>> be a gross insult to the Prophet, at the very least.
>
>Since there are Moslems in many nations and they speak
>different languages I suspect that is baloney.
"Reverence for the Koran appears also in the refusal of
traditional Muslim scholars to sanction its translation into
other languages. Since the words spoken to Mohammed were Arabic
words, their rendering into another language, no matter how
skilful, is not the Koran." World Religions, ed. by Geoffrey
Parrinder, Facts on File, p. 473. This goes on to say that there
are translations, but the translations of the Koran are not
considered to BE the Koran. The only Koran is the Arabic Koran.
Another thing I know about Moslems and the Koran is that many
would not tolerate putting parts of it in a display case on an
equal basis with texts from other religions. It would be a
sacrilege.
>>
>> Speaking for the Buddhists, most of us wouldn't want most
>> Buddhist "historical documents" to be used this way for
reasons
>> that would be difficult to explain without going into a lot of
>> Deep Religious Stuff, and I don't want to do that on this
>> newsgroup. The Five Precepts would be an exception, but they
>> don't really work as a "historical document" unless you posted
>> them in the original Sanskirt.
>>
>> I can't think of anything short and punchy from Hindu
>> literature. I love the Bhagavad-gita, but it goes on for a lot
>> of pages.
>
>Sounds like a skimpy argument. I say let the courts hear
>any challenges and the legislature can rewrite the law to be
>in compliance.
I say let's honor the establishment clause of the First
Amendment, keep government out of religion, and leave it up to
people to practice religion or not without goverment coercing it.
jjwhitej...@usa.net.invalid
Sabbath and
>> keeping it holy.
>
>commandment to do no (creative) work on Saturday.
The word "creative" does not appear in the Ten Commandments. So
I have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
>
>It's just ironic that they were having
>a ceremony in honor of putting up a list
>of commandments one of which was violated
>by the very act of putting up the plaque.
Honoring the lord is what the commandment is about. Going to
church or praying or honoring the ten commandment is not."Work"
and you know it.
>
>
>>
>> Could you explain your thinking here? If not could you tell me
>> where you get the stuff your smoking?
>
>Are you always rude to people you don't understand?
Yes, especially when they prosperously misrepresent something
just to bash a religions belief. No one is asking you to believe
what he or she believes, but to just misrepresent it and make
fun of it is nothing more than hate speech.
JJWHITEJR
>
>--
>Rob Strom
David Annis
<bark...@nospam.erinet.com> wrote:
>"mahabarbara wrote
>> He explained it in the message. On the Sabbath (Saturday) one is
>> not supposed to do stuff. Hanging a poster is doing stuff.
>
>+ On Sundays, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work
>or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper
>to the Lord's day, the performance of the works of mercy, and
>the appropriate relaxation of mind and body. Family needs or
>important scial service can legitimately excuse the faithful from
>the obligation of Sunday rest.
>
>+ Hanging a poster shouldn't be considered work.
>+ Especially if doing it in reverance of God and good works.
>
>
You are, IMHO, exactly correct in your interpretation of the "sabbath"
commandment. Now if you could just get the "using the Lord's Name in
vain" under control ...
Lone Haranguer
I admit to nothing. Trying to stick to facts, not emotions.
>
> >Can you document otherwise?
>
> There were a lot of native American religions, sir. And
> Buddhists were here by the mid-19th century. Chinese Buddhists
> built the railroads out West, you know. That does not
> have "historical significance"?
>
Native Americans indeed had a variety of religions. Are any
of them asking to have a historic reminder hung in the
courthouse? If so, nore power to them.
Building the railroads certainly had historic significance.
I doubt that the religions of the workers has much bearing
though.
>
> >> Answer this: Would people be putting together this "historical
> >> display" if it DIDN'T include the Ten Commandments? Isn't
> >> getting the Ten Commandments on the wall of a public building
> >> the real point of it?
> >
> >I really haven't followed the news on this. I understand
> >the state passed a law which says it's legal and the county
> >took advantage of it. I'm sure we can expect a court
> >challenge.
>
> You are denying the obvious, in other words.
>
I think it's a flap over some people getting their nose out
of joint. I have no strong feelings either way. States
pass all kinds of laws that irk the Federal government. The
courts usually attend to them in good time.
If the Feds attack the courthouse with a SWAT team and
snatch the 10 Cs off the wall, I'll be interested to see if
the Sheriff's office defends the courthouse or not. Should
they or shouldn't they?
> >
> >>
> >> Would the use of other "historical documents" from other
> >> religions make things better? What you'd end up with is a
> >> religious display, not a historical display.
> >
> >Do you have any that relate to the same time period?
>
> To what time period? The Mosaic sections of the Bible? Some of
> the Hindu Vedas are older. Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism
> are all older than Christianity but not quite as old as Hindu or
> Judaism. But what does that have to do with AMERICAN history?
>
> >
The time period of our founding documents which make up the
display of course. I THINK what the people have in mind is
celebrating the fact that the birth of our nation gave them
freedom to practice their religion. NOT MANDATE IT but
practice it. That is what I THINK is their reasoning. I
could be wrong. YOU seem to think they are shoving it down
other people's throats. From appearances YOU are the
intolerant one here. Why not circulate a petition ASKING
them to take them down. Or you could file a friend of the
court brief when the ACLU takes it to court.
> >>
> >> Most Moslems disapprove of the Koran being translated into
> other
> >> languages, and I suspect they would consider a public display
> of
> >> pages of the Koran along with documents from other religions
> to
> >> be a gross insult to the Prophet, at the very least.
> >
> >Since there are Moslems in many nations and they speak
> >different languages I suspect that is baloney.
>
> "Reverence for the Koran appears also in the refusal of
> traditional Muslim scholars to sanction its translation into
> other languages. Since the words spoken to Mohammed were Arabic
> words, their rendering into another language, no matter how
> skilful, is not the Koran." World Religions, ed. by Geoffrey
> Parrinder, Facts on File, p. 473. This goes on to say that there
> are translations, but the translations of the Koran are not
> considered to BE the Koran. The only Koran is the Arabic Koran.
>
Talk about narrow minded!
> Another thing I know about Moslems and the Koran is that many
> would not tolerate putting parts of it in a display case on an
> equal basis with texts from other religions. It would be a
> sacrilege.
>
Naturally no one is forcing them to join the exhibit,
strictly voluntarily.
> >>
> >> Speaking for the Buddhists, most of us wouldn't want most
> >> Buddhist "historical documents" to be used this way for
> reasons
> >> that would be difficult to explain without going into a lot of
> >> Deep Religious Stuff, and I don't want to do that on this
> >> newsgroup. The Five Precepts would be an exception, but they
> >> don't really work as a "historical document" unless you posted
> >> them in the original Sanskirt.
> >>
> >> I can't think of anything short and punchy from Hindu
> >> literature. I love the Bhagavad-gita, but it goes on for a lot
> >> of pages.
> >
> >Sounds like a skimpy argument. I say let the courts hear
> >any challenges and the legislature can rewrite the law to be
> >in compliance.
>
> I say let's honor the establishment clause of the First
> Amendment, keep government out of religion, and leave it up to
> people to practice religion or not without goverment coercing it.
>
I haven't seen the government establishing any religions as
official state religions. If they allow other religions to
post their documents where does the "establishment" come
in? Would you prefer that all Christians post the 10Cs on
the outside of their houses as a "religious practice"? Bet
you would be one of the first to howl.
LZ
mahabarbara
is
>> not supposed to do stuff. Hanging a poster is doing stuff.
>
>or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy
proper
>to the Lord's day, the performance of the works of mercy, and
>the appropriate relaxation of mind and body. Family needs or
>important scial service can legitimately excuse the faithful
from
>the obligation of Sunday rest.
>
>+ Hanging a poster shouldn't be considered work.
>+ Especially if doing it in reverance of God and good works.
Hey, they aren't my rules; I'm a Buddhist. However, I understand
that as Judaism interpreted the "sabbath" commandment, one does
not do stuff, including hanging posters. Someone who knows more
about Judaism than I do might be better able to explain this.
mahabarbara
to jam the teachings of the majority religion down everyone's
throats?"
Mr. Haranguer wrote: "I admit to nothing. Trying to stick to
facts, not emotions."
Sir, it's an apparent fact that the entire reason for this
exercise in "historical documents" is to circumvent
the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment
and give government sanction to a Judeo-Christian text.
Maha wrote: "There were a lot of native American religions, sir.
And Buddhists were here by the mid-19th century. Chinese
Buddhists built the railroads out West, you know. That does not
have "historical significance"?"
Mr. Harranguer wrote: "Native Americans indeed had a variety of
religions. Are any of them asking to have a historic reminder
hung in the courthouse? If so, nore power to them."
If this exercise in posting "historical documents" were
religiously neutral, Native Americans wouldn't have to ask. The
people putting the "historical documents" together would have
attempted a representation of religions other than the Judeo-
Christian tradition.
Mr. Harranguer wrote: "Building the railroads certainly had
historic significance. I doubt that the religions of the workers
has much bearing though."
The religion of those workers had as much significance to them,
and to the nation, as the religion of Christanity had to the
Founders, sir.
I hope one of the "historical documents" on display is the
Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty, of 1786, quoted in more
detail below. Or go to the web at:
http://civnet.org/resoures/teach/basic/part7/42.htm
and also
http://www.firstfreedom.org/statute.html
Mr. Harranguer wrote: "I think it's a flap over some people
getting their nose out of joint. I have no strong feelings
either way. States pass all kinds of laws that irk the Federal
government."
Yes, but states can't pass laws that are in direct violation of
the United States Constitution; in this case, the First and
Fourteenth Amendments.
Mr. Harranguer wrote: "The courts usually attend to them in good
time. If the Feds attack the courthouse with a SWAT team and
snatch the 10 Cs off the wall, I'll be interested to see if the
Sheriff's office defends the courthouse or not. Should they or
shouldn't they?"
If a federal court says the 10 Cs have to come down per the
First and Fourteenth Amendments, then that's the law. They have
to come down. The states are as bound by this as the feds.
Mr. Harranguer wrote: "Do you have any that relate to the same
time period?"
Maha wrote: "To what time period? The Mosaic sections of the
Bible? Some of the Hindu Vedas are older. Buddhism,
Confucianism, and Taoism are all older than Christianity but not
quite as old as Hindu or Judaism. But what does that have to do
with AMERICAN history?"
Harranguer wrote: "The time period of our founding documents
which make up the display of course."
Well, what the hell time period is THAT? As I recall, Moses
received the 10Cs about 1200 BCE. This was a tad before the
American Revolution.
The 10 Commandments and the rest of the Jewish and Christian
scriptures have an important place in western culture and
society, but the 10 Commandments are not particularly
significant in the civil history of the United states. As far as
the founding of the nation is concerned, the writings of the
Greek and Roman pre-Christian philosophers were more significant
than the 10 Cs. So are any of those "historical documents" being
posted.
Mr. Haranguer wrote: "I THINK what the people have in mind is
celebrating the fact that the birth of our nation gave them
freedom to practice their religion. NOT MANDATE IT but practice
it. That is what I THINK is their reasoning. I could be wrong.
YOU seem to think they are shoving it down other people's
throats. From appearances YOU are the intolerant one here. Why
not circulate a petition ASKING them to take them down. Or you
could file a friend of the court brief when the ACLU takes it to
court."
Why do these people have to use government to practice their
religion? Is anyone forbidding them from publishing the 10Cs and
passing out copies? Is anyone forbidding them from putting 10C
posters all over their homes and churches? Why do they feel
compelled to drag government into their religious practice and
make a Big Public Deal about it and shove it into everyone
else's face? Particularly when this is EXACTLY the sort of thing
the Founders were trying to avoid with the First Amendment and
also the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty (below).
Maha quotes from a book: "Reverence for the Koran appears also
in the refusal of traditional Muslim scholars to sanction its
translation into other languages. Since the words spoken to
Mohammed were Arabic words, their rendering into another
language, no matter how skilful, is not the Koran." World
Religions, ed. by Geoffrey Parrinder, Facts on File, p. 473.
This goes on to say that there are translations, but the
translations of the Koran are not considered to BE the Koran.
The only Koran is the Arabic Koran. <end of quote>
Mr. Haranguer wrote: "Talk about narrow minded!"
Thank you for that revealing display of intolerance.
Maha wrote; "Another thing I know about Moslems and the Koran is
that many would not tolerate putting parts of it in a display
case on an equal basis with texts from other religions. It would
be a sacrilege."
Haranguer wrote: "Naturally no one is forcing them to join the
exhibit, strictly voluntarily."
So who "volunteered" the 10Cs? And have you considered that some
religious folk might find this usage of a sacred text of Judaism
and Christianity a kind of sacrilege?
Maha wrote: "I say let's honor the establishment clause of the
First Amendment, keep government out of religion, and leave it
up to people to practice religion or not without goverment
coercing it."
Harranguer wrote: "I haven't seen the government establishing
any religions as official state religions. If they allow other
religions to post their documents where does the "establishment"
come in? Would you prefer that all Christians post the 10Cs on
the outside of their houses as a "religious practice"?
YES I WOULD. They have EVERY right to post the 10 Commandments
on the outside of their houses if they wish.
Haranguer wrote: "Bet you'd be one of the first to howl."
Why? I am not against Christianity. I'm against any religious
faction that attempts to use government to promote itself. If
Buddhists were doing this it would be just as wrong. Religion is
PERSONAL. It's not to be promoted by GOVERNMENT.
EXCERPTS FROM THE VIRGINIA STATUTE OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786)
Introdoction to the text: Thomas Jefferson and James Madison
argued that religious beliefs should be solely matters of
individual conscience and completely immune from any
interference by the state. Moreover, religious activity of any
sort should be wholly voluntary. Not only did they oppose taxing
people to support an established church, but they also objected
to forcing people to pay taxes even for their own church. To
Jefferson, a high wall of separation should always keep church
and state apart. Jefferson drafted the following measure, but
it was Madison who skillfully secured its adoption by the
Virginia legislature in 1786. It is still part of modern
Virginia's constitution, and it has not only been copied by
other states but was also the basis for the Religion Clauses in
the Constitution's Bill of Rights. Both men considered this bill
one of the great achievements of their lives, and Jefferson
directed that on his tombstone he should not be remembered
as president of the United States or for any of the other high
offices he held, but as the author of the Declaration of
Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and
as the founder of the University of Virginia.
VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM <exceprts>
..[T]he impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as
well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and
uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others,
setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only
true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on
others, hath established and maintained false religions over the
greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel
a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of
opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that
even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own
religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable
liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor,
whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he
feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from
the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an
approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional
incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the
instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence
on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics
or geometry; ... that it tends only to corrupt the principles of
that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a
monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will
externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these
are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither
are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer
the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of
opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of
principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous
fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because
he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions
the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of
others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;
that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil
government, for its officers to interfere when principles break
out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally,
that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that
she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has
nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition
disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate,
errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to
contradict them:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be
compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place,
or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained,
molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise
suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that
all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain,
their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in
no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people
for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to
restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with
powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act
to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free
to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are
of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be
hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its
operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.
Source: W.W. Hening, ed., Statutes at Large of Virginia, vol. 12
(1823): 84-86.
mahabarbara
displaying the Ten Commandments is a pile of male bovine manure:
The article said the 10 Cs were being displayed between copies
of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. What,
pray tell, is the historical context here? What does the 10Cs
have to do with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of
Rights? The only very tenuous link I can think of is that the
10Cs were among many, many, many works of literature that the
Founders were familiar with. But there is no relation between
the 10Cs and the BoR and DoI.
As a "historical document," the 10Cs are an off-the-wall choice
in many respects. Although they are no doubt historical,
biblical scholars cannot agree exactly who wrote the section of
the scriptures in which they appear, nor are they entirely
certain when they were written (see, for example, Who Wrote the
Bible? by Richard Elliott Friedman, Summit Books, 1987). So it's
weird for government to display a "historical document" for
which it can provide no historical context, and which is
unrelated to the documents displayed along side it.
Indeed, a case can be made that government's display of the 10Cs
is directly antithetical to the BoR and the DoI.
The DoI was written by Thomas Jefferson, and the chief author of
the BoR was James Madison. Madison took his inspiration for the
First Amendment from Jefferson's Virginia Statute of Religious
Liberty, which you can read online at:
http://civnet.org/resoures/teach/basic/part7/42.htm
This document declares that religion must be disestablished;
that is, that no religion be given any privileged or favored
status by government. In Thomas Jefferson's autobiography, which
you can read online at:
http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Jefferson/Autobiography.html#v
irginia
he wrote about this statute and why it was necessary. A quote:
"The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of
which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn
in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with
opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was
finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it's
protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the
preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of
the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by
inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a
departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our
religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in
proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's
protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and
Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."
Madison was instrumental in getting the Virginia Statute of
Religious Liberty passed. So to use Jefferson's and Madison's
works as a "context" to provide an excuse for establishing the
Ten Commandments as the official state code of ethics is a
particular outrage. It is antithetical to whatever historical
context the display pretends to have.
I recommend also an Atlantic Monthly article from December 1994
on Thomas Jefferson and religious liberty, written by Merrill D.
Peterson, at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/obrien/peterson.htm
Excerpt:
Jefferson then posed the fundamental question: "Has the state a
right to adopt an opinion in matters of religion?" Answering
with a resounding negative, he pursued the argument well beyond
the original question of a single state Church. According to
the Lockean, or contractual, theory of civil government, men
enter into government to secure those rights they cannot secure
themselves. But religious conscience, being wholly inward and
private, is not one of these. It does not depend upon civil
authority. Indeed, it cannot abide coercion, for religion in
its nature depends upon the inward persuasions of the mind. Men
and women are answerable for their religious beliefs solely to
God. Jefferson later gave memorable expression to the doctrine
in Notes on Virginia : "The legitimate powers of government
extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it
does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods
or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."
Regardless of the question of right, Jefferson went on, the
State's intervention in religious matters was harmful to
religion itself. Assailing the folly of state-supported and -
mandated religions, Jefferson sounded like a Virginia
Voltaire: "Millions of innocent men, women, and children since
the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured,
fined, imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch towards
uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one
half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites." The
progress of truth in religion, as in science, depended upon the
progress of free inquiry and private judgment over the coercion
and error of authority, both civil and ecclesiastical. "It is
error alone which needs the support of government," Jefferson
declared. "Truth can stand by itself." Religious differences --
the multiplicity of sects and creeds in America -- are
beneficial to society. "The several sects perform the office of
a Censor morum over each other." Religious differences are
equally beneficial to religion, for they set up a virtuous
competition among the sects and require them to stand on their
own mettle rather than depending on external support. In the
years to come Jefferson often reaffirmed his belief in the
salubrity of America's religious pluralism. Writing to a rabbi
who had sent him a discourse on the consecration of the
synagogue in Savannah in 1821, he spoke of the two great
principles proved by the American experience. First, he said,
man can be trusted with the government of himself; and second,
freedom is the most effectual anodyne against religious
dissension and conflict, "the maxim of civil government being
reversed in that of religion, where its true form is 'divided
we stand, united we fall.'"
<end quote>
And, of course, if you want a real "historical document" to
place on display between the Bill of Rights and the Declaration
of Independence, what better than Jefferson's famous letter to
the Danbury Baptists, in which he explained that the First
Amendment erects a "wall of separation between church and state"?
N9NWO
: > not supposed to do stuff. Hanging a poster is doing stuff.
:
: + On Sundays, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work
: or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper
: to the Lord's day, the performance of the works of mercy, and
: the appropriate relaxation of mind and body. Family needs or
: important scial service can legitimately excuse the faithful from
: the obligation of Sunday rest.
:
: + Hanging a poster shouldn't be considered work.
: + Especially if doing it in reverance of God and good works.
One thing. Paul conveys the wisdom that we are no longer under
the law. That we should not be followers of days or holidays. It
was among the first things that the early Christians ignored of Paul's
teachings.
No day is more holy than another. And Christians are dead to the law
because they are dead in Christ. Thus it is themselves who put themselves
back under the law, back into slavery. It is because they are immature.
N9NWO
: > >being established. The plaque is posted along with other
: > >"historical documents". I see no reason why similar
: > >"historic documents" from other religions should not join
: > >them. I gather that would void objections to the
: > >"establishment" clause.
: >
: > Historical documents, my ass. This entire historical document is
: > a dodge to get around the fact that SCOTUS generally considers
: > religious displays on public property to be a violation of the
: > establishment clause. See, for example, ALLEGHENY COUNTY v.
: > GREATER PITTSBURGH ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989). The "historical"
: > significance of the 10Cs is a religious historical significance.
: > This is not too far from re-labeling the Biblical creation story
: > as "science" in order to get it taught in biology class.
: >
: If all other religions are given equal space it's a long way
: from what you use as a parallel.
:
: Since other religions weren't very well represented at the
: time this country came into being then I guess they lack
: "historic significance".
: Can you document otherwise?
From a historical point of view, most other religions
are recent new comers. Interest by Americans in other
religions really took off after the late '60s. And most
of those who immigrated with these religions have done
so in the last 30 years. Yes, I know, we had a huge
Chinese population in the late 1800s. But for the most
part they were never mainstream, even now.
From a historical viewpoint, Judism and Christianity have
had the biggest influence on our laws and culture over the
last 200 years.
: > Answer this: Would people be putting together this "historical
: > display" if it DIDN'T include the Ten Commandments? Isn't
: > getting the Ten Commandments on the wall of a public building
: > the real point of it?
:
: I really haven't followed the news on this. I understand
: the state passed a law which says it's legal and the county
: took advantage of it. I'm sure we can expect a court
: challenge.
Oh, I expect so. The real problem is that many Christians,
especially Baptist, feel that just putting something on the wall
is winning. That having it there will change people's lives. That
is so hollow, so symbolic. And it is at the heart of what is wrong
with the Body of Christ in American. They are empty and then
do not understand why few want what they have. There is no
power of God in them.
: > Would the use of other "historical documents" from other
: > religions make things better? What you'd end up with is a
: > religious display, not a historical display.
:
: Do you have any that relate to the same time period?
In most of our history, religion was the heart of the nation.
Especially the mainline protestant churches.
: > Most Moslems disapprove of the Koran being translated into other
: > languages, and I suspect they would consider a public display of
: > pages of the Koran along with documents from other religions to
: > be a gross insult to the Prophet, at the very least.
:
: Since there are Moslems in many nations and they speak
: different languages I suspect that is baloney.
While there are Korans with translations into other languages,
Moslems are encouraged to learn to read the Koran in the
ancient Arabic. One thing to note. Indiana is the headquarters
for the National Islamic Center. It is just west of Indianapolis
on I-70 near the state police academy.
And the Dia Lama has his headquarters at IU with his brother.
: > Speaking for the Buddhists, most of us wouldn't want most
: > Buddhist "historical documents" to be used this way for reasons
: > that would be difficult to explain without going into a lot of
: > Deep Religious Stuff, and I don't want to do that on this
: > newsgroup. The Five Precepts would be an exception, but they
: > don't really work as a "historical document" unless you posted
: > them in the original Sanskirt.
: >
: > I can't think of anything short and punchy from Hindu
: > literature. I love the Bhagavad-gita, but it goes on for a lot
: > of pages.
:
: Sounds like a skimpy argument. I say let the courts hear
: any challenges and the legislature can rewrite the law to be
: in compliance.
What the real battle is about is who will have the government
support their position. Look at how the Gays NEED government
sanction (marriage, military service) to valid them.
N9NWO
: > 4 commandments? [sic] Seems to me they were honoring the Sabbath and
: > keeping it holy.
:
: Putting up a plaque on Saturday violates the
: commandment to do no (creative) work on Saturday.
: It's just ironic that they were having
: a ceremony in honor of putting up a list
: of commandments one of which was violated
: by the very act of putting up the plaque.
Only if you are a follower of the Talmud. The
Torah never went into such detail. God's intent
was that man should walk in wisdom. Instead
takes wisdom and makes rules (morality).
: > Could you explain your thinking here? If not could you tell me
: > where you get the stuff your smoking?
:
: Are you always rude to people you don't understand?
Insecurity.
N9NWO
: is not supposed to do stuff. Hanging a poster is doing stuff.
: >
: >+ On Sundays, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work
: >or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy
: proper to the Lord's day, the performance of the works of mercy, and
: >the appropriate relaxation of mind and body. Family needs or
: >important scial service can legitimately excuse the faithful
: from the obligation of Sunday rest.
: >
: >+ Hanging a poster shouldn't be considered work.
: >+ Especially if doing it in reverance of God and good works.
: Hey, they aren't my rules; I'm a Buddhist. However, I understand
: that as Judaism interpreted the "sabbath" commandment, one does
: not do stuff, including hanging posters. Someone who knows more
: about Judaism than I do might be better able to explain this.
It is not so much the law (Torah) as the interpretation of the law
(Talmud).
Much of what we call Judaism is really from the post Babylonian captivity.
It was then that the Rabbinical movement started. And in Jesus' time there
were huge political fights between the Rabbis (Pharisees) and the Priests
(Sadducees) over who would run the political and religious life of Israel.
(You also had the Zealots who wanted to be a militia movement to overthrow
Rome. And those who just wanted to live a pure life out in the dessert.)
The Torah (five books of Moses which make up the law) only require
that Israel honor the Sabbath and kept in holy. The Talmud gives rules
and procedures, in detail.
N9NWO
: doubt but that it'll be effective in Indiana as well.
:
: This is actually a good litmus test, rather like newsmax.com. You find
: someone who actually believes in this stuff, you know....
:
: I hope they can get Pat Robertson to read the "covet thy neighbor's
: wife" one. He can tell it to Newt Gingrich.
Was the woman married when Newt was having an affair with her?
If not, then he did not covet her. And actually, the affair was long
beyond the coveting stage.
Besides Judaism has never forbade the having of multiple wives. The
law never outlawed such. Women were under much higher standards
than men under the Torah (and even the Talmud).
Even Christianity does not outlaw multiple wives. Only leaders are
ordered to be the husband of one wife as an example of how Christ's
relationship with the Church is to be.
mahabarbara
>: > How does displaying and honoring the Ten Commandments
violate the
>: > 4 commandments? [sic] Seems to me they were honoring the
Sabbath and
>: > keeping it holy.
>:
>: Putting up a plaque on Saturday violates the
>: commandment to do no (creative) work on Saturday.
>:
>: It's just ironic that they were having
>: a ceremony in honor of putting up a list
>: of commandments one of which was violated
>: by the very act of putting up the plaque.
>
>Only if you are a follower of the Talmud. The
>Torah never went into such detail. God's intent
>was that man should walk in wisdom. Instead
>takes wisdom and makes rules (morality).
This is an example of why it's a bad idea for government to get
mixed up in and take sides in religion. Now you are arguing that
the Jewish interpretation of the scripture is invalid, and only
the Christian one should be considered correct.
Yes, that's what always happens.
B., who prefers the Dhammapada
B.
>
>: > Could you explain your thinking here? If not could you tell
me
>: > where you get the stuff your smoking?
>:
>: Are you always rude to people you don't understand?
>
>Insecurity.
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
N9NWO
: violate the 4 commandments? [sic] Seems to me they were honoring the
: Sabbath and keeping it holy.
: >:
: >: Putting up a plaque on Saturday violates the
: >: commandment to do no (creative) work on Saturday.
: >:
: >: It's just ironic that they were having
: >: a ceremony in honor of putting up a list
: >: of commandments one of which was violated
: >: by the very act of putting up the plaque.
: >
: >Only if you are a follower of the Talmud. The
: >Torah never went into such detail. God's intent
: >was that man should walk in wisdom. Instead
: >takes wisdom and makes rules (morality).
:
: This is an example of why it's a bad idea for government to get
: mixed up in and take sides in religion. Now you are arguing that
: the Jewish interpretation of the scripture is invalid, and only
: the Christian one should be considered correct.
:
: Yes, that's what always happens.
No, it is just that Christians are not under the law. The law
only applies to those under it.
Now showing honor to the wisdom behind the law isn't
a bad idea.
The real problem is that we are now a divided people,
tribialized like the Balkans. We focus on what we are
as individuals, not what we have in common. Given that
most Americans are very insecure about who and what
they are, this is a very dangerous time. We are on the
verge of our third civil war.
We do not need more diversity. Diversity is being used
as a means to shore up various insecure groups, like the
Gay community. The problem is that many Christians are
aping the Gays and trying to get government to give them
the same support.
Instead, we really need to look at what all Americans have
in common, not what makes us different. And it is time for
all radicals, in every political sphere, to just shut up.
Lone Haranguer
mahabarbara wrote:
>
> Maha wrote: "So you admit this entire exercise is just a means
> to jam the teachings of the majority religion down everyone's
> throats?"
>
> Mr. Haranguer wrote: "I admit to nothing. Trying to stick to
> facts, not emotions."
>
> Sir, it's an apparent fact that the entire reason for this
> exercise in "historical documents" is to circumvent
> the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment
> and give government sanction to a Judeo-Christian text.
>
> Maha wrote: "There were a lot of native American religions, sir.
> And Buddhists were here by the mid-19th century. Chinese
> Buddhists built the railroads out West, you know. That does not
> have "historical significance"?"
>
> Mr. Harranguer wrote: "Native Americans indeed had a variety of
> religions. Are any of them asking to have a historic reminder
> hung in the courthouse? If so, nore power to them."
>
> If this exercise in posting "historical documents" were
> religiously neutral, Native Americans wouldn't have to ask. The
> people putting the "historical documents" together would have
> attempted a representation of religions other than the Judeo-
> Christian tradition.
Perhaps they are not represented in that area so did not
participate.
>
> Mr. Harranguer wrote: "Building the railroads certainly had
> historic significance. I doubt that the religions of the workers
> has much bearing though."
>
> The religion of those workers had as much significance to them,
> and to the nation, as the religion of Christanity had to the
> Founders, sir.
>
Well, you might think so but it had no influence on the
people who wrote our founding documents.
> I hope one of the "historical documents" on display is the
> Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty, of 1786, quoted in more
> detail below. Or go to the web at:
>
> http://civnet.org/resoures/teach/basic/part7/42.htm
>
> and also
>
> http://www.firstfreedom.org/statute.html
>
> Mr. Harranguer wrote: "I think it's a flap over some people
> getting their nose out of joint. I have no strong feelings
> either way. States pass all kinds of laws that irk the Federal
> government."
>
> Yes, but states can't pass laws that are in direct violation of
> the United States Constitution; in this case, the First and
> Fourteenth Amendments.
>
> Mr. Harranguer wrote: "The courts usually attend to them in good
> time. If the Feds attack the courthouse with a SWAT team and
> snatch the 10 Cs off the wall, I'll be interested to see if the
> Sheriff's office defends the courthouse or not. Should they or
> shouldn't they?"
>
> If a federal court says the 10 Cs have to come down per the
> First and Fourteenth Amendments, then that's the law. They have
> to come down. The states are as bound by this as the feds.
>
The Constitution also said that states have to respect the
laws of other states but the Federal government refused to
enforce the law pertaining to escaped slaves. It appears
that in the past the states have defied the Constitution and
gotten away with it. Could it be that the moral conscience
of the states involved convinced the Feds to do nothing?
From that experience it appears that if a majority of
citizens in a given state assert their moral beliefs they
can trump the law.
> Mr. Harranguer wrote: "Do you have any that relate to the same
> time period?"
>
> Maha wrote: "To what time period? The Mosaic sections of the
> Bible? Some of the Hindu Vedas are older. Buddhism,
> Confucianism, and Taoism are all older than Christianity but not
> quite as old as Hindu or Judaism. But what does that have to do
> with AMERICAN history?"
>
> Harranguer wrote: "The time period of our founding documents
> which make up the display of course."
>
> Well, what the hell time period is THAT? As I recall, Moses
> received the 10Cs about 1200 BCE. This was a tad before the
> American Revolution.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? The founding documents
of our country were all written in the late 1700s. I
understand these are what constitute the display.
There is a lot of crap being shoved into everyone's face
these days by the politically correct mob. LOTS of crap is
being fed to children in the schools that the parents do not
want and government should not be involved in. Still
Liberals are pushing and shoving to fulfill THEIR agenda but
don't allow others to practice the same strategy.
> Maha quotes from a book: "Reverence for the Koran appears also
> in the refusal of traditional Muslim scholars to sanction its
> translation into other languages. Since the words spoken to
> Mohammed were Arabic words, their rendering into another
> language, no matter how skilful, is not the Koran." World
> Religions, ed. by Geoffrey Parrinder, Facts on File, p. 473.
> This goes on to say that there are translations, but the
> translations of the Koran are not considered to BE the Koran.
> The only Koran is the Arabic Koran. <end of quote>
>
> Mr. Haranguer wrote: "Talk about narrow minded!"
>
> Thank you for that revealing display of intolerance.
If the Pope said only people of a certain language could
visit the Vatican your eyes would bug out in rage. Get a
grip.
>
> Maha wrote; "Another thing I know about Moslems and the Koran is
> that many would not tolerate putting parts of it in a display
> case on an equal basis with texts from other religions. It would
> be a sacrilege."
>
> Haranguer wrote: "Naturally no one is forcing them to join the
> exhibit, strictly voluntarily."
>
> So who "volunteered" the 10Cs? And have you considered that some
> religious folk might find this usage of a sacred text of Judaism
> and Christianity a kind of sacrilege?
So let them voice their concerns.
>
> Maha wrote: "I say let's honor the establishment clause of the
> First Amendment, keep government out of religion, and leave it
> up to people to practice religion or not without goverment
> coercing it."
>
> Harranguer wrote: "I haven't seen the government establishing
> any religions as official state religions. If they allow other
> religions to post their documents where does the "establishment"
> come in? Would you prefer that all Christians post the 10Cs on
> the outside of their houses as a "religious practice"?
>
> YES I WOULD. They have EVERY right to post the 10 Commandments
> on the outside of their houses if they wish.
>
> Haranguer wrote: "Bet you'd be one of the first to howl."
>
> Why? I am not against Christianity. I'm against any religious
> faction that attempts to use government to promote itself. If
> Buddhists were doing this it would be just as wrong. Religion is
> PERSONAL. It's not to be promoted by GOVERNMENT.
>
Is the government PROMOTING it or allowing the free exercise
thereof?
I think that is what needs to be determined before you blow
your gaskets.
LZ
mahabarbara
I have two objections to the paragraph above. First, you appear
to be saying that, as Christianity is a "mainstream" religion,
it can be enshrined by government in a special place of honor in
a government-sponored monument. And is this not an example
of "establishment of religion," with the majority religious
faction getting to choose their religion for enshrinement?
Consider what Jefferson said in his autobiography, writing about
the passage of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty:
<quote begins>
The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of
which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn
in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with
opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble,
it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that
it's protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the
preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of
the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by
inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a
departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our
religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in
proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's
protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and
Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."
<quote ends>
Second, in 1860 one of every ten Californians was Chinese. By
1869 there were 63,000 Chinese living in California. Among other
things, they built the railroad running through the Rockies and
the Sierra Nevada, at great risk to themselves. The first
Chinese Buddhist temple in San Francisco was built in 1853. By
the end of the 19th century there were several hundred temples.
(Statuary and artifacts surviving from that period are often
marked by bulletholes, because whites often thought it great
sport to fire guns into a "joss house.")
Then, of course, there's the American-Zen lineage that can be
traced from the Zen master Soen Shaku, who came to American in
1893 for the World Parliament of Religions, bringing his
translator, a young monk named D.T. Suzuki. Suzuki eventually
wrote a number of books that influenced the "beats," like
Kerouac, Snyder, and Ginsberg in the 1950s. So although it is
not a "mainstream" religion in this country (yet), Buddhism has
been here for a longer time than most people have noticed.
>From a historical viewpoint, Judism and Christianity have
>had the biggest influence on our laws and culture over the
>last 200 years.
Yes, but to hold up the three documents like some kind of Holy
Trinity -- the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence,
and the Ten Commandments, is a distortion. The Ten Commandments
had no particular influence on the political ideas that founded
this nation. They were around, yes, but it would be more
HISTORICALLY correct to enshrine something from Enlightenment
thinkers like Bacon, Newton, and Locke, or maybe Voltaire or
Montesquieu. Or maybe the Roman stoic philosophers; I understand
George Washington was fond of Seneca. But the Ten Commandments?
WHY?????
>
>
>: > Answer this: Would people be putting together
this "historical
>: > display" if it DIDN'T include the Ten Commandments? Isn't
>: > getting the Ten Commandments on the wall of a public
building
>: > the real point of it?
>:
>: I really haven't followed the news on this. I understand
>: the state passed a law which says it's legal and the county
>: took advantage of it. I'm sure we can expect a court
>: challenge.
>
>Oh, I expect so. The real problem is that many Christians,
>especially Baptist, feel that just putting something on the wall
>is winning. That having it there will change people's lives.
That
>is so hollow, so symbolic. And it is at the heart of what is
wrong
>with the Body of Christ in American. They are empty and then
>do not understand why few want what they have. There is no
>power of God in them.
Yes. IMO it's an example of "religion as tribalism." A truly
spiritual person of any religious background would be appalled
at this use of a sacred text. Rather, who who want to use a
sacred text to "win" are using it to maintain a kind of tribal
dominance. This has nothing to do with devotion to the Ten
Commandments.
>: > Would the use of other "historical documents" from other
>: > religions make things better? What you'd end up with is a
>: > religious display, not a historical display.
>:
>: Do you have any that relate to the same time period?
>
>In most of our history, religion was the heart of the nation.
>Especially the mainline protestant churches.
OK, but if you are going to have a government monument or
display to "religion" as "the heart of the nation," you really
HAVE to make it representative of all religions, not just the
mainstream one.
>
>: > Most Moslems disapprove of the Koran being translated into
other
>: > languages, and I suspect they would consider a public
display of
>: > pages of the Koran along with documents from other
religions to
>: > be a gross insult to the Prophet, at the very least.
>:
>: Since there are Moslems in many nations and they speak
>: different languages I suspect that is baloney.
>
>While there are Korans with translations into other languages,
>Moslems are encouraged to learn to read the Koran in the
>ancient Arabic.
[OK, folks, let's watch a Buddhist explain Islam to a Christian.
This should get messy.]
It's more than that, really. Although there are translations,
scholars of Islam generally say that the only Koran is the
Arabic Koran, because the Arabic words are the actual words
spoken by God to the Prophet. Translations may help convey the
meaning of the Koran, but they are not the Koran.
It sounds a bit rigid, but at least they don't have the
situation that Christians have, in which vast amounts of
doctrine are based on bad translations.
Buddhist teaching is that perfect truth cannot be expressed or
conveyed in words, so we don't tend to worry about scriptural
literalism as y'all sometimes do.
> One thing to note. Indiana is the headquarters
>for the National Islamic Center. It is just west of
Indianapolis
>on I-70 near the state police academy.
Interesting. Note also that many public schools in New Jersey do
not have classes on the last day of Ramadan, as no one shows up
for them.
>
>And the Dalai Lama has his headquarters at IU with his brother.
Yes, the Dharma is unfolding even in Indiana. A miracle.
>
>
>: > Speaking for the Buddhists, most of us wouldn't want most
>: > Buddhist "historical documents" to be used this way for
reasons
>: > that would be difficult to explain without going into a lot
of
>: > Deep Religious Stuff, and I don't want to do that on this
>: > newsgroup. The Five Precepts would be an exception, but
they
>: > don't really work as a "historical document" unless you
posted
>: > them in the original Sanskirt.
>: >
>: > I can't think of anything short and punchy from Hindu
>: > literature. I love the Bhagavad-gita, but it goes on for a
lot
>: > of pages.
>:
>: Sounds like a skimpy argument. I say let the courts hear
>: any challenges and the legislature can rewrite the law to be
>: in compliance.
>
>What the real battle is about is who will have the government
>support their position.
Yes, and what the establishment clause of the First Amendment is
all about is that government is not supposed to get involved in
supporting any particular religious position.
> Look at how the Gays NEED government
>sanction (marriage, military service) to valid them.
IMO that's an entirely different matter. Homosexuals are people.
They can be patriotic and aspire to serve in the military like
other people. It's not a matter of "validation," it's a matter
of being treated like everyone else and being allowed to do a
job. Same thing with marriage. Homosexuals would like their pair
bonds to be officially recognized like everyone else's, and they
would like to get the same treatment regarding insurance
benefits and property rights and all the other stuff that
heterosexuals get when they pair-bond in marriage.
Entirely different matter.
B.
mahabarbara
were religiously neutral, Native Americans wouldn't have to ask.
The people putting the "historical documents" together would
have attempted a representation of religions other than the
Judeo-Christian tradition."
Mr. Harranguer, you wrote:
"Perhaps they are not represented in that area so did not
participate."
There are Islamic and Buddhist organizations in Indiana today,
as we've learned on another message in this thread. I'll bet
there are Native Americans living in Indiana also. I know there
were Native Americans in Indiana in 1776.
More likely, they were not invited to participate. The people
who cooked up this "historical document" dodge never even
considered that documents other than Judeo-Christian ones might
be included.
Maha wrote: "The religion of those workers had as much
significance to them, and to the nation, as the religion of
Christanity had to the Founders, sir."
Mr. Harranguer wrote: "Well, you might think so but it had no
influence on the people who wrote our founding documents."
The Ten Commandments may have had some indirect cultural
influence on the Founders, but they had no direct impact on the
founding of this country. None of the great historical documents
generated by the Founding Fathers was based on the Ten
Commandments. Instead, they were based on writings by guys like
Locke and Bacon, and the pre-Christian Greek and Roman
philosophers.
If you were to rank the top one hundred documents that
influenced the Founding Fathers in order of importance, the Ten
Commandments wouldn't even make the list. So why enshrine it in
a government-sponsored monument as a "historical document" along
with the Bill of Rights and the Delcaration of Independence?
That makes no sense, historically or philosophically speaking.
Maha wrote: "If a federal court says the 10 Cs have to come down
per the First and Fourteenth Amendments, then that's the law.
They have to come down. The states are as bound by this as the
feds."
Harranguer wrote: "The Constitution also said that states have
to respect the laws of other states but the Federal government
refused to enforce the law pertaining to escaped slaves."
Look, this is not difficult.
Look at the FIRST AMENDMENT. It begins, "Congress shall make no
law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise therefrom."
This means that the federal government (I'll get to the states
in a minute) cannot "establish" religions, which to any 18th-
century person would be understood to mean that government
cannot reocognize one religion or religious teaching as the
official government religion, or provide tax money for the
purpose of supporting that religion.
If you had read the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty I
cited before, you would know that among the things guys like
Madison (who was chief author of the Bill of Rights) and
Jefferson objected to was the use of tax money to support
religion and religious instruction. Using tax money to set up a
shrine to the Ten Commandments under the dodge that it is
a "historical document" is a violation of what Madison intended
to prohibit in the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Now, let's go to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth
Amendment has a sentence that says, "No state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privleges or immunities
of citizens of the United States."
This means that state governments cannot violate civil rights
that are protected by the Bill of Rights. This means that state
governments may not make laws respecting the establishment of
religion, either.
If you are interested, I can give you URLs to SEVERAL Supreme
Court opinions that say this.
"It appears that in the past the states have defied the
Constitution and gotten away with it."
The 14th Amendment wasn't ratified until after slavery was
abolished by the 13th Amendment. So your argument has no
validity. And, anyway, are you SUGGESTING that the Constitution
be defied for the sake of glorifying historical documents? Do
you want to know how illogical that is?
You wrote: "Could it be that the moral conscience of the states
involved convinced the Feds to do nothing?"
Bickering over enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Acts was one of
the little matters that kicked off the Civil War. It's an
interesting piece of history you should learn about, if you
care about American history as much as you care about
American "historical documents."
Harranguer wrote: "The time period of our founding documents
which make up the display of course."
Maha wrote: "Well, what the hell time period is THAT? As I
recall, Moses received the 10Cs about 1200 BCE. This was a tad
before the American Revolution."
Mr. LH wrote: "Are you being deliberately obtuse? The founding
documents of our country were all written in the late 1700s. I
understand these are what constitute the display."
THEN WHAT THE HELL ARE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS DOING THERE?
That's another argument for how ILLOGICAL this is. Historical
scholars do not agree as to when the scriptural accounts of the
10Cs were written, but we're looking at three thousand years,
more or less. This is, to put it mildly, a VERY DIFFERENT time
frame from the founding of the U.S.
Maha wrote: "Why do these people have to use government to
practice their religion? Is anyone forbidding them from
publishing the 10Cs and passing out copies? Is anyone forbidding
them from putting 10C posters all over their homes and churches?
Why do they feel compelled to drag government into their
religious practice and make a Big Public Deal about it and shove
it into everyone else's face? Particularly when this is EXACTLY
the sort of thing the Founders were trying to avoid with the
First Amendment and also the Virginia Statute of Religious
Liberty (below)."
LH wrote: "There is a lot of crap being shoved into everyone's
face these days by the politically correct mob. LOTS of crap is
being fed to children in the schools that the parents do not
want and government should not be involved in. Still Liberals
are pushing and shoving to fulfill THEIR agenda but don't allow
others to practice the same strategy."
So you admit this is just a "cultural war" thing? You don't like
liberal crap, so you want to use a sacred religious text to get
back at those awful liberals?
Maha quotes from a book: "Reverence for the Koran appears also
in the refusal of traditional Muslim scholars to sanction its
translation into other languages. Since the words spoken to
Mohammed were Arabic words, their rendering into another
language, no matter how skilful, is not the Koran." World
Religions, ed. by Geoffrey Parrinder, Facts on File, p. 473.
This goes on to say that there are translations, but the
translations of the Koran are not considered to BE the Koran.
The only Koran is the Arabic Koran. <end of quote>
Mr. Haranguer wrote: "Talk about narrow minded!"
Maha wrote: "Thank you for that revealing display of
intolerance."
LH wrote: "If the Pope said only people of a certain language
could visit the Vatican your eyes would bug out in rage. Get a
grip."
First, the Pope can exclude anyone he wants from the Vatican.
Catholics are free to decide what Catholics believe and
practice.
Second, Islam does not say that all Moslems have to speak
Arabic. There are translations of the Koran so that non-Arabic-
speaking Moslems can learn the meaning. What Islamic scholars
believe is that God spoke these exact Arabic words of the Koran
into the ear of the Prophet, and if you change even a
punctuation mark it is no longer the sacred Koran. This is what
they believe, and I respect the belief. You obviously don't.
Therefore, you are intolerant.
LH wrote: "Is the government PROMOTING it or allowing the free
exercise thereof? I think that is what needs to be determined
before you blow your gaskets."
Show me where government PREVENTED people from posting the Ten
Commandments on private property? Show me where the government
censored publication of the Ten Commandments so that no one
could read it. Show me where the government has not been
allowing people to practice the Ten Commandments, by forcing
them to make graven images or something?
(BTW, here in Westchester county New York last year, a federal
district judge held against a public school that had required
children to make a model of the Hindu god Ganesha in an art
class. The judge said the school couldn't do this, because it
violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Reflect on that for a moment, please.)
So, there has been no interference with the teaching of the Ten
Commandments to anyone who wants to learn about it, nor has
government been interfering with the free exercise of people who
want to follow it. Correct? However, by giving a special place
of honor to this religious text, which includes stuff about
worshiping the Judeo-Christian god, a state government is in
clear violation of the establishment clause of the First
Amendment.
B.
Aaron Kulkis
N9NWO wrote:
>
> : > He explained it in the message. On the Sabbath (Saturday) one is
> : > not supposed to do stuff. Hanging a poster is doing stuff.
> :
> : + On Sundays, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work
> : or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper
> : to the Lord's day, the performance of the works of mercy, and
> : the appropriate relaxation of mind and body. Family needs or
> : important scial service can legitimately excuse the faithful from
> : the obligation of Sunday rest.
> :
> : + Hanging a poster shouldn't be considered work.
> : + Especially if doing it in reverance of God and good works.
>
> One thing. Paul conveys the wisdom that we are no longer under
> the law. That we should not be followers of days or holidays. It
> was among the first things that the early Christians ignored of Paul's
> teachings.
>
> No day is more holy than another. And Christians are dead to the law
> because they are dead in Christ. Thus it is themselves who put themselves
> back under the law, back into slavery. It is because they are immature.
Yeah, I never could figure out why the Romans considered the Christians
to be so "daaaaaaaangerous"... until I realized that what the New
Testament is REALLY talking about is freedom!
Then, it seems, the whole thing was taken over by power-mongers
who'se goal in life is to tell people what to do, and go "tut-tut-tut"
if anybody does otherwise.
It's seems impossible to find a church that follows what is written
in the Bible... everybody seems to ... I don't know... take this
whole bag of stuff that isn't written ANYWHERE other than in their
own heads, and INSERT it into what's actually written.
It's weird...really...really...weird.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
Lone Haranguer
mahabarbara wrote:
>
> Maha wrote: "If this exercise in posting "historical documents"
> were religiously neutral, Native Americans wouldn't have to ask.
> The people putting the "historical documents" together would
> have attempted a representation of religions other than the
> Judeo-Christian tradition."
>
> Mr. Harranguer, you wrote:
>
> "Perhaps they are not represented in that area so did not
> participate."
>
> There are Islamic and Buddhist organizations in Indiana today,
> as we've learned on another message in this thread. I'll bet
> there are Native Americans living in Indiana also. I know there
> were Native Americans in Indiana in 1776.
>
I understand the ceremony took place in a county courthouse
so "that area" would have to mean THAT county.
> More likely, they were not invited to participate. The people
> who cooked up this "historical document" dodge never even
> considered that documents other than Judeo-Christian ones might
> be included.
>
It's certainly possible but I think you are just assuming
that.
> Maha wrote: "The religion of those workers had as much
> significance to them, and to the nation, as the religion of
> Christanity had to the Founders, sir."
>
> Mr. Harranguer wrote: "Well, you might think so but it had no
> influence on the people who wrote our founding documents."
>
> The Ten Commandments may have had some indirect cultural
> influence on the Founders, but they had no direct impact on the
> founding of this country. None of the great historical documents
> generated by the Founding Fathers was based on the Ten
> Commandments. Instead, they were based on writings by guys like
> Locke and Bacon, and the pre-Christian Greek and Roman
> philosophers.
At least you think so.
> If you were to rank the top one hundred documents that
> influenced the Founding Fathers in order of importance, the Ten
> Commandments wouldn't even make the list. So why enshrine it in
> a government-sponsored monument as a "historical document" along
> with the Bill of Rights and the Delcaration of Independence?
> That makes no sense, historically or philosophically speaking.
>
The good people of Indiana might disagree with you and it's
their courthouse.
> Maha wrote: "If a federal court says the 10 Cs have to come down
> per the First and Fourteenth Amendments, then that's the law.
> They have to come down. The states are as bound by this as the
> feds."
>
> Harranguer wrote: "The Constitution also said that states have
> to respect the laws of other states but the Federal government
> refused to enforce the law pertaining to escaped slaves."
>
> Look, this is not difficult.
Look at Article III in the Constitution.
>
> Look at the FIRST AMENDMENT. It begins, "Congress shall make no
> law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
> free exercise therefrom."
>
> This means that the federal government (I'll get to the states
> in a minute) cannot "establish" religions, which to any 18th-
> century person would be understood to mean that government
> cannot reocognize one religion or religious teaching as the
> official government religion, or provide tax money for the
> purpose of supporting that religion.
>
Sound okay to me although that last part is only INFERRED.
> If you had read the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty I
> cited before, you would know that among the things guys like
> Madison (who was chief author of the Bill of Rights) and
> Jefferson objected to was the use of tax money to support
> religion and religious instruction. Using tax money to set up a
> shrine to the Ten Commandments under the dodge that it is
> a "historical document" is a violation of what Madison intended
> to prohibit in the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
We can INFER that the 2nd amendment means that firearms
rights "shall not be infringed" but we have over 20,000
infringements on the books now.
>
> Now, let's go to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth
> Amendment has a sentence that says, "No state shall make or
> enforce any law which shall abridge the privleges or immunities
> of citizens of the United States."
>
> This means that state governments cannot violate civil rights
> that are protected by the Bill of Rights. This means that state
> governments may not make laws respecting the establishment of
> religion, either.
Lots of laws infringing on the 2nd amendment though.
>
> If you are interested, I can give you URLs to SEVERAL Supreme
> Court opinions that say this.
>
Please spare me. I guess Indiana knows which ones they are
and passed the law anyway. It's up to their lawyers to
thrash it out.
> "It appears that in the past the states have defied the
> Constitution and gotten away with it."
>
> The 14th Amendment wasn't ratified until after slavery was
> abolished by the 13th Amendment. So your argument has no
> validity. And, anyway, are you SUGGESTING that the Constitution
> be defied for the sake of glorifying historical documents? Do
> you want to know how illogical that is?
See Article III of the Constitution regarding enforcement of
laws of the various states by the Federal government.
>
> You wrote: "Could it be that the moral conscience of the states
> involved convinced the Feds to do nothing?"
>
> Bickering over enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Acts was one of
> the little matters that kicked off the Civil War. It's an
> interesting piece of history you should learn about, if you
> care about American history as much as you care about
> American "historical documents."
>
You too if you're going to use the 14th Amendment to bolster
your argument.
> Harranguer wrote: "The time period of our founding documents
> which make up the display of course."
>
> Maha wrote: "Well, what the hell time period is THAT? As I
> recall, Moses received the 10Cs about 1200 BCE. This was a tad
> before the American Revolution."
>
> Mr. LH wrote: "Are you being deliberately obtuse? The founding
> documents of our country were all written in the late 1700s. I
> understand these are what constitute the display."
>
> THEN WHAT THE HELL ARE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS DOING THERE?
Because, whether you like it or not, the local citizens
apparently feel that the 10 Commandments were what drove our
founding fathers to be moral people.
>
> That's another argument for how ILLOGICAL this is. Historical
> scholars do not agree as to when the scriptural accounts of the
> 10Cs were written, but we're looking at three thousand years,
> more or less. This is, to put it mildly, a VERY DIFFERENT time
> frame from the founding of the U.S.
>
I think you are having difficulty relating to the local
citizens.
> Maha wrote: "Why do these people have to use government to
> practice their religion? Is anyone forbidding them from
> publishing the 10Cs and passing out copies? Is anyone forbidding
> them from putting 10C posters all over their homes and churches?
> Why do they feel compelled to drag government into their
> religious practice and make a Big Public Deal about it and shove
> it into everyone else's face? Particularly when this is EXACTLY
> the sort of thing the Founders were trying to avoid with the
> First Amendment and also the Virginia Statute of Religious
> Liberty (below)."
>
> LH wrote: "There is a lot of crap being shoved into everyone's
> face these days by the politically correct mob. LOTS of crap is
> being fed to children in the schools that the parents do not
> want and government should not be involved in. Still Liberals
> are pushing and shoving to fulfill THEIR agenda but don't allow
> others to practice the same strategy."
>
> So you admit this is just a "cultural war" thing? You don't like
> liberal crap, so you want to use a sacred religious text to get
> back at those awful liberals?
Don't fall off your soap box. Laws are passed all the time
that people disagree with and end up going to court. Does
that mean that new laws should never be passed? Many states
keep trying to restrict abortions and the Liberals have
hissy fits and they go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Roe V Wade was based entirely on lies you know but still was
upheld by the Supreme Court. If the State of Indiana wants
to try their law out, let it face the same challenge.
>
> Maha quotes from a book: "Reverence for the Koran appears also
> in the refusal of traditional Muslim scholars to sanction its
> translation into other languages. Since the words spoken to
> Mohammed were Arabic words, their rendering into another
> language, no matter how skilful, is not the Koran." World
> Religions, ed. by Geoffrey Parrinder, Facts on File, p. 473.
> This goes on to say that there are translations, but the
> translations of the Koran are not considered to BE the Koran.
> The only Koran is the Arabic Koran. <end of quote>
>
> Mr. Haranguer wrote: "Talk about narrow minded!"
>
> Maha wrote: "Thank you for that revealing display of
> intolerance."
>
> LH wrote: "If the Pope said only people of a certain language
> could visit the Vatican your eyes would bug out in rage. Get a
> grip."
>
> First, the Pope can exclude anyone he wants from the Vatican.
> Catholics are free to decide what Catholics believe and
> practice.
Except if they did the various other religions would raise a
big hullaballoo. I'm sure if they espoused certain things
the government would step in too. The Mormons found that
out. So did the Davidians.
>
> Second, Islam does not say that all Moslems have to speak
> Arabic. There are translations of the Koran so that non-Arabic-
> speaking Moslems can learn the meaning. What Islamic scholars
> believe is that God spoke these exact Arabic words of the Koran
> into the ear of the Prophet, and if you change even a
> punctuation mark it is no longer the sacred Koran. This is what
> they believe, and I respect the belief. You obviously don't.
> Therefore, you are intolerant.
You sure have a vivid imagination. They can believe what
they like. If I choose to call it narrow minded, that's
because it is.
>
> LH wrote: "Is the government PROMOTING it or allowing the free
> exercise thereof? I think that is what needs to be determined
> before you blow your gaskets."
>
> Show me where government PREVENTED people from posting the Ten
> Commandments on private property? Show me where the government
> censored publication of the Ten Commandments so that no one
> could read it. Show me where the government has not been
> allowing people to practice the Ten Commandments, by forcing
> them to make graven images or something?
>
The free exercise thereof could take many forms. It's not
up to you to decide what those are. The courts will take
care of that.
> (BTW, here in Westchester county New York last year, a federal
> district judge held against a public school that had required
> children to make a model of the Hindu god Ganesha in an art
> class. The judge said the school couldn't do this, because it
> violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
> Reflect on that for a moment, please.)
>
Hey, judges are free spirits. They have lifetime tenure and
so begin to believe they are infallible. Judge Smith of
Davidian fame got slapped a few weeks back, 9-0 by the
Supreme court for making up law as he went. This is pretty
common among judges. It doesn't make them right though.
> So, there has been no interference with the teaching of the Ten
> Commandments to anyone who wants to learn about it, nor has
> government been interfering with the free exercise of people who
> want to follow it. Correct? However, by giving a special place
> of honor to this religious text, which includes stuff about
> worshiping the Judeo-Christian god, a state government is in
> clear violation of the establishment clause of the First
> Amendment.
>
> B.
>
Be sure to schlep your brief over to the Supreme Court when
it gets there.
LZ
N9NWO
: were religiously neutral, Native Americans wouldn't have to ask.
: The people putting the "historical documents" together would
: have attempted a representation of religions other than the
: Judeo-Christian tradition."
:
: Mr. Harranguer, you wrote:
:
: "Perhaps they are not represented in that area so did not
: participate."
:
: There are Islamic and Buddhist organizations in Indiana today,
: as we've learned on another message in this thread. I'll bet
: there are Native Americans living in Indiana also. I know there
: were Native Americans in Indiana in 1776.
:
: More likely, they were not invited to participate. The people
: who cooked up this "historical document" dodge never even
: considered that documents other than Judeo-Christian ones might
: be included.
By 1776, many of the eastern Indians had become Christians.
After all, the French had missionaries here from the early 1700s.
So did the Spanish. Only the western nations kept many of their
old ways.
:
: Maha wrote: "The religion of those workers had as much
:
N9NWO
: >are recent new comers. Interest by Americans in other
: >religions really took off after the late '60s. And most
: >of those who immigrated with these religions have done
: >so in the last 30 years. Yes, I know, we had a huge
: >Chinese population in the late 1800s. But for the most
: >part they were never mainstream, even now.
:
: I have two objections to the paragraph above. First, you appear
: to be saying that, as Christianity is a "mainstream" religion,
: it can be enshrined by government in a special place of honor in
: a government-sponored monument. And is this not an example
: of "establishment of religion," with the majority religious
: faction getting to choose their religion for enshrinement?
:
: Consider what Jefferson said in his autobiography, writing about
: the passage of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty:
For the most part, the Americas, both north and south,
were totally dominated by Christians until the late 1960s.
While there was no established (single) church, there was
a common set of beliefs that could have been called mainstream.
While Jefferson was a Deist who believed in a Creator God,
he did not believe in the concept that Jesus was God, the son.
Much of what motivates you is of a very recent viewpoint,
as far as America is concerned.
: <quote begins>
:
N9NWO
: > : > not supposed to do stuff. Hanging a poster is doing stuff.
: > :
: > : + On Sundays, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work
: > : or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper
: > : to the Lord's day, the performance of the works of mercy, and
: > : the appropriate relaxation of mind and body. Family needs or
: > : important scial service can legitimately excuse the faithful from
: > : the obligation of Sunday rest.
: > :
: > : + Hanging a poster shouldn't be considered work.
: > : + Especially if doing it in reverance of God and good works.
: >
: > One thing. Paul conveys the wisdom that we are no longer under
: > the law. That we should not be followers of days or holidays. It
: > was among the first things that the early Christians ignored of Paul's
: > teachings.
: >
: > No day is more holy than another. And Christians are dead to the law
: > because they are dead in Christ. Thus it is themselves who put
themselves
: > back under the law, back into slavery. It is because they are
immature.
:
: Yeah, I never could figure out why the Romans considered the Christians
: to be so "daaaaaaaangerous"... until I realized that what the New
: Testament is REALLY talking about is freedom!
:
: Then, it seems, the whole thing was taken over by power-mongers
: who'se goal in life is to tell people what to do, and go "tut-tut-tut"
: if anybody does otherwise.
The folks who gave Paul the biggest grief were what he called "false
brethren", ones who wanted to be back under the law. They made such
a big deal over circumcision that Paul suggested that they go all the way
and cut everything off!!
: It's seems impossible to find a church that follows what is written
: in the Bible... everybody seems to ... I don't know... take this
: whole bag of stuff that isn't written ANYWHERE other than in their
: own heads, and INSERT it into what's actually written.
:
: It's weird...really...really...weird.
There is a lot of tradition, of men, that is assumed to be the teachings
of Paul and Christ. Most had turned from what Paul's teachings even
before his death. Gnosticism had already turned many from the original
teachings and the Judizers (those who wanted rules and regs) did the
rest. By 100 AD very little of early Christianity was left.
mahabarbara
>: >: > How does displaying and honoring the Ten Commandments
>: violate the 4 commandments? [sic] Seems to me they were
honoring the
>: Sabbath and keeping it holy.
>: >:
>: >: Putting up a plaque on Saturday violates the
>: >: commandment to do no (creative) work on Saturday.
>: >:
>: >: It's just ironic that they were having
>: >: a ceremony in honor of putting up a list
>: >: of commandments one of which was violated
>: >: by the very act of putting up the plaque.
>: >
>: >Only if you are a follower of the Talmud. The
>: >Torah never went into such detail. God's intent
>: >was that man should walk in wisdom. Instead
>: >takes wisdom and makes rules (morality).
>:
>: This is an example of why it's a bad idea for government to
get
>: mixed up in and take sides in religion. Now you are arguing
that
>: the Jewish interpretation of the scripture is invalid, and
only
>: the Christian one should be considered correct.
>:
>: Yes, that's what always happens.
>
>only applies to those under it.
As I was raised Christian and devoutly practiced Christianity
for many years, I understand what you are saying is true from a
Christian perspective.
What I am trying to explain to you, however, is that government
is not supposed to have a "Christian" perspective, because doing
so constitutes recognition of Christianity as the established
religion, and the First Amendment says government is not
supposed to do that.
And, as Jewish people are citizens pay taxes too, what does it
say when Jewish laws are broken to enshrine a piece of Jewish
sacred scripture? What is says is that Christians get to walk
all over everybody else because they are the MAJORITY, nyah nyah
nyah.
>Now showing honor to the wisdom behind the law isn't
>a bad idea.
"Showing honor to the wisdom behind the law" would be fine if
this enshrinement of the Ten Commandments along with the Bill of
Rights and the Declaration of Independence were being done in a
Christian church or on Christian private property, but it's
wrong for Christians to assume they can use government to
reflect their particular religious perspective over everyone
else's.
>The real problem is that we are now a divided people,
>tribialized like the Balkans. We focus on what we are
>as individuals, not what we have in common. Given that
>most Americans are very insecure about who and what
>they are, this is a very dangerous time. We are on the
>verge of our third civil war.
Oh, nonsense. I am a big-time American history buff, Civil War
era in particular, and I can assume you that compared to
American in the 1850s, Americans today are fat, happy, and
complacent. We are no more on the verge of our third civil war
than we are on the verge of evolving into chipmunks.
I agree with you that the American idealization
of "individualism" goes overboard sometimes, and can cause a lot
of unhappiness, but using government to force a Christian
perspective on everyone is not the way to go.
>We do not need more diversity. Diversity is being used
>as a means to shore up various insecure groups, like the
>Gay community. The problem is that many Christians are
>aping the Gays and trying to get government to give them
>the same support.
I don't think your problem is with "diversity." Your problem
with with people who can't keep their "diversity" private, n'est
ce pas?
>
>Instead, we really need to look at what all Americans have
>in common, not what makes us different. And it is time for
>all radicals, in every political sphere, to just shut up.
But the Ten Commandments is not something *I* have in common
with, sir or madame. As I am no longer Christian, it's no longer
part of me. And, historically, I do not believe the Ten
Commandments had any direct bearing on the history of the
founding of this nation.
And I am speaking not only as a big-time American history buff,
but as someone who had several ancestors in the Revolution.
mahabarbara
>
>
>N9NWO wrote:
>>
>> : > He explained it in the message. On the Sabbath (Saturday)
>
>It's seems impossible to find a church that follows what is
written
>in the Bible... everybody seems to ... I don't know... take this
>whole bag of stuff that isn't written ANYWHERE other than in
their
>own heads, and INSERT it into what's actually written.
>
>It's weird...really...really...weird.
Yep, I know where you are coming from. I was raised Christian
and was a very devout believer for many years, but then I did
something outrageous and actually endeavored to study the New
Testament and the life of Christ from a non-secular perspective.
And was I ever surprised. I realized after a while that the body
of religion called "Christianity" has little to do with what
Jesus was really about.
So I prayed to Jesus to show me the Way, and lo I came to
discover that I was a Buddhist. Not that I converted; I came to
realize I already was a Buddhist, and just didn't know it. Hard
to explain, but that's what happened. It's what Jesus wanted.
<VBG>
If I had decided to stick it out with Christianity I probably
would have gone with the episcopalians, who can be pretty open
about things. Also the Unitarian Universalists are an
interesting bunch, although it depends on the
individual "congregation." They are worth checking out if you
ever get in the mood for some religion.
mahabarbara
: >From a historical point of view, most other religions
: >are recent new comers. Interest by Americans in other
: >religions really took off after the late '60s. And most
: >of those who immigrated with these religions have done
: >so in the last 30 years. Yes, I know, we had a huge
: >Chinese population in the late 1800s. But for the most
: >part they were never mainstream, even now.
:
: I have two objections to the paragraph above. First, you
appear
: to be saying that, as Christianity is a "mainstream" religion,
: it can be enshrined by government in a special place of honor
in
: a government-sponored monument. And is this not an example
: of "establishment of religion," with the majority religious
: faction getting to choose their religion for enshrinement?
:
: Consider what Jefferson said in his autobiography, writing
about
: the passage of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty:
Mr./Ms. N, you wrote: "For the most part, the Americas, both
north and south, were totally dominated by Christians until the
late 1960s. While there was no established (single) church,
there was a common set of beliefs that could have been called
mainstream."
Yes, but this is irrelevant. The Founders made it crystal clear
that they did not intend to establish Christianity as the
official religion. So why do it now?
I am not objecting to the practice of the Christian religion. I
am objecting to an obvious intent to circumvent the CLEAR
intention of the Founders and establish Christianity as the
official religion. That's WRONG. Jefferson, Madison, Adams,
Washington, all kinds of other Founding Guys, all left behind
copious documentation of their opinion that there should be NO
established religion in the U.S. (I am using "established" in
the same sense as used in the First Amendment; if this confuses
you, speak up.)
N wrote: "While Jefferson was a Deist who believed in a Creator
God, he did not believe in the concept that Jesus was God, the
son."
Yes, which is also irrelevant. It doesn't matter if he
worshipped mayonaise. He made it clear he was opposed to
establishment of religion, and that the First Amendment of the
Constitution places a "wall of separation between church and
state." His very words.
I am repeating this quote from JEFFERSON, his autobiography,
which you don't appear to have read.
: <quote begins>
:
: The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of
: which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had
drawn
: in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with
: opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble,
: it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that
: it's protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where
the
: preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan
of
: the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by
: inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a
: departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of
our
: religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in
: proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's
: protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and
: Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."
:
: <quote ends>
N, you wrote: "Much of what motivates you is of a very recent
viewpoint, as far as America is concerned."
You are ABSOLUTELY WRONG. What is motivating me is exactly the
same thing that motivated Jefferson, and Madison, and Adams, and
all those other guys, with whom my very own ancestors fought to
bring this great nation into being, in regard to religion. Which
is, that government must be absolutely neutral in regard to
religion so that individual citizens can be absoltely free to
practice their own religions, without coercion, including "the
Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo,
and infidel of every denomination," as Jefferson wrote above.
What motivates me is an intention to PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION
and not let a majority religious faction circumvent it and
confound the clear intention of the Founding Fathers by
establishing Christianity as the official religion recognized by
government.
mahabarbara
Maha wrote: "There are Islamic and Buddhist organizations in
Indiana today, as we've learned on another message in this
thread. I'll bet there are Native Americans living in Indiana
also. I know there were Native Americans in Indiana in 1776."
LH wrote: "I understand the ceremony took place in a county
courthouse so "that area" would have to mean THAT county."
There were native Americans all over Indiana in 1776. (Stop and
reflect on the name "Indiana" for a moment and consider where it
might have come from.) But even if there weren't, enshrining the
Ten Commandments in a government building is still a violation
of the US Constitution.
Maha wrote: "More likely, they were not invited to participate.
The people who cooked up this "historical document" dodge never
even considered that documents other than Judeo-Christian ones
might be included."
LH wrote: "It's certainly possible but I think you are just
assuming that."
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's a logical thing
to assume.
Maha wrote: "The Ten Commandments may have had some indirect
cultural influence on the Founders, but they had no direct
impact on the founding of this country. None of the great
historical documents generated by the Founding Fathers was based
on the Ten Commandments. Instead, they were based on writings by
guys like Locke and Bacon, and the pre-Christian Greek and Roman
philosophers."
LH wrote: "At least you think so. "
It is not a matter of what *I* think. It is a matter of
historical FACT.
If you don't believe me, I suggest taking a trip to your local
public library and checking out some books on the Founding Guys.
I suggest Madison and Jefferson in particular, since they were
the authors of the Bill of Rights and Declaration of
Independence. Find out for yourself which philosophers and
thinkers influenced them. I can PROMISE you that you will find
no mention of the Ten Commandments. They were familiar with
them, of course, as am I; they were also familiar with
Shakespeare and Milton and Johann Sebastian Bach. It was part of
their culture. But I defy you to find any scholarly historical
work that says they were particularly influenced by the Ten
Commandments or based any of our great founding documents on the
Ten Commandments.
Maha wrote: "If you were to rank the top one hundred documents
that influenced the Founding Fathers in order of importance, the
Ten Commandments wouldn't even make the list. So why enshrine it
in a government-sponsored monument as a "historical document"
along with the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of
Independence? That makes no sense, historically or
philosophically speaking."
LH wrote: "The good people of Indiana might disagree with you
and it's their courthouse."
One of the central political ideas upon which this nation was
founded was that the rights of individual citizens may not be
abridged by a majority faction. See, for example, Federalist
Paper #10 by James Madison. So if even ONE person in that county
disagrees with the use of his tax money to place the Ten
Commandments in a government building, then it's an
infringement, and it's wrong.
Maha wrote: "Look at the FIRST AMENDMENT. It begins, "Congress
shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise therefrom."
This means that the federal government (I'll get to the states
in a minute) cannot "establish" religions, which to any 18th-
century person would be understood to mean that government
cannot recognizee one religion or religious teaching as the
official government religion, or provide tax money for the
purpose of supporting that religion."
LH wrote: "Sound okay to me although that last part is only
INFERRED."
No, it is not inferred. It is what the word "establishment"
means in this context. To 18th century guys an "established"
church was one that was recognized that the official government
church, and one of the privileges extended to an established
church was support through tax money.
Maha wrote: "If you had read the Virginia Statute of Religious
Liberty I cited before, you would know that among the things
guys like Madison (who was chief author of the Bill of Rights)
and Jefferson objected to was the use of tax money to support
religion and religious instruction. Using tax money to set up a
shrine to the Ten Commandments under the dodge that it is
a "historical document" is a violation of what Madison intended
to prohibit in the establishment clause of the First Amendment."
LH wrote: "We can INFER that the 2nd amendment means that
firearms rights "shall not be infringed" but we have over 20,000
infringements on the books now."
So, according to you, we can just ignore the Constitution
whenever it suits us?
Maha wrote: "Now, let's go to the Fourteenth Amendment. The
Fourteenth Amendment has a sentence that says, "No state shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States."
This means that state governments cannot violate civil rights
that are protected by the Bill of Rights. This means that state
governments may not make laws respecting the establishment of
religion, either."
LH wrote: "Lots of laws infringing on the 2nd amendment though."
If you are interested in gun rights I wouldn't be too quick to
diss the Fourteenth Amendment. This URL will take you to a pro-
gun rights site that discusses states and gun rights:
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfou.html
A quote:
"Yes, the Second Amendment was intended to be applied to the
states through the Fourteenth Amendment though the courts have
refused to acknowledge or apply original intent.
"Although an extremely important topic affecting firearms
freedom, it is currently beyond the scope of GunCite to discuss
Fourteenth Amendment issues. References are provided below for
those who would like to learn more about the Fourteenth
Amendment and how it was clearly intended to protect firearms
rights. "
Links are provided to pages for more information.
The Fourteenth Amendment is your friend. Learn to love it, as I
have.
Maha wrote: "If you are interested, I can give you URLs to
SEVERAL Supreme Court opinions that say this."
LH says: "Please spare me. I guess Indiana knows which ones they
are and passed the law anyway. It's up to their lawyers to
thrash it out. "
What happens is that politicians who know better go ahead with
these infringements of the Constitution when it's what a
majority of their constituents want. It's a way to get
reelected.
Maha wrote: "The 14th Amendment wasn't ratified until after
slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment. So your argument
has no validity. And, anyway, are you SUGGESTING that the
Constitution be defied for the sake of glorifying historical
documents? Do you want to know how illogical that is?"
LH wrote: "See Article III of the Constitution regarding
enforcement of laws of the various states by the Federal
government. "
There is nothing in Article III of the Constitution that would
allow a state to defy the Constitution, so I don't know what you
are referring to. I think perhaps you are misinterpreting some
of the passages about court jurisdiction and crimes.
Instead, look at Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of
the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and
all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority
of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and
the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in
the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary
notwithstanding."
That means states cannot write laws that are contrary to federal
law, nor can states violate the Constitution.
LH wrote: "You too if you're going to use the 14th Amendment to
bolster your argument."
My usage of the 14th Amendment is the same as the Supreme
Court's. If you don't understand what this is, then learn.
Haranguer wrote: "The time period of our founding documents
which make up the display of course."
Maha wrote: "Well, what the hell time period is THAT? As I
recall, Moses received the 10Cs about 1200 BCE. This was a tad
before the American Revolution."
Mr. LH wrote: "Are you being deliberately obtuse? The founding
documents of our country were all written in the late 1700s. I
understand these are what constitute the display."
Maha wrote: "THEN WHAT THE HELL ARE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS DOING
THERE? [noting that the 10Cs are about 3,000 years old.]"
LH: "Because, whether you like it or not, the local citizens
apparently feel that the 10 Commandments were what drove our
founding fathers to be moral people."
Even if that were true, it's still a violation of the
Constitution to use tax money to create a monument to the Ten
Commandments in a public building.
Maha wrote: "So you admit this is just a "cultural war" thing?
You don't like liberal crap, so you want to use a sacred
religious text to get back at those awful liberals?"
LH wrote: "Don't fall off your soap box. Laws are passed all the
time that people disagree with and end up going to court. Does
that mean that new laws should never be passed? Many states keep
trying to restrict abortions and the Liberals have hissy fits
and they go all the way to the Supreme Court. Roe V Wade was
based entirely on lies you know but still was upheld by the
Supreme Court. If the State of Indiana wants to try their law
out, let it face the same challenge."
Fine. Waste more tax money paying lawyers to defend an obviously
unconstitutional law.
Maha wrote: "Thank you for that revealing display of
intolerance."
LH wrote: "If the Pope said only people of a certain language
could visit the Vatican your eyes would bug out in rage. Get a
grip."
Maha wrote: "First, the Pope can exclude anyone he wants from
the Vatican. Catholics are free to decide what Catholics believe
and practice."
LH wrote: "Except if they did the various other religions would
raise a big hullaballoo."
Yes, but what of that? Religions diss each other all the time.
The Pope wrote a book four or five years ago in which he dissed
several other religions. It's obnoxious, but it's also free
speech. It's only unconstitutional if GOVERNMENT issues
statements that diss particular religions. If individual people
do it, there's no law against it.
"I'm sure if they espoused certain things the government would
step in too. The Mormons found that out. So did the Davidians."
The Mormons got into trouble in the 19th century for violating
polygamy laws, and the Davidians got into trouble for violating
firearm laws. Not applicable. Not relevant. Try another
argument.
Maha wrote: "Second, Islam does not say that all Moslems have to
speak Arabic. There are translations of the Koran so that non-
Arabic- speaking Moslems can learn the meaning. What Islamic
scholars believe is that God spoke these exact Arabic words of
the Koran into the ear of the Prophet, and if you change even a
punctuation mark it is no longer the sacred Koran. This is what
they believe, and I respect the belief. You obviously don't.
Therefore, you are intolerant."
LH wrote: "You sure have a vivid imagination. They can believe
what they like. If I choose to call it narrow minded, that's
because it is."
Revealing once again what an intolerant jerk you are.
Maha wrote: "Show me where government PREVENTED people from
posting the Ten Commandments on private property? Show me where
the government censored publication of the Ten Commandments so
that no one could read it. Show me where the government has not
been allowing people to practice the Ten Commandments, by
forcing them to make graven images or something?"
LH wrote: "The free exercise thereof could take many forms. It's
not up to you to decide what those are. The courts will take
care of that."
It's' not up to the Courts to tell me what the free exercise of
my religion should be. What's up to the Courts is to determine
if the Constitution has been violated.
Maha wrote: "(BTW, here in Westchester county New York last
year, a federal district judge held against a public school that
had required children to make a model of the Hindu god Ganesha
in an art class. The judge said the school couldn't do this,
because it violated the establishment clause of the First
Amendment. Reflect on that for a moment, please.)"
LH wrote: "Hey, judges are free spirits. They have lifetime
tenure and so begin to believe they are infallible."
All judges are bound by the Constitution and statutory law. They
cannot decide cases based on personal opinion.
LH wrote: "Judge Smith of Davidian fame got slapped a few weeks
back, 9-0 by the Supreme court for making up law as he went.
This is pretty common among judges. It doesn't make them right
though."
That's an example of what I'm talking about. When judges get too
creative their cases are reviewed and reversed. Ultimately the
Constitution remains the supreme law of the land.
B.
Lone Haranguer
mahabarbara wrote:
>
> Responding to the Lone Haranguer:
>
> Maha wrote: "There are Islamic and Buddhist organizations in
> Indiana today, as we've learned on another message in this
> thread. I'll bet there are Native Americans living in Indiana
> also. I know there were Native Americans in Indiana in 1776."
>
> LH wrote: "I understand the ceremony took place in a county
> courthouse so "that area" would have to mean THAT county."
>
> There were native Americans all over Indiana in 1776. (Stop and
> reflect on the name "Indiana" for a moment and consider where it
> might have come from.) But even if there weren't, enshrining the
> Ten Commandments in a government building is still a violation
> of the US Constitution.
>
We were talking about WHO was invited to participate in the
ceremony NOW. Let's try to stay on the reservation.
> Maha wrote: "More likely, they were not invited to participate.
> The people who cooked up this "historical document" dodge never
> even considered that documents other than Judeo-Christian ones
> might be included."
>
> LH wrote: "It's certainly possible but I think you are just
> assuming that."
>
> In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's a logical thing
> to assume.
>
Maybe they were all at the casino.
> Maha wrote: "The Ten Commandments may have had some indirect
> cultural influence on the Founders, but they had no direct
> impact on the founding of this country. None of the great
> historical documents generated by the Founding Fathers was based
> on the Ten Commandments. Instead, they were based on writings by
> guys like Locke and Bacon, and the pre-Christian Greek and Roman
> philosophers."
>
> LH wrote: "At least you think so. "
>
> It is not a matter of what *I* think. It is a matter of
> historical FACT.
The founders didn't write down every thought. How do you
know what they may have gained from listening to Sunday
sermons? You think the biographers wrote that down? Try
not to be pompous.
>
> If you don't believe me, I suggest taking a trip to your local
> public library and checking out some books on the Founding Guys.
> I suggest Madison and Jefferson in particular, since they were
> the authors of the Bill of Rights and Declaration of
> Independence. Find out for yourself which philosophers and
> thinkers influenced them. I can PROMISE you that you will find
> no mention of the Ten Commandments. They were familiar with
> them, of course, as am I; they were also familiar with
> Shakespeare and Milton and Johann Sebastian Bach. It was part of
> their culture. But I defy you to find any scholarly historical
> work that says they were particularly influenced by the Ten
> Commandments or based any of our great founding documents on the
> Ten Commandments.
>
Who influenced the people they read? Try not to get too
windy.
> Maha wrote: "If you were to rank the top one hundred documents
> that influenced the Founding Fathers in order of importance, the
> Ten Commandments wouldn't even make the list. So why enshrine it
> in a government-sponsored monument as a "historical document"
> along with the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of
> Independence? That makes no sense, historically or
> philosophically speaking."
>
You're assuming again.
> LH wrote: "The good people of Indiana might disagree with you
> and it's their courthouse."
>
> One of the central political ideas upon which this nation was
> founded was that the rights of individual citizens may not be
> abridged by a majority faction. See, for example, Federalist
> Paper #10 by James Madison. So if even ONE person in that county
> disagrees with the use of his tax money to place the Ten
> Commandments in a government building, then it's an
> infringement, and it's wrong.
Guess they could move him across the county line and have a
consensus then.
>
> Maha wrote: "Look at the FIRST AMENDMENT. It begins, "Congress
> shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise therefrom."
> This means that the federal government (I'll get to the states
> in a minute) cannot "establish" religions, which to any 18th-
> century person would be understood to mean that government
> cannot recognizee one religion or religious teaching as the
> official government religion, or provide tax money for the
> purpose of supporting that religion."
>
> LH wrote: "Sounds okay to me although that last part is only
> INFERRED."
>
> No, it is not inferred. It is what the word "establishment"
> means in this context. To 18th century guys an "established"
> church was one that was recognized that the official government
> church, and one of the privileges extended to an established
> church was support through tax money.
>
That's what inferred means. Considering the context but not
spelled out. Usually the courts like to thrash that out.
> Maha wrote: "If you had read the Virginia Statute of Religious
> Liberty I cited before, you would know that among the things
> guys like Madison (who was chief author of the Bill of Rights)
> and Jefferson objected to was the use of tax money to support
> religion and religious instruction. Using tax money to set up a
> shrine to the Ten Commandments under the dodge that it is
> a "historical document" is a violation of what Madison intended
> to prohibit in the establishment clause of the First Amendment."
>
> LH wrote: "We can INFER that the 2nd amendment means that
> firearms rights "shall not be infringed" but we have over 20,000
> infringements on the books now."
>
> So, according to you, we can just ignore the Constitution
> whenever it suits us?
I'm saying that politicians write laws all the time that
violate the Constitution and we have to let the courts
thrash them out. Guess what? In ALL cases the courts make
a ruling and the MAJORITY gets their way. MANY cases are
5-4 votes. The judges OFTEN vote on political or
philosophical leanings. If it were all cut and dried and
good old Barb KNEW what the founders were thinking, they
could all go home and just send the cases to good old Barb.
Sorry, that is not the way it works.
>
> Maha wrote: "Now, let's go to the Fourteenth Amendment. The
> Fourteenth Amendment has a sentence that says, "No state shall
> make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
> immunities of citizens of the United States."
> This means that state governments cannot violate civil rights
> that are protected by the Bill of Rights. This means that state
> governments may not make laws respecting the establishment of
> religion, either."
>
> LH wrote: "Lots of laws infringing on the 2nd amendment though."
>
> If you are interested in gun rights I wouldn't be too quick to
> diss the Fourteenth Amendment. This URL will take you to a pro-
> gun rights site that discusses states and gun rights:
>
Whose dissing? I'm saying it gets ignored plenty often.
Sometimes years go by before someone is affected enough so
it reaches the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the law is
enforced AS WRITTEN.
> http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfou.html
>
> A quote:
>
> "Yes, the Second Amendment was intended to be applied to the
> states through the Fourteenth Amendment though the courts have
> refused to acknowledge or apply original intent.
> "Although an extremely important topic affecting firearms
> freedom, it is currently beyond the scope of GunCite to discuss
> Fourteenth Amendment issues. References are provided below for
> those who would like to learn more about the Fourteenth
> Amendment and how it was clearly intended to protect firearms
> rights. "
> Links are provided to pages for more information.
> The Fourteenth Amendment is your friend. Learn to love it, as I
> have.
If you like preaching, I know of several openings.
>
> Maha wrote: "If you are interested, I can give you URLs to
> SEVERAL Supreme Court opinions that say this."
>
> LH says: "Please spare me. I guess Indiana knows which ones they
> are and passed the law anyway. It's up to their lawyers to
> thrash it out. "
>
> What happens is that politicians who know better go ahead with
> these infringements of the Constitution when it's what a
> majority of their constituents want. It's a way to get
> reelected.
>
Yup. History is full of examples and seldom are the Supreme
Court Justices on the same page. Do you suppose they read
different history books than you did?
> Maha wrote: "The 14th Amendment wasn't ratified until after
> slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment. So your argument
> has no validity. And, anyway, are you SUGGESTING that the
> Constitution be defied for the sake of glorifying historical
> documents? Do you want to know how illogical that is?"
>
> LH wrote: "See Article III of the Constitution regarding
> enforcement of laws of the various states by the Federal
> government. "
>
> There is nothing in Article III of the Constitution that would
> allow a state to defy the Constitution, so I don't know what you
> are referring to. I think perhaps you are misinterpreting some
> of the passages about court jurisdiction and crimes.
What I am referring to is that when the union was formed,
states were giving the Feds the responsibility to see that
laws were uniformly enforced. When some states refused to
return runaway slaves and the Feds ignored it, states such
as South Carolina used it as an excuse to renounce their
agreement to join the union. Their view was that the FEDs
had violated the contract so it was no longer binding.
Actually a valid point in contract law.
>
> Instead, look at Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of
> the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and
> all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority
> of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and
> the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in
> the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary
> notwithstanding."
>
> That means states cannot write laws that are contrary to federal
> law, nor can states violate the Constitution.
>
Guess the Feds can ignore some and enforce others DEPENDING
ON WHO IS RUNNING THINGS.
> LH wrote: "You too if you're going to use the 14th Amendment to
> bolster your argument."
>
> My usage of the 14th Amendment is the same as the Supreme
> Court's. If you don't understand what this is, then learn.
>
> Haranguer wrote: "The time period of our founding documents
> which make up the display of course."
>
> Maha wrote: "Well, what the hell time period is THAT? As I
> recall, Moses received the 10Cs about 1200 BCE. This was a tad
> before the American Revolution."
>
> Mr. LH wrote: "Are you being deliberately obtuse? The founding
> documents of our country were all written in the late 1700s. I
> understand these are what constitute the display."
>
> Maha wrote: "THEN WHAT THE HELL ARE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS DOING
> THERE? [noting that the 10Cs are about 3,000 years old.]"
>
> LH: "Because, whether you like it or not, the local citizens
> apparently feel that the 10 Commandments were what drove our
> founding fathers to be moral people."
>
> Even if that were true, it's still a violation of the
> Constitution to use tax money to create a monument to the Ten
> Commandments in a public building.
>
How do you know tax money was involved? Maybe public
spirited citizens donated the plaque.
> Maha wrote: "So you admit this is just a "cultural war" thing?
> You don't like liberal crap, so you want to use a sacred
> religious text to get back at those awful liberals?"
>
> LH wrote: "Don't fall off your soap box. Laws are passed all the
> time that people disagree with and end up going to court. Does
> that mean that new laws should never be passed? Many states keep
> trying to restrict abortions and the Liberals have hissy fits
> and they go all the way to the Supreme Court. Roe V Wade was
> based entirely on lies you know but still was upheld by the
> Supreme Court. If the State of Indiana wants to try their law
> out, let it face the same challenge."
>
> Fine. Waste more tax money paying lawyers to defend an obviously
> unconstitutional law.
Tell us why "obviously unconstitutional" laws make it to the
Supreme Court and when they do, seldom get a 9-0 ruling.
>
> Maha wrote: "Thank you for that revealing display of
> intolerance."
Pretty shifty of you to edit some stuff out and leave some
replies in. Makes you appear intolerant and sneaky.
>
> LH wrote: "If the Pope said only people of a certain language
> could visit the Vatican your eyes would bug out in rage. Get a
> grip."
>
> Maha wrote: "First, the Pope can exclude anyone he wants from
> the Vatican. Catholics are free to decide what Catholics believe
> and practice."
>
> LH wrote: "Except if they did the various other religions would
> raise a big hullaballoo."
>
> Yes, but what of that? Religions diss each other all the time.
> The Pope wrote a book four or five years ago in which he dissed
> several other religions. It's obnoxious, but it's also free
> speech. It's only unconstitutional if GOVERNMENT issues
> statements that diss particular religions. If individual people
> do it, there's no law against it.
>
Since the government (FBI) is currently keeping tabs on
Catholics because they oppose abortion, I would say they are
dissing and intimidating people because of their religion.
I haven't seen you making any waves about THAT. I would say
that is a lot more dangerous to the free exercise of
religion than your courthouse drama.
> "I'm sure if they espoused certain things the government would
> step in too. The Mormons found that out. So did the Davidians."
>
> The Mormons got into trouble in the 19th century for violating
> polygamy laws, and the Davidians got into trouble for violating
> firearm laws. Not applicable. Not relevant. Try another
> argument.
Oh, if you can't refute it, it's not relevant.
So if certain religious groups have certain beliefs, laws
can be passed against that belief and that is okay with
you? Is there anything in the Constitution that says
government can prohibit polygamy?
The courts have ruled that using drugs or killing animals as
part of religious ceremonies is legal even though there are
laws against both. If the Davidian's used machine guns
during religious services does that mean the government
would have had to back off?
>
> Maha wrote: "Second, Islam does not say that all Moslems have to
> speak Arabic. There are translations of the Koran so that non-
> Arabic- speaking Moslems can learn the meaning. What Islamic
> scholars believe is that God spoke these exact Arabic words of
> the Koran into the ear of the Prophet, and if you change even a
> punctuation mark it is no longer the sacred Koran. This is what
> they believe, and I respect the belief. You obviously don't.
> Therefore, you are intolerant."
>
> LH wrote: "You sure have a vivid imagination. They can believe
> what they like. If I choose to call it narrow minded, that's
> because it is."
>
> Revealing once again what an intolerant jerk you are.
Revealing that any view different than yours is not
allowed. Typical Liberal jackass.
>
> Maha wrote: "Show me where government PREVENTED people from
> posting the Ten Commandments on private property? Show me where
> the government censored publication of the Ten Commandments so
> that no one could read it. Show me where the government has not
> been allowing people to practice the Ten Commandments, by
> forcing them to make graven images or something?"
>
> LH wrote: "The free exercise thereof could take many forms. It's
> not up to you to decide what those are. The courts will take
> care of that."
>
> It's' not up to the Courts to tell me what the free exercise of
> my religion should be. What's up to the Courts is to determine
> if the Constitution has been violated.
>
Nor is it up to you to decide. The courts will rule whether
what the folks in Indiana are doing is a violation or not.
> Maha wrote: "(BTW, here in Westchester county New York last
> year, a federal district judge held against a public school that
> had required children to make a model of the Hindu god Ganesha
> in an art class. The judge said the school couldn't do this,
> because it violated the establishment clause of the First
> Amendment. Reflect on that for a moment, please.)"
>
> LH wrote: "Hey, judges are free spirits. They have lifetime
> tenure and so begin to believe they are infallible."
>
> All judges are bound by the Constitution and statutory law. They
> cannot decide cases based on personal opinion.
You must have just fallen off the turnip truck. Judges
follow their personal opinions all the time and then look
for precedents to back them up. Why do you think people are
always talking about a "litmus test" when Supreme Court
Justices are being chosen? They want to know his OPINIONS.
>
> LH wrote: "Judge Smith of Davidian fame got slapped a few weeks
> back, 9-0 by the Supreme court for making up law as he went.
> This is pretty common among judges. It doesn't make them right
> though."
>
> That's an example of what I'm talking about. When judges get too
> creative their cases are reviewed and reversed. Ultimately the
> Constitution remains the supreme law of the land.
>
> B.
What remains the law of the land is what a MAJORITY of 9 old
men DECIDE what the Constitution says. Not you, not me, but
the 9 codgers who have that power. I hope you've noticed
that they seldom agree with each other.
LZ
Rob Strom
>
> Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> >"jjwh...@usa.net" wrote:
> >>
> >> How does displaying and honoring the Ten Commandments violate
> the
> >> 4 commandments? [sic] Seems to me they were honoring the
> Sabbath and
> >> keeping it holy.
> >
> >Putting up a plaque on Saturday violates the
> >commandment to do no (creative) work on Saturday.
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
Yes.
Sabbath is a commemoration of the creation.
Let's go over the 4th commandment again, slowly.
"Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy.
You can work during the six weekdays and do all your tasks.
But Saturday is the Sabbath to God your Lord.
Do not do anything that constitutes work. [This includes]
you, your son, your daughter, your slave, your maid, your animal,
and the foreigner in your gates.
It was during the six weekdays that God made the heaven,
the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,
but he rested on Saturday.
God therefore blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
It is repeated in Leviticus 23:
"You may do work during the six weekdays,
but Saturday is a Sabbath of Sabbaths.
It is a sacred holiday
to God, when you shall do no work."
(and again in Deuteronomy).
The analogy is being explicitly made between creation and
the six weekdays on the one hand, and the cessation
of creation and the Sabbath on the other.
Nailing up a plaque or affixing it to the wall,
or unveiling it is a creative act.
It doesn't make sense to honor the 10 commandments
by breaking one of them.
>
> >
> >It's just ironic that they were having
> >a ceremony in honor of putting up a list
> >of commandments one of which was violated
> >by the very act of putting up the plaque.
>
> Honoring the lord is what the commandment is about. Going to
> church or praying or honoring the ten commandment is not."Work"
> and you know it.
You don't know what I know and what I don't.
The commandment doesn't say honor the Lord; it is
much more specific. It says
don't do anything that constitutes work.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Could you explain your thinking here? If not could you tell me
> >> where you get the stuff your smoking?
> >
> >Are you always rude to people you don't understand?
>
> Yes, especially when they prosperously misrepresent something
> just to bash a religions belief. No one is asking you to believe
> what he or she believes, but to just misrepresent it and make
> fun of it is nothing more than hate speech.
>
Which religion am I bashing or misrepresenting?
It seems a lot of folks pay so much lip service
to the idea of the 10 commandments that they don't read them.
--
Rob Strom
Rob Strom
>
> : > He explained it in the message. On the Sabbath (Saturday) one is
> : > not supposed to do stuff. Hanging a poster is doing stuff.
> :
> : + On Sundays, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work
> : or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper
> : to the Lord's day, the performance of the works of mercy, and
> : the appropriate relaxation of mind and body. Family needs or
> : important scial service can legitimately excuse the faithful from
> : the obligation of Sunday rest.
> :
> : + Hanging a poster shouldn't be considered work.
> : + Especially if doing it in reverance of God and good works.
>
> One thing. Paul conveys the wisdom that we are no longer under
> the law. That we should not be followers of days or holidays. It
> was among the first things that the early Christians ignored of Paul's
> teachings.
>
> No day is more holy than another. And Christians are dead to the law
> because they are dead in Christ. Thus it is themselves who put themselves
> back under the law, back into slavery. It is because they are immature.
If you really believe the above, that the 10 commandments don't
apply to you, and that in particular the 4th commandment
doesn't apply to you, then why have a ceremony at all
in honor of a law that you think doesn't apply???? Doesn't it
make a mockery of those who do follow it?
--
Rob Strom
mahabarbara
Maha wrote: "There were native Americans all over Indiana in
1776. (Stop and reflect on the name "Indiana" for a moment and
consider where it might have come from.) But even if there
weren't, enshrining the Ten Commandments in a government
building is still a violation of the US Constitution."
LH wrote: "We were talking about WHO was invited to participate
in the ceremony NOW. Let's try to stay on the reservation."
These documents enshrined in the ceremony allegedly
were "historical documents," were they not? History is about the
past. None of the authors of the documents were present, I
noticed. (Although Thomas Jefferson surely must have spun in his
grave at least once over this.)
Maha wrote: "The Ten Commandments may have had some indirect
cultural influence on the Founders, but they had no direct
impact on the founding of this country. None of the great
historical documents generated by the Founding Fathers was based
on the Ten Commandments. Instead, they were based on writings by
guys like Locke and Bacon, and the pre-Christian Greek and Roman
philosophers."
LH wrote: "At least you think so. "
Maha wrote: "It is not a matter of what *I* think. It is a
matter of historical FACT."
LH wrote: "The founders didn't write down every thought. How do
you know what they may have gained from listening to Sunday
sermons? You think the biographers wrote that down? Try not to
be pompous."
In fact, several of the Founders, including Jefferson and
Madison, either kept diaries or wrote autobiographies, and they
were all copious letter writers in those days, and they left
behind many long letters and writings in which they discussed
the ideas and philosophies important to them. So we know in
their own words what philosophers and which literature
influenced their thinking. Based on this, we know for example
that Jefferson was not a Christian in any orthodox sense of the
word, because he didn't believe Jesus was god.
I believe the Jefferson documents are available online. If so,
you could do a search for the Ten Commandments and see if you
get any hits. I'm betting not.
Maha wrote: "If you don't believe me, I suggest taking a trip to
your local public library and checking out some books on the
Founding Guys. I suggest Madison and Jefferson in particular,
since they were the authors of the Bill of Rights and
Declaration of Independence. Find out for yourself which
philosophers and thinkers influenced them. I can PROMISE you
that you will find no mention of the Ten Commandments. They were
familiar with them, of course, as am I; they were also familiar
with Shakespeare and Milton and Johann Sebastian Bach. It was
part of their culture. But I defy you to find any scholarly
historical work that says they were particularly influenced by
the Ten Commandments or based any of our great founding
documents on the Ten Commandments."
LH wrote: "Who influenced the people they read? Try not to get
too windy."
Well, sorry, I have other things to do with my life than give
you history lessons over the Internet. There must be dozens of
biograpihes of these guys in print now. Do some reading.
Maha wrote: "If you were to rank the top one hundred documents
that influenced the Founding Fathers in order of importance, the
Ten Commandments wouldn't even make the list. So why enshrine it
in a government-sponsored monument as a "historical document"
along with the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of
Independence? That makes no sense, historically or
philosophically speaking."
LH: "You're assuming again."
No, I am not. I love American history and have read about it and
studied it for many, many years. I know what I'm talking about.
LH wrote: "The good people of Indiana might disagree with you
and it's their courthouse."
Maha wrote: "One of the central political ideas upon which this
nation was founded was that the rights of individual citizens
may not be abridged by a majority faction. See, for example,
Federalist Paper #10 by James Madison. So if even ONE person in
that county disagrees with the use of his tax money to place the
Ten Commandments in a government building, then it's an
infringement, and it's wrong."
LH wrote: "Guess they could move him across the county line and
have a consensus then."
Yeah, that's what the anglicans did to the Puritans -- kick them
out of Britain because of their beliefs. That's exactly the sort
of thing the First Amendment was written to prevent.
Look, if you don't appreciate this country and what it stands
for, you go somewhere else. China? Cuba? Lots of places in the
world that fabricate phony history and make everyone believe the
same things. You'd feel right at home.
Maha wrote: "Look at the FIRST AMENDMENT. It begins, "Congress
shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise therefrom." This means that the
federal government (I'll get to the states in a minute)
cannot "establish" religions, which to any 18th- century person
would be understood to mean that government cannot recognizee
one religion or religious teaching as the official government
religion, or provide tax money for the purpose of supporting
that religion."
LH wrote: "Sounds okay to me although that last part is only
INFERRED."
Maha wrote: "No, it is not inferred. It is what the
word "establishment" means in this context. To 18th century guys
an "established" church was one that was recognized that the
official government church, and one of the privileges extended
to an established church was support through tax money."
LH: "That's what inferred means. Considering the context but not
spelled out. Usually the courts like to thrash that out."
I know what "inferred" means; I am an editor. The guys who
wrote the First Amendment used the word "established" with great
precision to mean a specific thing. We don't have to infer what
it means; we know what it means. That usage of the word is a
little alien to Americans today, so it has to be explained to
them, but the fact remains that it means what Founders intended
it to mean, not what someone in the year 2000 can decide what it
means.
There is a good annotated Constitution available on the web at:
http://supreme.findlaw.com/constitution/index.html
You can go to this page to find links to annotatons on the First
Amendment that explains it.
http://supreme.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/
Please don't attempt to argue with me about the meaning of the
First Amendment religion clauses until you have at least read
the First Amendment annotations on Findlaw. I'm very tired of
explaining things to you that are easily available online. I
have other things to do.
Maha wrote: "If you had read the Virginia Statute of Religious
Liberty I cited before, you would know that among the things
guys like Madison (who was chief author of the Bill of Rights)
and Jefferson objected to was the use of tax money to support
religion and religious instruction. Using tax money to set up a
shrine to the Ten Commandments under the dodge that it is
a "historical document" is a violation of what Madison intended
to prohibit in the establishment clause of the First Amendment."
LH wrote: "We can INFER that the 2nd amendment means that
firearms rights "shall not be infringed" but we have over 20,000
infringements on the books now."
Maha wrote: "So, according to you, we can just ignore the
Constitution whenever it suits us?"
LH: "I'm saying that politicians write laws all the time that
violate the Constitution and we have to let the courts thrash
them out. Guess what? In ALL cases the courts make a ruling and
the MAJORITY gets their way. MANY cases are 5-4 votes. The
judges OFTEN vote on political or philosophical leanings. If it
were all cut and dried and good old Barb KNEW what the founders
were thinking, they could all go home and just send the cases to
good old Barb. Sorry, that is not the way it works."
Even so, the opinions have to be based on the Constitution or on
statutory or case law. They can't be pulled out of thin air.
Maha wrote: "Now, let's go to the Fourteenth Amendment. The
Fourteenth Amendment has a sentence that says, "No state shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States." This means that
state governments cannot violate civil rights that are protected
by the Bill of Rights. This means that state governments may not
make laws respecting the establishment of religion, either."
LH wrote: "Lots of laws infringing on the 2nd amendment though."
If you are interested in gun rights I wouldn't be too quick to
diss the Fourteenth Amendment. This URL will take you to a pro-
gun rights site that discusses states and gun rights:
<URL below.>
Whose dissing? I'm saying it gets ignored plenty often.
Are you nuts? Nearly every opinion that comes out of the Supreme
Court these days is based in part on the 14th Amendment.
LH: "Sometimes years go by before someone is affected enough so
it reaches the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the law is
enforced AS WRITTEN."
Sometimes, but more often the SC reviews something within a year
or two.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfou.html
Maha wrote: "The 14th Amendment wasn't ratified until after
slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment. So your argument
has no validity. And, anyway, are you SUGGESTING that the
Constitution be defied for the sake of glorifying historical
documents? Do you want to know how illogical that is?"
LH wrote: "See Article III of the Constitution regarding
enforcement of laws of the various states by the Federal
government. "
Maha wrote: "There is nothing in Article III of the Constitution
that would allow a state to defy the Constitution, so I don't
know what you are referring to. I think perhaps you are
misinterpreting some of the passages about court jurisdiction
and crimes."
LH wrote: "What I am referring to is that when the union was
formed, states were giving the Feds the responsibility to see
that laws were uniformly enforced. When some states refused to
return runaway slaves and the Feds ignored it, states such as
South Carolina used it as an excuse to renounce their agreement
to join the union. Their view was that the FEDs had violated the
contract so it was no longer binding. Actually a valid point in
contract law."
Not applicable to the current discussion on First Amendment
rights.
I don't want to get into the causes of the Civil War today, but
if you are interested in reading what the secessionists
themselves said about their reasons for dissolving the Union, go
to this URL and click on the links to secessionist papers:
http://www.aun-edu.org/session.htm
Maha wrote: "That means states cannot write laws that are
contrary to federal law, nor can states violate the
Constitution."
LH wrote: "Guess the Feds can ignore some and enforce others
DEPENDING ON WHO IS RUNNING THINGS."
That's why it's a good idea to pay attention to who is running
things. We need to people in office who honor the Constitution.
<snips>
LH: "How do you know tax money was involved? Maybe public
spirited citizens donated the plaque."
Maha: "Did many public spirited citizens pay for the building in
which the plaque is housed, and maintain it?"
<snips>
Maha wrote: "Thank you for that revealing display of
intolerance."
LH wrote: "Pretty shifty of you to edit some stuff out and leave
some replies in. Makes you appear intolerant and sneaky."
If I snipped, I didn't cut anything out that would have made you
look any better. You don't have an argument.
<snips>
Maha: "Yes, but what of that? Religions diss each other all the
time. The Pope wrote a book four or five years ago in which he
dissed several other religions. It's obnoxious, but it's also
free speech. It's only unconstitutional if GOVERNMENT issues
statements that diss particular religions. If individual people
do it, there's no law against it."
LH: "Since the government (FBI) is currently keeping tabs on
Catholics because they oppose abortion,"
Prove it. Sounds like paranoid fantasy. The FBI is keeping track
of abortion extremists who might be involved in the various
bombings and burnings of abortions clinics and the murders of
doctors and staff, but the "perps" are not exclusively Catholic,
nor are these crimes the work of the Catholic church.
I guess, according to you, if a religious minority believes in
murder or sexual abuse of children or throwing acid into
people's faces, if law steps in and stops it, that is an example
of religious intolerance.
LH: "I would say they are dissing and intimidating people
because of their religion."
You would say that, but you are a liar.
Maha: "I haven't seen you making any waves about THAT."
That's because it isn't happening.
LH: "I would say that is a lot more dangerous to the free
exercise of religion than your courthouse drama."
Yes, if it were happening, but it isn't.
LH: "I'm sure if they espoused certain things the government
would step in too. The Mormons found that out. So did the
Davidians."
Maha: "The Mormons got into trouble in the 19th century for
violating polygamy laws, and the Davidians got into trouble for
violating firearm laws. Not applicable. Not relevant. Try
another argument."
LH: "Oh, if you can't refute it, it's not relevant. So if
certain religious groups have certain beliefs, laws can be
passed against that belief and that is okay with you? Is there
anything in the Constitution that says government can prohibit
polygamy?"
In the case of the 19th century Mormons, I believe you will find
that it was locals and states, not the feds, who ran them into
Utah because of the practice of polygamy. Marriage laws are up
to the states, not the federal government. The Mormons had
problems with the feds during the Buchanan administration, but
that was primarily because the Mormons were trying to establish
their own state government within federal territory (Utah was
not a state then).
LH: "The courts have ruled that using drugs or killing animals
as part of religious ceremonies is legal even though there are
laws against both. If the Davidian's used machine guns during
religious services does that mean the government would have had
to back off?"
If a religious leader rapes a woman or sexually molests a child
he sure as heck gets arrested for it, even if he claims it was a
religious act (which has happened).
Maha wrote: "Second, Islam does not say that all Moslems have to
speak Arabic. There are translations of the Koran so that non-
Arabic- speaking Moslems can learn the meaning. What Islamic
scholars believe is that God spoke these exact Arabic words of
the Koran into the ear of the Prophet, and if you change even a
punctuation mark it is no longer the sacred Koran. This is what
they believe, and I respect the belief. You obviously don't.
Therefore, you are intolerant."
LH wrote: "You sure have a vivid imagination. They can believe
what they like. If I choose to call it narrow minded, that's
because it is."
Maha wrote: "Revealing once again what an intolerant jerk you
are.
LH wrote: "Revealing that any view different than yours is not
allowed. Typical Liberal jackass."
Let's see, where are we now -- you make an intolerant statement
about a belief of another religion, and I point out to you that
you are intolerant of other peoples' religions, and now you are
slamming me because I am intolerant of your intolerance. Well,
yes, I am intolerant of intolerance. I really hate intolerance.
So sue me.
Maha wrote: "Show me where government PREVENTED people from
posting the Ten Commandments on private property? Show me where
the government censored publication of the Ten Commandments so
that no one could read it. Show me where the government has not
been allowing people to practice the Ten Commandments, by
forcing them to make graven images or something?"
LH wrote: "The free exercise thereof could take many forms. It's
not up to you to decide what those are. The courts will take
care of that."
Maha: "It's' not up to the Courts to tell me what the free
exercise of my religion should be. What's up to the Courts is to
determine if the Constitution has been violated."
LH: "Nor is it up to you to decide."
That's what I just said.
LH: "The courts will rule whether what the folks in Indiana are
doing is a violation or not."
That's what I just said.
So we'll wait and see if the Court upholds the intention of
Madison and Jefferson and orders the 10Cs removed, or if a more
reactionary court will decide that the intention of the Founders
can go to hell.
Remainder snipped because it's getting real old.
B.
Lone Haranguer
mahabarbara wrote:
>
> Responding to the Lone Haranguer:
>
> Maha wrote: "There were native Americans all over Indiana in
> 1776. (Stop and reflect on the name "Indiana" for a moment and
> consider where it might have come from.)
Brilliant stuff. I'm agog!
>
> LH wrote: "We were talking about WHO was invited to participate
> in the ceremony NOW. Let's try to stay on the reservation."
>
> These documents enshrined in the ceremony allegedly
> were "historical documents," were they not? History is about the
> past. None of the authors of the documents were present, I
> noticed. (Although Thomas Jefferson surely must have spun in his
> grave at least once over this.)
>
Maybe you could check if the earth is disturbed?
Who asked you to? It's obvious you like to pontificate and
preach. I read all this stuff in the 1940s, right now I
have other interests.
> Maha wrote: "If you were to rank the top one hundred documents
> that influenced the Founding Fathers in order of importance, the
> Ten Commandments wouldn't even make the list. So why enshrine it
> in a government-sponsored monument as a "historical document"
> along with the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of
> Independence? That makes no sense, historically or
> philosophically speaking."
>
> LH: "You're assuming again."
>
> No, I am not. I love American history and have read about it and
> studied it for many, many years. I know what I'm talking about.
I went through this phase 50 years ago. I need a retread
but there are other things I haven't gotten to yet.
>
> LH wrote: "The good people of Indiana might disagree with you
> and it's their courthouse."
>
> Maha wrote: "One of the central political ideas upon which this
> nation was founded was that the rights of individual citizens
> may not be abridged by a majority faction. See, for example,
> Federalist Paper #10 by James Madison. So if even ONE person in
> that county disagrees with the use of his tax money to place the
> Ten Commandments in a government building, then it's an
> infringement, and it's wrong."
>
> LH wrote: "Guess they could move him across the county line and
> have a consensus then."
>
> Yeah, that's what the anglicans did to the Puritans -- kick them
> out of Britain because of their beliefs. That's exactly the sort
> of thing the First Amendment was written to prevent.
>
> Look, if you don't appreciate this country and what it stands
> for, you go somewhere else. China? Cuba? Lots of places in the
> world that fabricate phony history and make everyone believe the
> same things. You'd feel right at home.
>
Having lived outside the U.S. quite a bit I probably
appreciate it a lot more than you do twit. The State of
Indiana passed a law and until it is RULED invalid, the
people are free to take advantage of it. THAT is the way
this country operates. I don't always like the laws that
are written by Congress either but we live with them until
they are overturned. Have you got that straight you
righteous twit?
For instance I bet you never let out the slightest peep when
the Brady bill was passed even though parts of it were
unconstitutional also. Still millions of people had to
acquiesce until a few brave Sheriffs challenged it and the
NRA funded the challenge. Were you having hissy fits THEN?
Heck no. You must hate this country and be a subversive, I
think you should move to Tibet.
Hey, good thinking. The courts are always doing their own
interpretations though so why not the legislatures?
> There is a good annotated Constitution available on the web at:
>
> http://supreme.findlaw.com/constitution/index.html
>
> You can go to this page to find links to annotatons on the First
> Amendment that explains it.
>
> http://supreme.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/
>
> Please don't attempt to argue with me about the meaning of the
> First Amendment religion clauses until you have at least read
> the First Amendment annotations on Findlaw. I'm very tired of
> explaining things to you that are easily available online. I
> have other things to do.
Me too. I was hoping you were tired of lecturing 3 posts
back.
Sigh. Then it was ignored when the conflicting law was
written.
> LH: "Sometimes years go by before someone is affected enough so
> it reaches the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the law is
> enforced AS WRITTEN."
>
> Sometimes, but more often the SC reviews something within a year
> or two.
Another portion of Brady was just heard by the 5th Circuit
last month. When will the Supremes hear it? The Brady Bill
is how old? I think you speak with forked tongue. The case
goes forward when someone with the time and money want to
challenge a law, not before.
>
> http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfou.html
>
> Maha wrote: "The 14th Amendment wasn't ratified until after
> slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment. So your argument
> has no validity. And, anyway, are you SUGGESTING that the
> Constitution be defied for the sake of glorifying historical
> documents? Do you want to know how illogical that is?"
>
> LH wrote: "See Article III of the Constitution regarding
> enforcement of laws of the various states by the Federal
> government. "
>
> Maha wrote: "There is nothing in Article III of the Constitution
> that would allow a state to defy the Constitution, so I don't
> know what you are referring to. I think perhaps you are
> misinterpreting some of the passages about court jurisdiction
> and crimes."
>
> LH wrote: "What I am referring to is that when the union was
> formed, states were giving the Feds the responsibility to see
> that laws were uniformly enforced. When some states refused to
> return runaway slaves and the Feds ignored it, states such as
> South Carolina used it as an excuse to renounce their agreement
> to join the union. Their view was that the FEDs had violated the
> contract so it was no longer binding. Actually a valid point in
> contract law."
>
> Not applicable to the current discussion on First Amendment
> rights.
What about the mention you made of the 14th?
>
> I don't want to get into the causes of the Civil War today, but
> if you are interested in reading what the secessionists
> themselves said about their reasons for dissolving the Union, go
> to this URL and click on the links to secessionist papers:
>
> http://www.aun-edu.org/session.htm
>
> Maha wrote: "That means states cannot write laws that are
> contrary to federal law, nor can states violate the
> Constitution."
>
> LH wrote: "Guess the Feds can ignore some and enforce others
> DEPENDING ON WHO IS RUNNING THINGS."
>
> That's why it's a good idea to pay attention to who is running
> things. We need to people in office who honor the Constitution.
>
> <snips>
>
> LH: "How do you know tax money was involved? Maybe public
> spirited citizens donated the plaque."
>
> Maha: "Did many public spirited citizens pay for the building in
> which the plaque is housed, and maintain it?"
>
They call them taxpayers.
<snips>
>
> Maha wrote: "Thank you for that revealing display of
> intolerance."
>
> LH wrote: "Pretty shifty of you to edit some stuff out and leave
> some replies in. Makes you appear intolerant and sneaky."
>
> If I snipped, I didn't cut anything out that would have made you
> look any better. You don't have an argument.
>
Pretty hard to judge your comments when you edit out those
that don't suit you. Makes you look intolerant and sneaky.
You've been a censor errrr, editor too long.
>
> Maha: "Yes, but what of that? Religions diss each other all the
> time. The Pope wrote a book four or five years ago in which he
> dissed several other religions. It's obnoxious, but it's also
> free speech. It's only unconstitutional if GOVERNMENT issues
> statements that diss particular religions. If individual people
> do it, there's no law against it."
>
> LH: "Since the government (FBI) is currently keeping tabs on
> Catholics because they oppose abortion,"
>
> Prove it. Sounds like paranoid fantasy. The FBI is keeping track
> of abortion extremists who might be involved in the various
> bombings and burnings of abortions clinics and the murders of
> doctors and staff, but the "perps" are not exclusively Catholic,
> nor are these crimes the work of the Catholic church.
>
You don't believe it, ergo it can't be true, right?
The documents have been available showing that even the
Catholic Conference of Bishops have been monitored. Are
they bomb throwers too?
> I guess, according to you, if a religious minority believes in
> murder or sexual abuse of children or throwing acid into
> people's faces, if law steps in and stops it, that is an example
> of religious intolerance.
Pretty vivid imagination you have. According to me, where
have I stated that?
>
> LH: "I would say they are dissing and intimidating people
> because of their religion."
>
> You would say that, but you are a liar.
>
I would say you are a liar for denying it. Maybe you should
check with the FBI.
> Maha: "I haven't seen you making any waves about THAT."
>
> That's because it isn't happening.
>
> LH: "I would say that is a lot more dangerous to the free
> exercise of religion than your courthouse drama."
>
> Yes, if it were happening, but it isn't.
FBI files say it is.
That was not the question and it is not what the ATF was
doing at Mt. Carmel. The ATF has no jurisdiction over sex
crimes and the state had already completed their
investigation.
> Maha wrote: "Second, Islam does not say that all Moslems have to
> speak Arabic. There are translations of the Koran so that non-
> Arabic- speaking Moslems can learn the meaning. What Islamic
> scholars believe is that God spoke these exact Arabic words of
> the Koran into the ear of the Prophet, and if you change even a
> punctuation mark it is no longer the sacred Koran. This is what
> they believe, and I respect the belief. You obviously don't.
> Therefore, you are intolerant."
>
> LH wrote: "You sure have a vivid imagination. They can believe
> what they like. If I choose to call it narrow minded, that's
> because it is."
>
> Maha wrote: "Revealing once again what an intolerant jerk you
> are.
>
> LH wrote: "Revealing that any view different than yours is not
> allowed. Typical Liberal jackass."
>
> Let's see, where are we now -- you make an intolerant statement
> about a belief of another religion, and I point out to you that
> you are intolerant of other peoples' religions, and now you are
> slamming me because I am intolerant of your intolerance. Well,
> yes, I am intolerant of intolerance. I really hate intolerance.
> So sue me.
>
You are only intolerant of things you disapprove of. Other
constitutional violations are fine as long as YOU support
them. We got the message. Selective intolerance.
> Maha wrote: "Show me where government PREVENTED people from
> posting the Ten Commandments on private property? Show me where
> the government censored publication of the Ten Commandments so
> that no one could read it. Show me where the government has not
> been allowing people to practice the Ten Commandments, by
> forcing them to make graven images or something?"
>
> LH wrote: "The free exercise thereof could take many forms. It's
> not up to you to decide what those are. The courts will take
> care of that."
>
> Maha: "It's' not up to the Courts to tell me what the free
> exercise of my religion should be. What's up to the Courts is to
> determine if the Constitution has been violated."
>
> LH: "Nor is it up to you to decide."
>
> That's what I just said.
>
> LH: "The courts will rule whether what the folks in Indiana are
> doing is a violation or not."
>
> That's what I just said.
It's what I've been saying all along. If the Indiana
legislature wrote a bad law, it will get to the courts in
due time.
>
> So we'll wait and see if the Court upholds the intention of
> Madison and Jefferson and orders the 10Cs removed, or if a more
> reactionary court will decide that the intention of the Founders
> can go to hell.
>
Reactionary courts are just fine with Liberals as long as
they rule in their favor.
> Remainder snipped because it's getting real old.
>
> B.
It was old days ago. If you weren't so egotistical you'd
realize that the world is getting on just fine without your
sermonizing.
LZ
N9NWO
: : >are recent new comers. Interest by Americans in other
: : >religions really took off after the late '60s. And most
: : >of those who immigrated with these religions have done
: : >so in the last 30 years. Yes, I know, we had a huge
: : >Chinese population in the late 1800s. But for the most
: : >part they were never mainstream, even now.
: :
: : I have two objections to the paragraph above. First, you
: appear to be saying that, as Christianity is a "mainstream" religion,
: in a government-sponored monument. And is this not an example
: : of "establishment of religion," with the majority religious
: : faction getting to choose their religion for enshrinement?
: :
: : Consider what Jefferson said in his autobiography, writing
:
: Mr./Ms. N, you wrote: "For the most part, the Americas, both
: north and south, were totally dominated by Christians until the
: late 1960s. While there was no established (single) church,
: there was a common set of beliefs that could have been called
: mainstream."
:
: Yes, but this is irrelevant. The Founders made it crystal clear
: that they did not intend to establish Christianity as the
: official religion. So why do it now?
Jefferson was not a majority viewpoint at that time. And he
did not write the Constitution, Madison did. Even at that, the
Constitution was a conpremise that satisfied all the delegates.
And, until the late 1960s, Christainity in all its forms was the
dominate belief system in this country.
: I am not objecting to the practice of the Christian religion. I
: am objecting to an obvious intent to circumvent the CLEAR
: intention of the Founders and establish Christianity as the
: official religion. That's WRONG. Jefferson, Madison, Adams,
: Washington, all kinds of other Founding Guys, all left behind
: copious documentation of their opinion that there should be NO
: established religion in the U.S. (I am using "established" in
: the same sense as used in the First Amendment; if this confuses
: you, speak up.)
No establish religion ment no official church. It does not mean
the current persicution and marginalization that is being directed
at practicing Christians.
: N wrote: "While Jefferson was a Deist who believed in a Creator
: God, he did not believe in the concept that Jesus was God, the
: son."
:
: Yes, which is also irrelevant. It doesn't matter if he
: worshipped mayonaise. He made it clear he was opposed to
: establishment of religion, and that the First Amendment of the
: Constitution places a "wall of separation between church and
: state." His very words.
:
: I am repeating this quote from JEFFERSON, his autobiography,
: which you don't appear to have read.
Jefferson was, at that time, a minority veiwpoint. Even when he
was president his views did reflect the majority of Americans.
Nor did he write the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
: : <quote begins>
:
N9NWO
Even within the evangelical movement there are those who seek
to be more direct rather than follow the traditions of men. Jesus
came to fulfill the Law. Actual Christianity and what it means to
be a Christian were laid out by Paul in his seven letters to the
Body of Christ. Most Christian churches do not follow even Paul's
guidance.
What happened was that during the lifetime of Paul, many believers
wanted to be still be under the law, to include circumcision. Then
came the Gnostics with their mother god and other beliefs. By the
end of Paul's life most of the original teachings were not followed.
Within 5 centuries, the traditions became Christianity.
N9NWO
: make a mockery of those who do follow it?
Hanging the 10 commandments on a way is pure symbolism. There are
those, especially Baptists, who think that will solve everything. But then
most of them are legalists seeking to justify themselves by what they do
instead of truly believing in the power of God.
mahabarbara
Jefferson was a bit more radical about separating church and
state than many others, but he was far from alone. Further, he
and Madison, who was chief author of the Constitution, were
pretty much on the same page on this topic. Madison said that
the religion clauses of the First Amendment were based on
Jefferson's Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty, which Madison
helped get through the Virginia state legislature.
Whether you like it or not, the Founders, including Madison,
Adams, G. Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and lots of others,
really, really, really meant it when they determined that
Christianity should not be given a place of honor above all
other religions. You can try to get around it all you like, but
you are being dishonest when you do so.
>And, until the late 1960s, Christainity in all its forms was the
>dominate belief system in this country.
Yes, but that is irrelevant. Christianity must not become the
established religion, and the beliefs of Christianity about God
should not be enshrined in a public monument in a government
building. That's WRONG.
>
>: I am not objecting to the practice of the Christian religion.
I
>: am objecting to an obvious intent to circumvent the CLEAR
>: intention of the Founders and establish Christianity as the
>: official religion. That's WRONG. Jefferson, Madison, Adams,
>: Washington, all kinds of other Founding Guys, all left behind
>: copious documentation of their opinion that there should be NO
>: established religion in the U.S. (I am using "established" in
>: the same sense as used in the First Amendment; if this
confuses
>: you, speak up.)
>
>No establish religion ment no official church. It does not mean
>the current persicution and marginalization that is being
directed
>at practicing Christians.
Christians are not being persecuted and marginalized. You are
just being prevented from persecuting and marginalizing everyone
else, which Christians have gotten away with doing too many
times.
Being just one religion among equals must seem weird to
Christians, who are used to having everything their way, but it
doesn't constitute being persecuted and marginalized.
>
>
>: N wrote: "While Jefferson was a Deist who believed in a
Creator
>: God, he did not believe in the concept that Jesus was God, the
>: son."
>:
>: Yes, which is also irrelevant. It doesn't matter if he
>: worshipped mayonaise. He made it clear he was opposed to
>: establishment of religion, and that the First Amendment of the
>: Constitution places a "wall of separation between church and
>: state." His very words.
>:
>: I am repeating this quote from JEFFERSON, his autobiography,
>: which you don't appear to have read.
>
>Jefferson was, at that time, a minority veiwpoint. Even when he
>was president his views did reflect the majority of Americans.
>Nor did he write the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Madison did, and Madison agreed with Jefferson on the religion
thing. See above.
mahabarbara
That's fine, but I'm still a Buddhist. At this point stuff about
Jehovah and fulfilling law and whatever no longer interests me.
If that's your belief I respect it, but I no longer believe it.
BTW, some of the "gnostic" gospels, in particular the Gospel of
Thomas, are lovely and reveal some genuine spirituality.
I Expect You to DIE, Mr. Bond!!
The things that are still being done in the name of Christ!
When Christ does come back, He's really going to be pissed at
you guys.
Rob Strom
...
> : >
> : > No day is more holy than another. And Christians are dead to the law
> : > because they are dead in Christ. Thus it is themselves who put
> themselves
> : > back under the law, back into slavery. It is because they are
> immature.
> :
> : If you really believe the above, that the 10 commandments don't
> : apply to you, and that in particular the 4th commandment
> : doesn't apply to you, then why have a ceremony at all
> : in honor of a law that you think doesn't apply???? Doesn't it
> : make a mockery of those who do follow it?
>
> Hanging the 10 commandments on a way is pure symbolism. There are
> those, especially Baptists, who think that will solve everything. But then
> most of them are legalists seeking to justify themselves by what they do
> instead of truly believing in the power of God.
I don't want to get in the middle of your inter-denominational
quarrel with Baptists.
But hanging the 10 commandments in a ceremony that explicitly
violates one of them is bad symbolism. Irrespective
of the constitutional issues of whether this is a back-door
attempt to get government to endorse a religion,
it sends a hypocritical message --- that we're going
to preach the commandments but not follow them.
Sort of like if in the 19th century they had made
a slave nail up the Declaration of Independence
saying "all men are endowed by their Creator
with the inalienable rights to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness".
--
Rob Strom
PBarker
> But hanging the 10 commandments in a ceremony that explicitly
> violates one of them is bad symbolism.
+ Obviously you use a very strange definition of work or labor...
+ On Sundays, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work
or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper
to the Lord's day, the performance of the works of mercy, and
the appropriate relaxation of mind and body. Family needs or
important social service can legitimately excuse the faithful from
the obligation of Sunday rest.
+ Hanging a poster shouldn't be considered work.
+ Especially if doing it in reverence of God and good works.
mahabarbara
That's a Christian viewpoint. I'm not saying it's right or
wrong, just that it is Christian. Observant Jews tend to be a
lot stricter about what work is, and hanging a poster would
definitely fall into that category.
Rob Strom
>
> "Rob Strom" wrote
> > But hanging the 10 commandments in a ceremony that explicitly
> > violates one of them is bad symbolism.
>
> + Obviously you use a very strange definition of work or labor...
It's the one that's been used for thousands of years.
>
> + On Sundays, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work
> or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper
> to the Lord's day, the performance of the works of mercy, and
> the appropriate relaxation of mind and body. Family needs or
> important social service can legitimately excuse the faithful from
> the obligation of Sunday rest.
>
That's not what the commandment says.
It says Saturday (yom ha shvi'i), and
it doesn't say there are excuses for social service
or anything else. The only excuses are
for matters of life and death, which
apply to all the commandments.
Unless they nailed up some *other* set
of ten commandments I don't know about.
--
Rob Strom
PBarker
> PBarker wrote:
> > > But hanging the 10 commandments in a ceremony that explicitly
> > > violates one of them is bad symbolism.
> >
> > + Obviously you use a very strange definition of work or labor...
>
> It's the one that's been used for thousands of years.
+ Perhaps by a sect, cult, or small group of people.
> > + On Sundays, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work
> > or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper
> > to the Lord's day, the performance of the works of mercy, and
> > the appropriate relaxation of mind and body. Family needs or
> > important social service can legitimately excuse the faithful from
> > the obligation of Sunday rest.
> That's not what the commandment says.
> It says Saturday (yom ha shvi'i), and
> it doesn't say there are excuses for social service
> or anything else. The only excuses are
> for matters of life and death, which
> apply to all the commandments.
> Unless they nailed up some *other* set
> of ten commandments I don't know about.
+ Perhaps you are one of the jewish pharisees.
+ In case you haven't heard of Him, there was a man
named Jesus, who lived about 2000 years ago. When
he was confronted with a question regarding the Sabbath,
He more or less explained that man can do certain
things on the Sabbath that do not violate the rules
of work on the sabbath.
+ See Matt 12:2 - 12
David Annis
wrote:
>PBarker wrote:
>>
>> "Rob Strom" wrote
>> > But hanging the 10 commandments in a ceremony that explicitly
>> > violates one of them is bad symbolism.
>>
>> + Obviously you use a very strange definition of work or labor...
>
>It's the one that's been used for thousands of years.
>
>>
>> + On Sundays, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work
>> or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper
>> to the Lord's day, the performance of the works of mercy, and
>> the appropriate relaxation of mind and body. Family needs or
>> important social service can legitimately excuse the faithful from
>> the obligation of Sunday rest.
>>
>
>That's not what the commandment says.
>It says Saturday (yom ha shvi'i), and
>it doesn't say there are excuses for social service
>or anything else. The only excuses are
>for matters of life and death, which
>apply to all the commandments.
>
>Unless they nailed up some *other* set
>of ten commandments I don't know about.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Now, if you could, explain to us why using the 10 Commandments for
political gain is not a violation of the commandment, "Thou shalt not
take the name of the Lord, Thy God in vain". In the numbering scheme
I'm used to, that would be number 3.
==================================================
Dave Annis With age comes wisdom, if you
Sheboygan, WI stay awake along the way.
Rob Strom
>
> "Rob Strom" wrote
> > > > But hanging the 10 commandments in a ceremony that explicitly
> > > > violates one of them is bad symbolism.
> > >
> > > + Obviously you use a very strange definition of work or labor...
> >
> > It's the one that's been used for thousands of years.
>
Yes. By the ones to whom the commandments were
originally given.
>
> > > + On Sundays, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work
> > > or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper
> > > to the Lord's day, the performance of the works of mercy, and
> > > the appropriate relaxation of mind and body. Family needs or
> > > important social service can legitimately excuse the faithful from
> > > the obligation of Sunday rest.
>
> > That's not what the commandment says.
> > It says Saturday (yom ha shvi'i), and
> > it doesn't say there are excuses for social service
> > or anything else. The only excuses are
> > for matters of life and death, which
> > apply to all the commandments.
> > Unless they nailed up some *other* set
> > of ten commandments I don't know about.
>
> + Perhaps you are one of the jewish pharisees.
Yes.
> + In case you haven't heard of Him, there was a man
> named Jesus, who lived about 2000 years ago. When
> he was confronted with a question regarding the Sabbath,
> He more or less explained that man can do certain
> things on the Sabbath that do not violate the rules
> of work on the sabbath.
> + See Matt 12:2 - 12
That's sort of my point. The Christians
don't accept the original 4th commandment,
so they shouldn't be holding ceremonies
memorializing it.
--
Rob Strom
Rob Strom
> >>
> >> "Rob Strom" wrote
> >> > violates one of them is bad symbolism.
> >>
> >> + Obviously you use a very strange definition of work or labor...
> >
> >It's the one that's been used for thousands of years.
> >
> >>
> >> or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper
> >> to the Lord's day, the performance of the works of mercy, and
> >> the appropriate relaxation of mind and body. Family needs or
> >> important social service can legitimately excuse the faithful from
> >> the obligation of Sunday rest.
> >>
> >
> >That's not what the commandment says.
> >It says Saturday (yom ha shvi'i), and
> >it doesn't say there are excuses for social service
> >or anything else. The only excuses are
> >for matters of life and death, which
> >apply to all the commandments.
> >
> >Unless they nailed up some *other* set
> >of ten commandments I don't know about.
>
>
> Now, if you could, explain to us why using the 10 Commandments for
> political gain is not a violation of the commandment, "Thou shalt not
> take the name of the Lord, Thy God in vain". In the numbering scheme
> I'm used to, that would be number 3.
I don't know. You should ask the ones who
want to use the 10 commandments for political gain.
--
Rob Strom
PBarker
> PBarker wrote:
> > + Perhaps you are one of the jewish pharisees.
> Yes.
> > + See Matt 12:2 - 12
> That's sort of my point. The Christians
> don't accept the original 4th commandment,
> so they shouldn't be holding ceremonies
> memorializing it.
+ Ahhh.
+ Well, there you have it.
+ You are Jewish and only believe in the Old Testament.
+ I am Catholic (Christian) and believe in both the old and new testaments.
+ Since the cornerstone of our faith lies on the messiah having returned
to earth, and since we accept Jesus Christ as that messiah, (and you
do not), then when we accept those writings in the new testament and the
life and times and explanations of the Messiah, then you already know
where I am coming from and you hid your intent until I bit. I find that
just a little bit dishonest on your part.
+ There is no need for further discussion since you seem to believe
in a dead book written (supposedly) 5000 years ago. This is your
belief and your loss.
Rob Strom
>
> "Rob Strom" < wrote
> > PBarker wrote:
> > > + Perhaps you are one of the jewish pharisees.
> > Yes.
>
> > > + See Matt 12:2 - 12
> > That's sort of my point. The Christians
> > don't accept the original 4th commandment,
> > so they shouldn't be holding ceremonies
> > memorializing it.
>
> + Ahhh.
> + Well, there you have it.
> + You are Jewish and only believe in the Old Testament.
> + I am Catholic (Christian) and believe in both the old and new testaments.
> + Since the cornerstone of our faith lies on the messiah having returned
> to earth, and since we accept Jesus Christ as that messiah, (and you
> do not), then when we accept those writings in the new testament and the
> life and times and explanations of the Messiah, then you already know
> where I am coming from and you hid your intent until I bit. I find that
> just a little bit dishonest on your part.
Huh???
I hid no intent. I expressed my intent in my first post:
namely, to point out that it was ironic that the
ceremony commemorating the 10 commandments was
held on a Saturday, in violation of the 4th commandment.
That was before you posted, so how could I
"know where you were coming from"?
The fact that some religions don't observe the 4th
commandment has nothing to do with the point.
I am not interested in debating religion, just
the point that people having a ceremony in
honor of X would normally believe in X,
or at least would not flout X during the ceremony.
Would you have a Martin Luther King Day ceremony
with a segregated audience?
You would expect that the people honoring the 10
commandments wouldn't be calling its source
"a dead book".
> + There is no need for further discussion since you seem to believe
> in a dead book written (supposedly) 5000 years ago. This is your
> belief and your loss.
Many Christians believe in the same book.
(I think 3500 years is closer to the time of Moses.)
--
Rob Strom
mahabarbara
believe
>in a dead book written (supposedly) 5000 years ago. This is
your
>belief and your loss.
You are a living example of why separation of church and state
is a good idea, and why the Ten Commandments should NOT be
posted in government buildings.
You are free to believe as you wish, but when your [Christian]
religion is enshrined as part of a government-sanctioned and
taxpayer-supported display, this is what is
called "establishment of religion." And the First Amendment of
the Constitution forbids this.
The Constitution does not allow government to favor one religion
over another; hence, as far as government is concerned, the
Jewish interpretation is as valid as yours. And, in fact, as far
as government is concerned, the Analects of Confucious and the
Sutras of the Buddha and the Upanishads of Hindu are also as
valid as the Ten Commandments.
mahabarbara
>What a load!
>
>The things that are still being done in the name of Christ!
>
>When Christ does come back, He's really going to be pissed at
>you guys.
Damn straight. <g>
N9NWO
:
: The things that are still being done in the name of Christ!
:
: When Christ does come back, He's really going to be pissed at
: you guys.
That works both ways.
And, yes, many Christians will have to answer for a lot.
N9NWO
: >Jefferson was not a majority viewpoint at that time. And he
: >did not write the Constitution, Madison did. Even at that, the
: >Constitution was a conpremise that satisfied all the delegates.
:
: Jefferson was a bit more radical about separating church and
: state than many others, but he was far from alone. Further, he
: and Madison, who was chief author of the Constitution, were
: pretty much on the same page on this topic. Madison said that
: the religion clauses of the First Amendment were based on
: Jefferson's Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty, which Madison
: helped get through the Virginia state legislature.
:
: Whether you like it or not, the Founders, including Madison,
: Adams, G. Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and lots of others,
: really, really, really meant it when they determined that
: Christianity should not be given a place of honor above all
: other religions. You can try to get around it all you like, but
: you are being dishonest when you do so.
A lot is being done in Jefferson's name. But neither he
nor Madison would have stood for the current legislative
and judicial anti religion movement. What is happening is
that if you have strong religious beliefs then you are forcably
silenced in public. That means at work, at school, at public
meetings. If you talk about your beliefs then you face having
a lawsuit or being fired from your job.
Some go as far as wanting to have laws that restrict teaching
your children your religious beliefs. However, part of the
problem is that some, like school principals, over react. They
fail to respect the rights of those with strong beliefs.
: >And, until the late 1960s, Christainity in all its forms was the
: >dominate belief system in this country.
:
: Yes, but that is irrelevant. Christianity must not become the
: established religion, and the beliefs of Christianity about God
: should not be enshrined in a public monument in a government
: building. That's WRONG.
And mostly useless.
: >
: >: I am not objecting to the practice of the Christian religion.
: > I am objecting to an obvious intent to circumvent the CLEAR
: >: intention of the Founders and establish Christianity as the
: >: official religion. That's WRONG. Jefferson, Madison, Adams,
: >: Washington, all kinds of other Founding Guys, all left behind
: >: copious documentation of their opinion that there should be NO
: >: established religion in the U.S. (I am using "established" in
: >: the same sense as used in the First Amendment; if this
: > confuses you, speak up.)
: >
: >No establish religion ment no official church. It does not mean
: >the current persicution and marginalization that is being
: >directed at practicing Christians.
:
: Christians are not being persecuted and marginalized. You are
: just being prevented from persecuting and marginalizing everyone
: else, which Christians have gotten away with doing too many
: times.
:
: Being just one religion among equals must seem weird to
: Christians, who are used to having everything their way, but it
: doesn't constitute being persecuted and marginalized.
Christianity is still the largest belief system in the US.
However, you are right that many have misused their
strenght in the past. The current "persecution" (mostly
being sued or fired) does make them more aware. In
time the cycle will turn and Christianity will regain its
strength. Hopefully the lessons will be remembered.
Lone Haranguer
N9NWO wrote:
>
> : >Jefferson was not a majority viewpoint at that time. And he
> : >did not write the Constitution, Madison did. Even at that, the
> : >Constitution was a conpremise that satisfied all the delegates.
> :
> : Jefferson was a bit more radical about separating church and
> : state than many others, but he was far from alone. Further, he
> : and Madison, who was chief author of the Constitution, were
> : pretty much on the same page on this topic. Madison said that
> : the religion clauses of the First Amendment were based on
> : Jefferson's Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty, which Madison
> : helped get through the Virginia state legislature.
> :
> : Whether you like it or not, the Founders, including Madison,
> : Adams, G. Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and lots of others,
> : really, really, really meant it when they determined that
> : Christianity should not be given a place of honor above all
> : other religions. You can try to get around it all you like, but
> : you are being dishonest when you do so.
>
> A lot is being done in Jefferson's name. But neither he
> nor Madison would have stood for the current legislative
> and judicial anti religion movement. What is happening is
> that if you have strong religious beliefs then you are forcably
> silenced in public. That means at work, at school, at public
> meetings. If you talk about your beliefs then you face having
> a lawsuit or being fired from your job.
>
> Some go as far as wanting to have laws that restrict teaching
> your children your religious beliefs. However, part of the
> problem is that some, like school principals, over react. They
> fail to respect the rights of those with strong beliefs.
>
> : >And, until the late 1960s, Christainity in all its forms was the
> : >dominate belief system in this country.
> :
> : Yes, but that is irrelevant. Christianity must not become the
> : established religion, and the beliefs of Christianity about God
> : should not be enshrined in a public monument in a government
> : building. That's WRONG.
>
> And mostly useless.
>
> : >
> : >: I am not objecting to the practice of the Christian religion.
> : > I am objecting to an obvious intent to circumvent the CLEAR
> : >: intention of the Founders and establish Christianity as the
> : >: official religion. That's WRONG. Jefferson, Madison, Adams,
> : >: Washington, all kinds of other Founding Guys, all left behind
> : >: copious documentation of their opinion that there should be NO
> : >: established religion in the U.S. (I am using "established" in
> : >: the same sense as used in the First Amendment; if this
> : > confuses you, speak up.)
> : >
> : >No establish religion ment no official church. It does not mean
> : >the current persicution and marginalization that is being
> : >directed at practicing Christians.
> :
> : Christians are not being persecuted and marginalized. You are
> : just being prevented from persecuting and marginalizing everyone
> : else, which Christians have gotten away with doing too many
> : times.
> :
> : Being just one religion among equals must seem weird to
> : Christians, who are used to having everything their way, but it
> : doesn't constitute being persecuted and marginalized.
>
> Christianity is still the largest belief system in the US.
> However, you are right that many have misused their
> strenght in the past. The current "persecution" (mostly
> being sued or fired) does make them more aware. In
> time the cycle will turn and Christianity will regain its
> strength. Hopefully the lessons will be remembered.
It should be noted that this Christian bashing attitude is
not without consequences. A man was arrested yesterday who
confessed to burning 26 Christian churches in 6 states. Who
implanted this hate?
Some of the school shootings also targeted Christians.
Where did they learn this intolerance? What about the man
in Texas who targeted churchgoers for shooting. What made
him think they deserved shooting?
Christian bashers are the ones planting the seeds of hate.
LZ
mahabarbara
>
>: >Jefferson was not a majority viewpoint at that time. And he
>: >did not write the Constitution, Madison did. Even at that,
the
>: >Constitution was a conpremise that satisfied all the
delegates.
>:
>: Jefferson was a bit more radical about separating church and
>: state than many others, but he was far from alone. Further, he
>: and Madison, who was chief author of the Constitution, were
>: pretty much on the same page on this topic. Madison said that
>: the religion clauses of the First Amendment were based on
>: Jefferson's Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty, which
Madison
>: helped get through the Virginia state legislature.
>:
>: Whether you like it or not, the Founders, including Madison,
>: Adams, G. Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and lots of others,
>: really, really, really meant it when they determined that
>: Christianity should not be given a place of honor above all
>: other religions. You can try to get around it all you like,
but
>: you are being dishonest when you do so.
>
>nor Madison would have stood for the current legislative
>and judicial anti religion movement.
1. There is no legislative and judicial anti religion movement.
2. Although it's impossible to know how any person from past
history would have reacted to current events, I believe based on
their writings that Jefferson in particular, and probably Madison
also, would agree that enshrining the Ten Commandments with the
Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence amounts to an
act of religious establishment by government.
> What is happening is
>that if you have strong religious beliefs then you are forcably
>silenced in public. That means at work, at school, at public
>meetings. If you talk about your beliefs then you face having
>a lawsuit or being fired from your job.
This is nonsense. What is happening is that in an increasingly
multi-devotional society, people have to learn to give each other
space and respect each others' beliefs. This means Christians can
no longer force everyone else to play their games. This doesn't
mean you have to keep your religion hidden, but that out of
respect for others you shouldn't shove your religion in their
faces. This means Christians have to learn the distinction
between
expressing their personal beliefs and proselytizing. This means
Christians need to get over the idea that they can take over
government and use it to coerce others to kowtow to their
religion.
>
>Some go as far as wanting to have laws that restrict teaching
>your children your religious beliefs.
There are no such laws. You are free to teach your children
whatever beliefs you wish. You just can't use the public school
system to teach your beliefs to OTHER peoples' children.
For example, how would you feel if your child went to a public
school system in which the majority were Moslem? There are such
in
New Jersey now, I believe. And what if the teachers taught Islam
in the classrooms and the children who were not Moslem were given
second-class status and forced to wait in the cloakroom during
prayers? Do you think you would like that? (Be aware that the
fastest growing religion in America today is Islam.)
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
> However, part of the
>problem is that some, like school principals, over react. They
>fail to respect the rights of those with strong beliefs.
No, YOU fail to respect the rights of those whose beliefs are
different from yours.
>
>: >And, until the late 1960s, Christainity in all its forms was
the
>: >dominate belief system in this country.
>:
>: Yes, but that is irrelevant. Christianity must not become the
>: established religion, and the beliefs of Christianity about
God
>: should not be enshrined in a public monument in a government
>: building. That's WRONG.
>
>And mostly useless.
Even if it were useful, it would still be wrong.
>
>: >
>: >: I am not objecting to the practice of the Christian
>Christianity is still the largest belief system in the US.
>However, you are right that many have misused their
>strenght in the past. The current "persecution" (mostly
>being sued or fired) does make them more aware. In
>time the cycle will turn and Christianity will regain its
>strength. Hopefully the lessons will be remembered.
What is *really* going to happen is that Christians are going to
find themselves sharing this nation with larger and larger
communities of other religions. I don't expect to live to see a
time when Christianity is a minority religion in this country,
but
it will no longer be able to crush out all other religious
expression as it has in the past.
mahabarbara
>
>
>N9NWO wrote:
>> Christianity is still the largest belief system in the US.
>> However, you are right that many have misused their
>> strenght in the past. The current "persecution" (mostly
>> being sued or fired) does make them more aware. In
>> time the cycle will turn and Christianity will regain its
>> strength. Hopefully the lessons will be remembered.
>
>It should be noted that this Christian bashing attitude is
>not without consequences. A man was arrested yesterday who
>confessed to burning 26 Christian churches in 6 states. Who
>implanted this hate?
Jewish synagogues are defaced frequently in this country. A major
Buddhist stupa (shrine) was torched shortly before it was
completely built. Moslems face all kinds of harrassment.
So let's see you show some concern about Jewish bashing, Buddhist
bashing, and Moslem bashing.
>Some of the school shootings also targeted Christians.
Not really. The two boys in Colorado were shooting anybody who
annoyed them. First it was said they targeted jocks, then it was
said they targeted blacks (but they only shot one black boy), so
now they targeted Christians? Let's just be accurate and say they
targeted human beings.
>Where did they learn this intolerance?
People reap what they sow, son.
> What about the man
>in Texas who targeted churchgoers for shooting. What made
>him think they deserved shooting?
The man was obviously psychotic.
>
>Christian bashers are the ones planting the seeds of hate.
I repeat, you reap what you sow. "Christians" have practiced hate
and intolerance of others for lo these many years. I do know
people who actively hate Christians, and if you ask them why they
will tell you of discrimination and cruelty they have been handed
by "Christians." In other words, they hate Christians because
Christians hate them.
If Christians do not wish to be hated by others, they need first
to look into their own hearts and purge themselves of hatred of
non-Christians. That would solve the problem.
The Buddha taught that hate is never appeased by hate, but by
love. I think Jesus would agree.
B.
>LZ
PBarker
> PBarker wrote:
> namely, to point out that it was ironic that the
> ceremony commemorating the 10 commandments was
> held on a Saturday, in violation of the 4th commandment.
+ Perhaps you should then "cite" the 4th commandment.
+ And then explain what it means to you.
+ Then I will tell you what it really means.
> The fact that some religions don't observe the 4th
> commandment has nothing to do with the point.
+ Oh, but it does,
+ You hold a viewpoint of a very small minority of people.
+What makes you rights and millions of people wrong?
> I am not interested in debating religion, just
> the point that people having a ceremony in
> honor of X would normally believe in X,
> or at least would not flout X during the ceremony.
+ Again, your minority viewpoint.
> Would you have a Martin Luther King Day ceremony
> with a segregated audience?
+ Without answering that question, I merely ask you
if you have ever been to a Martin Luther King ceremony?
> You would expect that the people honoring the 10
> commandments wouldn't be calling its source
> "a dead book".
+ It isn't to me. This may take a lot more explaining than I
have the time or patience for. My meaning to you is that you
see the old Testament as a closed, final, completed book,
one that is no longer open for discussion. Catholics and
Christians have a "New" testament where Jesus Christ
took many of the "rules" written in the "Old" testament
and explained their real meanings. (See Matthew, Chap 5)
+ We Catholics also allow for any new dead sea scrolls found
to be studied and compared to the oldest writings that we have
now. We continue to allow the language to evolve and put the
writings of the bible to be translated into today's vernacular.
Many of our Generation X and Y young people do not
understand what "thee" and "thou" and "begat" are. In order to
allow everyone have the chance and ability to read and understand
the bible, the Catholics try to update the bible language every so
often.
+ Any Christian or Jew who continues to read and study any book
that was written thousands of years ago and / or translated 400
years ago - well - I believe they are studying a dead language,
a dead book. I prefer to keep my bible alive, provide new
translations, newer words that mean more to our people in today's world.
>
> > + There is no need for further discussion since you seem to believe
> > in a dead book written (supposedly) 5000 years ago. This is your
> > belief and your loss.
>
> Many Christians believe in the same book.
> (I think 3500 years is closer to the time of Moses.)
+ Again - your opinion. Some folks feel it was 3100 years ago.
+ To me it doesn't really matter. He existed. He was important.
+ He had a history to tell. It isn't important about the exact date.
PBarker
> "PBarker" <bark...@nospam.erinet.com> wrote:
> You are a living example of why separation of church and state
> is a good idea, and why the Ten Commandments should NOT be
> posted in government buildings.
+ Why?
> You are free to believe as you wish, but when your [Christian]
> religion is enshrined as part of a government-sanctioned and
> taxpayer-supported display, this is what is
> called "establishment of religion." And the First Amendment of
> the Constitution forbids this.
+ Which of the commandments do you find offensive?
> The Constitution does not allow government to favor one religion
> over another; hence, as far as government is concerned, the
> Jewish interpretation is as valid as yours. And, in fact, as far
> as government is concerned, the Analects of Confucious and the
> Sutras of the Buddha and the Upanishads of Hindu are also as
> valid as the Ten Commandments.
+ Except that the framers and writers of our constitution were
mostly of Christian descent.
Lone Haranguer
mahabarbara wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer <lin...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >N9NWO wrote:
>
> >> Christianity is still the largest belief system in the US.
> >> However, you are right that many have misused their
> >> strenght in the past. The current "persecution" (mostly
> >> being sued or fired) does make them more aware. In
> >> time the cycle will turn and Christianity will regain its
> >> strength. Hopefully the lessons will be remembered.
> >
> >It should be noted that this Christian bashing attitude is
> >not without consequences. A man was arrested yesterday who
> >confessed to burning 26 Christian churches in 6 states. Who
> >implanted this hate?
>
> Jewish synagogues are defaced frequently in this country. A major
> Buddhist stupa (shrine) was torched shortly before it was
> completely built. Moslems face all kinds of harrassment.
>
And they all get more publicity than when a Christian church
is burned unless it is one in the south with a predominantly
black membership.
> So let's see you show some concern about Jewish bashing, Buddhist
> bashing, and Moslem bashing.
>
> >Some of the school shootings also targeted Christians.
>
> Not really. The two boys in Colorado were shooting anybody who
> annoyed them. First it was said they targeted jocks, then it was
> said they targeted blacks (but they only shot one black boy), so
> now they targeted Christians? Let's just be accurate and say they
> targeted human beings.
YOU are a bold faced LIAR!
One girl was specifically asked if she believed in Jesus
while a gun was held to her head. When she answered in the
affirmative he pulled the trigger. You should read the
father's comments to Congress. I believe it's in the
Congressional Record.
Your bias is more apparent each day.
The shooting in Kentucky also targeted a prayer group in the
school.
>
> >Where did they learn this intolerance?
>
> People reap what they sow, son.
In which case you will soon be reaping.
>
> > What about the man
> >in Texas who targeted churchgoers for shooting. What made
> >him think they deserved shooting?
>
> The man was obviously psychotic.
>
No question. But who filled his mind with his image of
hate? He got the message somewhere.
> >
> >Christian bashers are the ones planting the seeds of hate.
>
> I repeat, you reap what you sow. "Christians" have practiced hate
> and intolerance of others for lo these many years. I do know
> people who actively hate Christians, and if you ask them why they
> will tell you of discrimination and cruelty they have been handed
> by "Christians." In other words, they hate Christians because
> Christians hate them.
Do they have proof that the Christians hated them because of
religious reasons or did the people who hated them for other
reasons happen to be Christians? Very relevant.
>
> If Christians do not wish to be hated by others, they need first
> to look into their own hearts and purge themselves of hatred of
> non-Christians. That would solve the problem.
I think you are a hate monger yourself and not very subtle
either.
LZ
>
> The Buddha taught that hate is never appeased by hate, but by
> love. I think Jesus would agree.
>
> B.
>
> >LZ
> >
> >
>
Rob Strom
>
> "Rob Strom" wrote
> > PBarker wrote:
> . I expressed my intent in my first post:
> > namely, to point out that it was ironic that the
> > ceremony commemorating the 10 commandments was
> > held on a Saturday, in violation of the 4th commandment.
>
> + Perhaps you should then "cite" the 4th commandment.
> + And then explain what it means to you.
> + Then I will tell you what it really means.
I did. I was objecting to your complaining that I
was being dishonest, when your only real complaint
was that I didn't address the Christians' objections.
Here is the 4th commandment, and the Aryeh Kaplan translation:
Zachor et-yom haShabat lekadsho.
Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy.
Sheshet yamim ta'avod ve'asita chol-melachtecha.
You can work during the six weekdays and do all your tasks.
Veyom hashvi'i Shabat l'Adonay Eloheycha lo ta'aseh
chol-melachah atah uvincha-uvitecha avdecha
va'amatcha uvehemtecha vegercha asher bish'areycha.
But Saturday is the Sabbath to God your Lord.
Do not do anything that constitutes work. [This
includes] you, your son, your daughter, your slave,
your maid, your animal, and the foreigner in
your gates.
I already explained in my earlier post what I thought it meant.
The 6 days are being compared to the 6 days of creation;
the 7th to the day God rested from creation.
>
> > The fact that some religions don't observe the 4th
> > commandment has nothing to do with the point.
>
> + Oh, but it does,
> + You hold a viewpoint of a very small minority of people.
> +What makes you rights and millions of people wrong?
I'm not saying you're wrong not to observe the 4th
commandment. I'm just saying that you don't observe
it. Now you pointed out in your earlier post
that Jesus said you didn't have to observe it,
so many Christians don't observe it either.
But they didn't nail up Jesus' words; they
nailed up the 4th commandment. Nailing something
to a building is 'melacha'.
>
> > I am not interested in debating religion, just
> > the point that people having a ceremony in
> > honor of X would normally believe in X,
> > or at least would not flout X during the ceremony.
>
> + Again, your minority viewpoint.
>
> > Would you have a Martin Luther King Day ceremony
> > with a segregated audience?
>
> + Without answering that question, I merely ask you
> if you have ever been to a Martin Luther King ceremony?
I went to the first memorial right after his assassination,
before they had a Martin Luther King Day. My university
held a ceremony in honor of King. What's your point?
>
> > You would expect that the people honoring the 10
> > commandments wouldn't be calling its source
> > "a dead book".
> ...
>
> + Any Christian or Jew who continues to read and study any book
> that was written thousands of years ago and / or translated 400
> years ago - well - I believe they are studying a dead language,
> a dead book. I prefer to keep my bible alive, provide new
> translations, newer words that mean more to our people in today's world.
The late Aryeh Kaplan died in 1983, so this is not a 400 years old
translation by any means.
--
Rob Strom
Arne Langsetmo
>
> "mahabarbara" < wrote
> > "PBarker" <bark...@nospam.erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > You are a living example of why separation of church and state
> > is a good idea, and why the Ten Commandments should NOT be
> > posted in government buildings.
>
> + Why?
>
> > You are free to believe as you wish, but when your [Christian]
> > religion is enshrined as part of a government-sanctioned and
> > taxpayer-supported display, this is what is
> > called "establishment of religion." And the First Amendment of
> > the Constitution forbids this.
>
> + Which of the commandments do you find offensive?
No one said "offensive" here, AFAIK. But the first four are
pretty useless and meaningless to most people.
> > The Constitution does not allow government to favor one religion
> > over another; hence, as far as government is concerned, the
> > Jewish interpretation is as valid as yours. And, in fact, as far
> > as government is concerned, the Analects of Confucious and the
> > Sutras of the Buddha and the Upanishads of Hindu are also as
> > valid as the Ten Commandments.
>
> + Except that the framers and writers of our constitution were
> mostly of Christian descent.
So? "God" is not mentioned in the Constitution, and "religion"
only once (and one more time in the BoR) and then only to put
restrictions on what government may do WRT religious issues.
And your "Jayyyyzzzuuss" scores a bit fat zero in plaudits
in the Constitution.
_None_ of the Ten Commandments find any parallel in Constitutional
provisions (with the possible sole exception of not counting
Sundays for one purpose, but this is arguable as being the
implementation of a Commendment).
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Arne Langsetmo
[snip]
> It should be noted that this Christian bashing attitude is
> not without consequences. A man was arrested yesterday who
> confessed to burning 26 Christian churches in 6 states. Who
> implanted this hate?
My guess would be the churches themselves.
> Some of the school shootings also targeted Christians.
Oh, really? Seems that the Cassie Bernal story was made
up. The actual person involved was a different girl, but
the story was quite a bit embellished even if you correct
the names. I don't think there was any good evidence
they targetted Christians in particular.
> Where did they learn this intolerance?
My guess would be from Christians.
> . . . What about the man
> in Texas who targeted churchgoers for shooting. What made
> him think they deserved shooting?
My guess would be that church or another one like it.
> Christian bashers are the ones planting the seeds of hate.
No. The churches have _always_ been more than adequate
in making their own enemies.
And the more obnoxious their proselytising, and the more
arrogant they are in their sham piousness, the more
people will hate them. Or laugh at them. Depending on
how much of a sense of humour such people have.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Lone Haranguer
Arne Langsetmo wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > It should be noted that this Christian bashing attitude is
> > not without consequences. A man was arrested yesterday who
> > confessed to burning 26 Christian churches in 6 states. Who
> > implanted this hate?
>
> My guess would be the churches themselves.
Your guess would be incorrect. People like Arne preach most
of the hate. They don't wear white sheets but preach the
same gospel.
>
> > Some of the school shootings also targeted Christians.
>
> Oh, really? Seems that the Cassie Bernal story was made
> up. The actual person involved was a different girl, but
> the story was quite a bit embellished even if you correct
> the names. I don't think there was any good evidence
> they targetted Christians in particular.
Proof please.
>
> > Where did they learn this intolerance?
>
> My guess would be from Christians.
>
Former Christians perhaps. The new KKK with suits.
> > . . . What about the man
> > in Texas who targeted churchgoers for shooting. What made
> > him think they deserved shooting?
>
> My guess would be that church or another one like it.
My guess would be intolerant creeps like Arne.
>
> > Christian bashers are the ones planting the seeds of hate.
>
> No. The churches have _always_ been more than adequate
> in making their own enemies.
>
Religions fight among themselves frequently. Now the
anti-religionists are spreading hate against the main
religions.
> And the more obnoxious their proselytising, and the more
> arrogant they are in their sham piousness, the more
> people will hate them. Or laugh at them. Depending on
> how much of a sense of humour such people have.
Your hate is obvious Arne. I think you should be on the
FBI's hate group list.
LZ
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Arne Langsetmo
Lone Haranguer
la...@rightwingers.net wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer <lin...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> >Your guess would be incorrect. People like Arne preach most
> >of the hate. They don't wear white sheets but preach the
> >same gospel.
>
> snip>
>
>
>
> >Proof please.
>
>
> > el snipo>
>
>
> >Former Christians perhaps. The new KKK with suits.
>
> mas el snipo>
>
> >My guess would be intolerant creeps like Arne.
>
>And Roselle.
>
> >Religions fight among themselves frequently. Now the
> >anti-religionists are spreading hate against the main
> >religions.
>
>
Poltroon? Is that still in the dictionary?
>
Rev. Moon, you simple witted idiot.
What's this fixation with the Rev Moon? Is it true he gave
you the boot for skimming from the collection plate?
>
> >Your hate is obvious Arne. I think you should be on the
> >FBI's hate group list. You too rosey. But you probably are on it already for obvious reasons.
>
> Not before your godamned cult leader moon, numbnutz
An obvious anti-religious wacko. Burn any churches lately
rosey?
LZ
la...@rightwingers.net
>Your guess would be incorrect. People like Arne preach most
>of the hate. They don't wear white sheets but preach the
>same gospel.
Bullshit whineus Zimmerlooon
The basis for wearing "white sheets" is predicated in Scripture, taught by
dimwitted fundamentalists who can find a reason for just about everything in
"Scripture"
>Proof please.
"proof"???
What have you EVER done with "proof" when it's supplied to you, whinus?
>Former Christians perhaps. The new KKK with suits.
David Dukes your right wing idiot, is KKK and wears a suit.
>My guess would be intolerant creeps like Arne.
Intolerance preached by BJU, David Dobson, Marlin Matlin, Jerry Falwell
incorporated in homophobia, bigotry, racism, and hypocrisy are ALL based on
Scriptural interpretation, you dumb asshole.
>Religions fight among themselves frequently. Now the
>anti-religionists are spreading hate against the main
>religions.
Who are the "anti-religionists" that have a massive media audience, you
poltroon?
The ones who spout that invective are the mainstream Southern Baptists, and
Rev. Moon, you simple witted idiot.
>Your hate is obvious Arne. I think you should be on the
>FBI's hate group list.
Not before your godamned cult leader moon, numbnutz
N9NWO
law
: > : > because they are dead in Christ. Thus it is themselves who put
: > themselves back under the law, back into slavery. It is because they
are
: > immature.
: > :
: > : If you really believe the above, that the 10 commandments don't
: > : apply to you, and that in particular the 4th commandment
: > : doesn't apply to you, then why have a ceremony at all
: > : in honor of a law that you think doesn't apply???? Doesn't it
: > : make a mockery of those who do follow it?
: >
: > Hanging the 10 commandments on a way is pure symbolism. There are
: > those, especially Baptists, who think that will solve everything. But
then
: > most of them are legalists seeking to justify themselves by what they
do
: > instead of truly believing in the power of God.
:
: I don't want to get in the middle of your inter-denominational
: quarrel with Baptists.
:
: But hanging the 10 commandments in a ceremony that explicitly
: violates one of them is bad symbolism. Irrespective
: of the constitutional issues of whether this is a back-door
: attempt to get government to endorse a religion,
: it sends a hypocritical message --- that we're going
: to preach the commandments but not follow them.
But Sunday is not the Sabbath. Saturday is the seventh
day. Christians were freed from such rules. In reality,
it is the honoring of the 10 commandments that is wrong,
as that is the law (which we can learn from).
: Sort of like if in the 19th century they had made
: a slave nail up the Declaration of Independence
: saying "all men are endowed by their Creator
: with the inalienable rights to life, liberty,
: and the pursuit of happiness".
:
: --
: Rob Strom
la...@rightwingers.net
>Poltroon? Is that still in the dictionary?
Must be.. You're here, aren't you?
>What's this fixation with the Rev Moon? Is it true he gave
>you the boot for skimming from the collection plate?
No, whinus. Your cult leader is a convicted felon.
>> Not before your godamned cult leader moon, numbnutz
>
>An obvious anti-religious wacko. Burn any churches lately
>rosey?
NO, your pedophile buddy seems to take care of those kinds of weenie
roasts and human barbecues for everyone.
Rob Strom
N9NWO wrote:...
> : > :
> : > : If you really believe the above, that the 10 commandments don't
> : > : apply to you, and that in particular the 4th commandment
> : > : doesn't apply to you, then why have a ceremony at all
> : > : in honor of a law that you think doesn't apply???? Doesn't it
> : > : make a mockery of those who do follow it?
> : >
> : > Hanging the 10 commandments on a way is pure symbolism. There are
> : > those, especially Baptists, who think that will solve everything. But
> then
> : > most of them are legalists seeking to justify themselves by what they
> do
> : > instead of truly believing in the power of God.
> :
> : I don't want to get in the middle of your inter-denominational
> : quarrel with Baptists.
> :
> : But hanging the 10 commandments in a ceremony that explicitly
> : violates one of them is bad symbolism. Irrespective
> : of the constitutional issues of whether this is a back-door
> : attempt to get government to endorse a religion,
> : it sends a hypocritical message --- that we're going
> : to preach the commandments but not follow them.
>
> But Sunday is not the Sabbath. Saturday is the seventh
> day.
I agree. And the ceremony where they
nailed up the 10 commandments
in a ceremony supposedly honoring the
10 commandments was held on Saturday --- the
day this very thing is prohibited.
> Christians were freed from such rules. In reality,
> it is the honoring of the 10 commandments that is wrong,
> as that is the law (which we can learn from).
If Christians believe they don't need to follow
the 10 commandments, then don't have the
ceremony! Let somebody who believes
in them have the ceremony. If they
did that, they probably wouldn't do it on Saturday.
Better yet, have separation of church and
state, and let each different religious group have
its own ceremonies honoring whatever they
believe is holy in whatever way they choose,
without the government being involved at all!
In fact, that's so fundamental, it should
be in the constitution!
--
Rob Strom
Lone Haranguer
la...@rightwingers.net wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer <lin...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> >Poltroon? Is that still in the dictionary?
>
> Must be.. You're here, aren't you?
Iron clad logic rosey?
>
> >What's this fixation with the Rev Moon? Is it true he gave
> >you the boot for skimming from the collection plate?
>
> No, whinus. Your cult leader is a convicted felon.
>
Yours committed suicide when the Russkies closed in.
> >> Not before your godamned cult leader moon, numbnutz
> >
> >An obvious anti-religious wacko. Burn any churches lately
> >rosey?
>
> NO, your pedophile buddy seems to take care of those kinds of weenie
> roasts and human barbecues for everyone.
With the assistance of the FBI.
LZ
la...@rightwingers.net
>> No, whinus. Your cult leader is a convicted felon.
>Yours committed suicide when the Russkies closed in.
So, now you think I'm a right winger?
>> >An obvious anti-religious wacko. Burn any churches lately
>> >rosey?
>> NO, your pedophile buddy seems to take care of those kinds of weenie
>> roasts and human barbecues for everyone.
>With the assistance of the FBI.
Isn't it a shame that the ONLY evidence of that is in your fucked head?
mahabarbara
>"mahabarbara" < wrote
>> "PBarker" <bark...@nospam.erinet.com> wrote:
>
>> You are a living example of why separation of church and state
>> is a good idea, and why the Ten Commandments should NOT be
>> posted in government buildings.
>
>+ Why?
First, because, as you are doing, it causes discrimination and
enmity. And second and by no means last, it amounts to
an "establishment of religion," which is forbidden by the First
Amendment of the Constitution.
>
>> You are free to believe as you wish, but when your [Christian]
>> religion is enshrined as part of a government-sanctioned and
>> taxpayer-supported display, this is what is
>> called "establishment of religion." And the First Amendment of
>> the Constitution forbids this.
>
>+ Which of the commandments do you find offensive?
The first four. BTW, I am a 10th-generation American who had
several ancestors in the Revolution. I am also a Buddhist.
Therefore, I do not worship the Judeo-Christian god, nor do I
bother about honoring Sabbaths or refain from making graven
images. Well, actually, I do not personally make graven images,
but only because I have no talent in that direction.
>
>> The Constitution does not allow government to favor one
religion
>> over another; hence, as far as government is concerned, the
>> Jewish interpretation is as valid as yours. And, in fact, as
far
>> as government is concerned, the Analects of Confucious and the
>> Sutras of the Buddha and the Upanishads of Hindu are also as
>> valid as the Ten Commandments.
>
>+ Except that the framers and writers of our constitution were
>mostly of Christian descent.
This is irrelevant. They were absolutely opposed to the
establishment of religion, which means permitting one religion
to receive special recognition and privileges from government.
ANY religion included Christianity, as Thomas Jefferson made
clear in his autobiography:
"The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of
which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn
in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with
opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was
finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it's
protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the
preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of
the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by
inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a
departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our
religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in
proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's
protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and
Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."
B.
mahabarbara
>>
>> >> Christianity is still the largest belief system in the US.
>> >> However, you are right that many have misused their
>> >> strenght in the past. The current "persecution" (mostly
>> >> being sued or fired) does make them more aware. In
>> >> time the cycle will turn and Christianity will regain its
>> >> strength. Hopefully the lessons will be remembered.
>> >
>> >not without consequences. A man was arrested yesterday who
>> >confessed to burning 26 Christian churches in 6 states. Who
>> >implanted this hate?
>>
major
>> Buddhist stupa (shrine) was torched shortly before it was
>> completely built. Moslems face all kinds of harrassment.
>>
>And they all get more publicity than when a Christian church
>is burned unless it is one in the south with a predominantly
>black membership.
Nonsense. Anyway, I can see from your writing that you aren't
really a Christian, anyway; at least, you don't seem to put any
energy into following the teachings of Jesus. Christianity is
more of a tribal identity to you than a spiritual path.
Jesus taught that you have a duty to help people who are not of
your "tribe." Witness, for example, the Parable of the Good
Samaritan. So, I ask again, where is your concern for defaced
synagogues, for burned stupas, for discrimination against
Moslems?
Jesus said:
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way
you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you
use, it will be measured to you.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye
and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you
say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,'
when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and
then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your
brother's eye.
>> So let's see you show some concern about Jewish bashing,
Buddhist
>> bashing, and Moslem bashing.
>>
>> >Some of the school shootings also targeted Christians.
>>
>> Not really. The two boys in Colorado were shooting anybody who
>> annoyed them. First it was said they targeted jocks, then it
was
>> said they targeted blacks (but they only shot one black boy),
so
>> now they targeted Christians? Let's just be accurate and say
they
>> targeted human beings.
>
>YOU are a bold faced LIAR!
No, I am being honest. The "targeting Christian" thing appears
to be a myth.
> One girl was specifically asked if she believed in Jesus
>while a gun was held to her head. When she answered in the
>affirmative he pulled the trigger. You should read the
>father's comments to Congress. I believe it's in the
>Congressional Record.
I have; I have also read further testimony from survivors that
indicates that what happened in the story didn't really happen,
at least not to Cassie Bernsall. The fact remains that the two
boys were shooting people to shoot people, and that not everyone
they shot was put up to a test of Christian faith.
One black boy was killed. His parents insist to this day that
the shooters were "targeting blacks." Is this rational,
considering that the remainding dead are all white? I am sorry
for the parents' loss, but it's clear those two boys were just
shooting and killing as the fancy struck them. They hated
everybody equally.
>Your bias is more apparent each day.
I try very hard not to be biased, but it is difficult when
people who call themselves "Christians" are so determined that I
and other people of diverse faiths are their enemy. It would be
helpful if these "Christians" actually followed Jesus'
teachings. But they don't.
>The shooting in Kentucky also targeted a prayer group in the
>school.
Yes, that is right. But again, the boy who did the shooting
appears to have been disturbed.
>> >Where did they learn this intolerance?
>>
>> People reap what they sow, son.
>
>In which case you will soon be reaping.
I am telling you that you had better stop whining and Get Right
With Jesus. Repent your sins, son, and surrender to the
teachings of Jesus, and all will be well. I am serious.
>> > What about the man
>> >in Texas who targeted churchgoers for shooting. What made
>> >him think they deserved shooting?
>>
>> The man was obviously psychotic.
>>
>No question. But who filled his mind with his image of
>hate? He got the message somewhere.
Psychosis is a distorted view of reality. There's no way to know
where this came from.
Many years ago a guy in Germany was inspired to become a serial
killer of women after seeing Charlton Heston and "The Ten
Commandments." He was nuts, of course. There's nothing in that
film that has anything to do with murdering women.
>> >
>> >Christian bashers are the ones planting the seeds of hate.
>>
>> I repeat, you reap what you sow. "Christians" have practiced
hate
>> and intolerance of others for lo these many years. I do know
>> people who actively hate Christians, and if you ask them why
they
>> will tell you of discrimination and cruelty they have been
handed
>> by "Christians." In other words, they hate Christians because
>> Christians hate them.
>
>Do they have proof that the Christians hated them because of
>religious reasons or did the people who hated them for other
>reasons happen to be Christians? Very relevant.
They were hated and discriminated against by Christians because
they were not Christians. I've seen it happen, many times. Even
among Christians people get crazy. In the Bible Belt town I grew
up in, Christians who practiced full-body immersion in baptism
looked down their noses at denominations that practiced infant
baptism, for example. (As a child, I thought the world was
divided up between the sprinkled and the dunked.)
>> If Christians do not wish to be hated by others, they need
first
>> to look into their own hearts and purge themselves of hatred
of
>> non-Christians. That would solve the problem.
>
>I think you are a hate monger yourself and not very subtle
>either.
You don't have to listen to me, but you should listen to Jesus.
"You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate
your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for
those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in
heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and
sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love
those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the
tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers,
what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
>LZ
>>
>> The Buddha taught that hate is never appeased by hate, but by
>> love. I think Jesus would agree.
Hate is never appeased by hate, but by love. However, some folks
would rather whine.
PBarker
> > > PBarker wrote:
> > + Perhaps you should then "cite" the 4th commandment.
> > + And then explain what it means to you.
> > + Then I will tell you what it really means.
> Here is the 4th commandment, and the Aryeh Kaplan translation:
> Zachor et-yom haShabat lekadsho.
> Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy.
>
> Sheshet yamim ta'avod ve'asita chol-melachtecha.
> You can work during the six weekdays and do all your tasks.
>
> Veyom hashvi'i Shabat l'Adonay Eloheycha lo ta'aseh
> chol-melachah atah uvincha-uvitecha avdecha
> va'amatcha uvehemtecha vegercha asher bish'areycha.
> But Saturday is the Sabbath to God your Lord.
> Do not do anything that constitutes work. [This
> includes] you, your son, your daughter, your slave,
> your maid, your animal, and the foreigner in
> your gates.
+ I guess I have no idea of who Aryeh Kaplan is.
+ Please explain.
+ I am not being disrespectful. I am merely curious.
+ Next, I have read my own bible (Exodus 20:8-)
+ It is similar enough to your own translation.
+ The word: "WORK" is in dispute here.
> > + You hold a viewpoint of a very small minority of people.
> > +What makes you right and millions of people wrong?
>
> I'm not saying you're wrong not to observe the 4th
> commandment. I'm just saying that you don't observe
> it. Now you pointed out in your earlier post
> that Jesus said you didn't have to observe it,
> so many Christians don't observe it either.
> But they didn't nail up Jesus' words; they
> nailed up the 4th commandment. Nailing something
> to a building is 'melacha'.
+ English is my first language.
+ I have learned portions of other languages, but "melacha"
is a word that does not compute.
+ You observe the 4th commandment as you see fit.
+ And the rest of the world will do likewise.
+ As Jesus once explained: if your animal should fall into
a ditch on the Sabbath, you will not necessarily have to
wait 24 hours before attempting to pull the animal out
and save its life. This is not what the implication of the
commandment was for....
+ The commandment says that no "WORK" may be done
on the Sabbath. If I have a hobby of raising roses and
vegetables, then my interpretation of this commandment is
that I MAY pick roses (for my pleasure) and I MAY pick
GREEN PAPERS (for my pleasure) on the Sabbath.
If my wife enjoys roses and is bedridden, I feel that I can
push her wheelchair to the patio door so that she can
enjoy the roses outside. I feel that I should also be
able to help her to the bathroom, to the dining room, and
in and out of bed.
+ Is this considered work?
+ Am I not observing this commandment?
+ And if you feel this adamant about a small
section in the bible, then we have much more tp discuss!
PBarker
, AFAIK. But the first four are
> pretty useless and meaningless to most people.
+ I'm afraid you'll have to spell that out for me.
+ And,... "most" people?
+ Hmmmmm... What do you mean by "most" people?
+ Do you have a reference here?
+ Are you aware that there are one billion catholics in the world?
Lone Haranguer
la...@rightwingers.net wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer <lin...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
No tanks, no gas=no fire, no dead. Kapish?
LZ
PBarker
> >> "PBarker" <bark...@nospam.erinet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> You are a living example of why separation of church and state
> >> is a good idea, and why the Ten Commandments should NOT be
> >> posted in government buildings.
> >
> >+ Why?
>
> First, because, as you are doing, it causes discrimination and
> enmity. And second and by no means last, it amounts to
> an "establishment of religion," which is forbidden by the First
> Amendment of the Constitution.
+ Posting the commandments does not in any means establish
any religion. I would also like to see "the golden rule" posted in
the classroom, along with the pledge of allegience to the flag.
+ I feel that morality can be discussed in the classroom, along
with child rearing, check-writing and theories of evolution.
The classroom is a learning place.
+ The courtroom is not a place for you to look for discrimination,
hatred, intolerance. You see a half-empty glass. I see it
half-full. The 10 commandments on the wall hurts no one.
If you have 18 Buddhist sayings that would sound logical,
moral, and upstanding, then submit them for display. You won't
find many who would oppose you - except for the weirdo's.
> >+ Which of the commandments do you find offensive?
>
> The first four. BTW, I am a 10th-generation American who had
> several ancestors in the Revolution. I am also a Buddhist.
+ That is too bad - about your opposition of the first four.
+ Your distinct bias and prejudice are showing.
+ You must be a very unhappy person.
Edward L. Sandwicheater
PBarker wrote:
>
> "mahabarbara" < wrote
> > >> "PBarker" <bark...@nospam.erinet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> You are a living example of why separation of church and state
> > >> is a good idea, and why the Ten Commandments should NOT be
> > >> posted in government buildings.
> > >
> > >+ Why?
> >
> > First, because, as you are doing, it causes discrimination and
> > enmity. And second and by no means last, it amounts to
> > an "establishment of religion," which is forbidden by the First
> > Amendment of the Constitution.
>
> + Posting the commandments does not in any means establish
> any religion.
It certainly does establish religion. The only religion that has the 10
commandments is Christianity.
>I would also like to see "the golden rule" posted in
> the classroom, along with the pledge of allegience to the flag.
>
> + I feel that morality can be discussed in the classroom, along
> with child rearing, check-writing and theories of evolution.
> The classroom is a learning place.
>
> + The courtroom is not a place for you to look for discrimination,
> hatred, intolerance. You see a half-empty glass. I see it
> half-full. The 10 commandments on the wall hurts no one.
It hurts all of those of other faiths who are made to feel that their
religion is not the 'official' religion
> If you have 18 Buddhist sayings that would sound logical,
> moral, and upstanding, then submit them for display. You won't
> find many who would oppose you - except for the weirdo's.
>
> > >+ Which of the commandments do you find offensive?
> >
> > The first four. BTW, I am a 10th-generation American who had
> > several ancestors in the Revolution. I am also a Buddhist.
>
> + That is too bad - about your opposition of the first four.
> + Your distinct bias and prejudice are showing.
> + You must be a very unhappy person.
--
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in
moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification
for selfishness.
-John Kenneth Galbraith
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Rob Strom
>
> "Rob Strom" wrote some interesting dialogue...
>
> > > > PBarker wrote:
> > > + Perhaps you should then "cite" the 4th commandment.
> > > + And then explain what it means to you.
> > > + Then I will tell you what it really means.
>
> > Here is the 4th commandment, and the Aryeh Kaplan translation:
> > Zachor et-yom haShabat lekadsho.
> > Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy.
> >
> > Sheshet yamim ta'avod ve'asita chol-melachtecha.
> > You can work during the six weekdays and do all your tasks.
> >
> > Veyom hashvi'i Shabat l'Adonay Eloheycha lo ta'aseh
> > chol-melachah atah uvincha-uvitecha avdecha
> > va'amatcha uvehemtecha vegercha asher bish'areycha.
> > But Saturday is the Sabbath to God your Lord.
> > Do not do anything that constitutes work. [This
> > includes] you, your son, your daughter, your slave,
> > your maid, your animal, and the foreigner in
> > your gates.
>
> + I guess I have no idea of who Aryeh Kaplan is.
> + Please explain.
> + I am not being disrespectful. I am merely curious.
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan was a distinguished rabbi,
teacher, and scholar, and the translator of
the version of the Torah which is available online.
A discussion of him appears at:
http://bible.ort.org/bible/htm/util/about/aryeh.htm
>
> + Next, I have read my own bible (Exodus 20:8-)
> + It is similar enough to your own translation.
> + The word: "WORK" is in dispute here.
The original word is 'melacha'; it is
usually translated 'work'.
>
> > > + You hold a viewpoint of a very small minority of people.
> > > +What makes you right and millions of people wrong?
> >
> > I'm not saying you're wrong not to observe the 4th
> > commandment. I'm just saying that you don't observe
> > it. Now you pointed out in your earlier post
> > that Jesus said you didn't have to observe it,
> > so many Christians don't observe it either.
> > But they didn't nail up Jesus' words; they
> > nailed up the 4th commandment. Nailing something
> > to a building is 'melacha'.
>
> + English is my first language.
> + I have learned portions of other languages, but "melacha"
> is a word that does not compute.
It's up there in the quote.
Sheshet yamim ta'avod ve'asita chol-*melachtecha*
Six days you labor and do all *your work*.
Veyom hashvi'i Shabat l'Adonay Eloheycha lo ta'aseh chol-*melachah*
But Day 7/Saturday is Sabbath to the Lord your God;
you don't do any *work*.
The word in this context means *creative work*.
The context is the analogy to the story
of Genesis, where God created everything in 6 days,
and rested from creation on day 7/Saturday.
I wasn't at the ceremony, but I assume that the
"10 commandments" that were nailed up were
the usual representations in the shape of
stone tablets, and the word 'melacha' is there.
>
> + You observe the 4th commandment as you see fit.
> + And the rest of the world will do likewise.
>
> + As Jesus once explained: if your animal should fall into
> a ditch on the Sabbath, you will not necessarily have to
> wait 24 hours before attempting to pull the animal out
> and save its life. This is not what the implication of the
> commandment was for....
We have already discussed this. Life and death
situations override all commandments.
This wasn't a life and death situation.
>
> + The commandment says that no "WORK" may be done
> on the Sabbath. If I have a hobby of raising roses and
> vegetables, then my interpretation of this commandment is
> that I MAY pick roses (for my pleasure) and I MAY pick
> GREEN PAPERS (for my pleasure) on the Sabbath.
That's not the way it's been interpreted by
those who take the commandment seriously.
Harvesting is creative work.
> If my wife enjoys roses and is bedridden, I feel that I can
> push her wheelchair to the patio door so that she can
> enjoy the roses outside.
You can. Changing location isn't creation.
> I feel that I should also be
> able to help her to the bathroom, to the dining room, and
> in and out of bed.
You can. That's not creation.
They don't mean 'work' in the sense of
physics (force times distance). The
word is much older than the vocabulary
of modern physics.
> + Is this considered work?
> + Am I not observing this commandment?
>
> + And if you feel this adamant about a small
> section in the bible, then we have much more tp discuss!
Many people
don't observe Shabbat strictly. My complaint
was not about being lenient about the rules per se,
but about the irony of being lenient about
the rules in a ceremony honoring the rules!
--
Rob Strom
Lone Haranguer
mahabarbara wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer <lin...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >mahabarbara wrote:
> >>
> >> Lone Haranguer <lin...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >N9NWO wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Christianity is still the largest belief system in the US.
> >> >> However, you are right that many have misused their
> >> >> strenght in the past. The current "persecution" (mostly
> >> >> being sued or fired) does make them more aware. In
> >> >> time the cycle will turn and Christianity will regain its
> >> >> strength. Hopefully the lessons will be remembered.
> >> >
> >> >It should be noted that this Christian bashing attitude is
> >> >not without consequences. A man was arrested yesterday who
> >> >confessed to burning 26 Christian churches in 6 states. Who
> >> >implanted this hate?
> >>
> >> Jewish synagogues are defaced frequently in this country. A
> major
> >> Buddhist stupa (shrine) was torched shortly before it was
> >> completely built. Moslems face all kinds of harrassment.
> >>
> >And they all get more publicity than when a Christian church
> >is burned unless it is one in the south with a predominantly
> >black membership.
>
> Nonsense.
You're the one spouting nonsense.
Anyway, I can see from your writing that you aren't
> really a Christian, anyway; at least, you don't seem to put any
> energy into following the teachings of Jesus. Christianity is
> more of a tribal identity to you than a spiritual path.
>
You can't see anything, twit. Your mind was made up long
ago.
> Jesus taught that you have a duty to help people who are not of
> your "tribe." Witness, for example, the Parable of the Good
> Samaritan. So, I ask again, where is your concern for defaced
> synagogues, for burned stupas, for discrimination against
> Moslems?
My concern for them is equal to the concern for Christian
churches.
>
Yours seems LESS than equal.
> Jesus said:
>
> "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way
> you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you
> use, it will be measured to you.
>
> "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye
> and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you
> say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,'
> when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
>
> You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and
> then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your
> brother's eye.
You hypocrite. You try to sound more righteous than any TV
evangelist.
>
> >> So let's see you show some concern about Jewish bashing,
> Buddhist
> >> bashing, and Moslem bashing.
>
It's a rare event in the media whereas Christian bashing has
become a media and Hollywood sport.
>>
> >> >Some of the school shootings also targeted Christians.
> >>
> >> Not really. The two boys in Colorado were shooting anybody who
> >> annoyed them. First it was said they targeted jocks, then it
> was
> >> said they targeted blacks (but they only shot one black boy),
> so
> >> now they targeted Christians? Let's just be accurate and say
> they
> >> targeted human beings.
> >
> >YOU are a bold faced LIAR!
>
> No, I am being honest. The "targeting Christian" thing appears
> to be a myth.
Appears. Who is working on the kids to change their stories
a year later?
>
> > One girl was specifically asked if she believed in Jesus
> >while a gun was held to her head. When she answered in the
> >affirmative he pulled the trigger. You should read the
> >father's comments to Congress. I believe it's in the
> >Congressional Record.
>
> I have; I have also read further testimony from survivors that
> indicates that what happened in the story didn't really happen,
> at least not to Cassie Bernsall. The fact remains that the two
> boys were shooting people to shoot people, and that not everyone
> they shot was put up to a test of Christian faith.
Not everyone. I didn't say everyone. I said one person was
asked that question specifically. Are you denying that?
Yes or No.
>
> One black boy was killed. His parents insist to this day that
> the shooters were "targeting blacks." Is this rational,
> considering that the remainding dead are all white?
The remarks the shooters made proves it was true. How many
black people were in that library? More than one? Maybe
he was the only black. Maybe he was the only black that was
a "jock". Maybe he was a black Christian. Get some facts
together before you blather.
I am sorry
> for the parents' loss, but it's clear those two boys were just
> shooting and killing as the fancy struck them. They hated
> everybody equally.
They did want to create maximum havoc but they thought the
bombs would do that. They ALSO picked specific targets.
>
> >Your bias is more apparent each day.
>
> I try very hard not to be biased, but it is difficult when
> people who call themselves "Christians" are so determined that I
> and other people of diverse faiths are their enemy. It would be
> helpful if these "Christians" actually followed Jesus'
> teachings. But they don't.
So where have I trampled on any right of yours.
>
> >The shooting in Kentucky also targeted a prayer group in the
> >school.
>
> Yes, that is right. But again, the boy who did the shooting
> appears to have been disturbed.
>
Excuses, excuses. Sure he was disturbed. ALL mass shooters
are disturbed. The POINT is; why target a prayer group?
Who planted the seed of hate?
> >> >Where did they learn this intolerance?
> >>
> >> People reap what they sow, son.
> >
> >In which case you will soon be reaping.
>
> I am telling you that you had better stop whining and Get Right
> With Jesus. Repent your sins, son, and surrender to the
> teachings of Jesus, and all will be well. I am serious.
What sins? You worry about yours and I will worry about
mine (if any).
>
> >> > What about the man
> >> >in Texas who targeted churchgoers for shooting. What made
> >> >him think they deserved shooting?
> >>
> >> The man was obviously psychotic.
> >>
> >No question. But who filled his mind with his image of
> >hate? He got the message somewhere.
>
> Psychosis is a distorted view of reality. There's no way to know
> where this came from.
Maybe not. OTOH he may have been fed a message of hate on
some vile newsgroup.
>
> Many years ago a guy in Germany was inspired to become a serial
> killer of women after seeing Charlton Heston and "The Ten
> Commandments." He was nuts, of course. There's nothing in that
> film that has anything to do with murdering women.
>
Proof?
> >> >
> >> >Christian bashers are the ones planting the seeds of hate.
> >>
> >> I repeat, you reap what you sow. "Christians" have practiced
> hate
> >> and intolerance of others for lo these many years. I do know
> >> people who actively hate Christians, and if you ask them why
> they
> >> will tell you of discrimination and cruelty they have been
> handed
> >> by "Christians." In other words, they hate Christians because
> >> Christians hate them.
> >
> >Do they have proof that the Christians hated them because of
> >religious reasons or did the people who hated them for other
> >reasons happen to be Christians? Very relevant.
>
> They were hated and discriminated against by Christians because
> they were not Christians. I've seen it happen, many times. Even
> among Christians people get crazy. In the Bible Belt town I grew
> up in, Christians who practiced full-body immersion in baptism
> looked down their noses at denominations that practiced infant
> baptism, for example. (As a child, I thought the world was
> divided up between the sprinkled and the dunked.)
Have you gone back to spread the true gospel or let this
situation continue? We used to have a Priest in the parish
who grew up as a Lutheran in small town Iowa. As a child he
was told that babies were being killed in the Catholic
church there. Then he attended a College run by the
Benedictine order and learned the truth. He converted to
Catholicism and became a Priest.
>
> >> If Christians do not wish to be hated by others, they need
> first
> >> to look into their own hearts and purge themselves of hatred
> of
> >> non-Christians. That would solve the problem.
> >
> >I think you are a hate monger yourself and not very subtle
> >either.
>
> You don't have to listen to me, but you should listen to Jesus.
Is he posting too?
>
> "You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate
> your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for
> those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in
> heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and
> sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love
> those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the
> tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers,
> what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
> Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Great stuff. My conscience is not nagging me that I have
done any wrongs.
>
> >LZ
> >>
> >> The Buddha taught that hate is never appeased by hate, but by
> >> love. I think Jesus would agree.
>
> Hate is never appeased by hate, but by love. However, some folks
> would rather whine.
>
Speak for yourself.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Volt wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:56:20 GMT, la...@rightwingers.net wrote:
>
> >Lone Haranguer <lin...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> No, whinus. Your cult leader is a convicted felon.
> >
> >>Yours committed suicide when the Russkies closed in.
> >
> >So, now you think I'm a right winger?
> >
> >>> >An obvious anti-religious wacko. Burn any churches lately
> >>> >rosey?
> >
> >>> NO, your pedophile buddy seems to take care of those kinds of weenie
> >>> roasts and human barbecues for everyone.
> >
> >>With the assistance of the FBI.
> >
> >Isn't it a shame that the ONLY evidence of that is in your fucked head?
>
> Looks like Linwuss has not been following the Waco trial.
>
> The Dividiots not only set the fire but then shot and stabbed their
> own children.
>
> Have you said a prayer for Burnin' Vernon today, Mr. Zimmermann?
>
I've followed the trial quite a bit. The jury (5 and only
"advisors") were polled and ruled in favor of the
government.
I sympathize totally with the members of his group.
Innocent believers should not be demonized just because our
government has chosen to make them examples. They were
victims of both Koresh AND the government. Koresh can be
dismissed as an obsessed religious leader. What excuse do
you make for the government agents? Were they out of
control too? Who will be the next "examples"?
LZ
> Volt
>
> Ecrasons l'infame
>
> Join the War on Right Wing Ignorance
> http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
> Campaign 2000
> http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/campaign2000.html
>
> =============================================================
> "When James Byrd is dragged to his death behind a pickup truck, then the
> governor of his home state ought to at least heed the family's plea for
> action. One brief sentence that said the word 'yes' would have mattered
> a whole lot more to the cause of justice than a whole speech that didn't
> even mention hate crimes, the future of the Supreme Court, taking down
> the Confederate flag, ending racial profiling, or defending affirmative
> action, or Bob Jones University."
>
> --Vice President Al Gore to the NAACP Convention
> =============================================================
nosp...@my-deja.com
lin...@uswest.net wrote:
>
> I've followed the trial quite a bit. The jury (5 and only
> "advisors") were polled and ruled in favor of the
> government.
>
> I sympathize totally with the members of his group.
> Innocent believers should not be demonized just because our
> government has chosen to make them examples. They were
> victims of both Koresh AND the government. Koresh can be
> dismissed as an obsessed religious leader. What excuse do
> you make for the government agents? Were they out of
> control too? Who will be the next "examples"?
Well we have been waiting 8 years now, during which time many religious
nuts have lead their followers to murder and suicide.
As for these innocent followers, two juries now have ruled, one finding
many of the survivors guilty of manslaughter (a serious charge despite
what you say) and another here has found that the Davidians hold full
responsibility for the fire. Following the case it was clear no other
conclusion could have been reached in this case. The first judgement
has been held up by the supreme court, all of its memebers. And despite
the GOP desire to make some political gain out of this (likely
contributing to the OKC terrorism) even the most biased and corrupt of
republicans has not been able to assert a case in favor of the
Davidians.
The book is closed on this. The Davidians opened fire on the ATF
because they were lead by nuts, and they then set their compound on
fire.
> LZ
>
> > Volt
> >
> > Ecrasons l'infame
> >
> > Join the War on Right Wing Ignorance
> > http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
> >
> > Campaign 2000
> > http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/campaign2000.html
> >
> > =============================================================
> > "When James Byrd is dragged to his death behind a pickup truck, then
the
> > governor of his home state ought to at least heed the family's plea
for
> > action. One brief sentence that said the word 'yes' would have
mattered
> > a whole lot more to the cause of justice than a whole speech that
didn't
> > even mention hate crimes, the future of the Supreme Court, taking
down
> > the Confederate flag, ending racial profiling, or defending
affirmative
> > action, or Bob Jones University."
> >
> > --Vice President Al Gore to the
NAACP Convention
> > =============================================================
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
PBarker
> Patrick said: "I may wish to pick roses (for my pleasure)
and I MAY pick GREEN PAPERS (for my pleasure) on the Sabbath.
> That's not the way it's been interpreted by
> those who take the commandment seriously.
> Harvesting is creative work.
+ Ooohh.
+ You are reaching here.
+ You are attempting to tell me that I do not take the commandments
seriously? This is where you are totally wrong.
+ We both may take the comandments seriously, but
we disagree upon the meaning of the commandment.
+ You really ought not tell people that they are not following the
commandments when you really don't know their past and their
belief system. By your discriminating here, you are actually
making a judgement, and airing your judgement for all to see.
+ What makes you feel that your interpretation of the bible
is ANY BETTER than my interpretation?
+ What makes your translation of work any better than mine?
+ Do you actually believe that God smiles down on your
judgement of your fellow man?
+ You said "harvesting my roses and peppers" was work.
+ And I say it is pleasure to be shared with my family.
+ My family sure enjoyed my hobby and my gift to them...
> > If my wife enjoys roses and is bedridden, I feel that I can
> > push her wheelchair to the patio door so that she can
> > enjoy the roses outside.
+ Pushing around a wheelchair is work, no matter where you
are from. It brings sweat to my brow, and pains to my joints.
> You can. Changing location isn't creation.
+ Pushing around a wheelchair is work, no matter where you
are from. It brings sweat to my brow, and pains to my joints.
> Many people
> don't observe Shabbat strictly. My complaint
> was not about being lenient about the rules per se,
> but about the irony of being lenient about
> the rules in a ceremony honoring the rules!
+ Again, the person who presented the plaque may not have
considered this pleasure "work" per se.
+ You are certainly allowed to observe the Sabath any way you wish.
+ And,... we should be allowed the same opportunity without
someone judging what we do is not "righteous" enough for them.
+ It is kind of offensive to be told that I am not observing the
commandments, when I really work very hard at trying to
do that exactly. Your little translation certainly is outlandish
and strange to me,... but I don't go around trumpetting this fact
(usually.)
PBarker
> PBarker wrote:
> > "mahabarbara" < wrote
> > > First, because, as you are doing, it causes discrimination and
> > > enmity. And second and by no means last, it amounts to
> > > an "establishment of religion," which is forbidden by the First
> > > Amendment of the Constitution.
> >
> > + Posting the commandments does not in any means establish
> > any religion.
>
> It certainly does establish religion. The only religion that has the 10
> commandments is Christianity.
+ And which religion is Christianity? Who is their earthly leader?
Who in this humongo religion is a threat to the great United States?
+ The 10 commandments on the wall hurts no one.
> It hurts all of those of other faiths who are made to feel that their
> religion is not the 'official' religion
+ Again - which christian religion is the "official" one?
+ How do these commandments create an official religion?
+ That is like saying that Lady Justice (with the blindfold) is sexist!
+ We should get rid of her, or put testacles under her robe!
+ Is that next?
Lone Haranguer
You are really dense Bob. The book will NEVER be closed on
this. MANY people will NEVER trust a government agent of
any kind again.
Any clear thinking person simply cannot lay all the blame on
the Davidians and giving this case back to Judge Smith and
his "advisory" jury is an insult to justice. The first jury
wanted the government agents tried too and a lot more
information has leaked out since.
Your attempt to blame Tim McVeigh on the Republicans is a
joke. If you had the brains of a gnat you would KNOW that
he did it to call attention to an injustice. As long as the
injustice continues it will be festering in some deranged
person's mind. A deranged person can justify any terrorist
act in his mind as "getting even" with a corrupt
government. More injustice just fuels the fire.
Just hope there are not many wackos out there.
LZ
Zepp, Son of Weasel
wrote:
>
>
>Volt wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:56:20 GMT, la...@rightwingers.net wrote:
>>
>> >Lone Haranguer <lin...@uswest.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> No, whinus. Your cult leader is a convicted felon.
>> >
>> >>Yours committed suicide when the Russkies closed in.
>> >
>> >So, now you think I'm a right winger?
>> >
>> >>> >An obvious anti-religious wacko. Burn any churches lately
>> >>> >rosey?
>> >
>> >>> NO, your pedophile buddy seems to take care of those kinds of weenie
>> >>> roasts and human barbecues for everyone.
>> >
>> >>With the assistance of the FBI.
>> >
>> >Isn't it a shame that the ONLY evidence of that is in your fucked head?
>>
>> Looks like Linwuss has not been following the Waco trial.
>>
>> The Dividiots not only set the fire but then shot and stabbed their
>> own children.
>>
>> Have you said a prayer for Burnin' Vernon today, Mr. Zimmermann?
>>
>I've followed the trial quite a bit. The jury (5 and only
>"advisors") were polled and ruled in favor of the
>government.
>
>I sympathize totally with the members of his group.
>Innocent believers should not be demonized just because our
>government has chosen to make them examples. They were
>victims of both Koresh AND the government. Koresh can be
>dismissed as an obsessed religious leader. What excuse do
>you make for the government agents? Were they out of
>control too? Who will be the next "examples"?
How do you explain the fact that most of the dead were shot, at close
range, in the back of the head, prior to the fire?
>LZ
>
>
>
>> Volt
>>
>> Ecrasons l'infame
>>
>> Join the War on Right Wing Ignorance
>> http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>>
>> Campaign 2000
>> http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/campaign2000.html
>>
>> =============================================================
>> "When James Byrd is dragged to his death behind a pickup truck, then the
>> governor of his home state ought to at least heed the family's plea for
>> action. One brief sentence that said the word 'yes' would have mattered
>> a whole lot more to the cause of justice than a whole speech that didn't
>> even mention hate crimes, the future of the Supreme Court, taking down
>> the Confederate flag, ending racial profiling, or defending affirmative
>> action, or Bob Jones University."
>>
>> --Vice President Al Gore to the NAACP Convention
>> =============================================================
**********************************************************
"Omigosh! It's large Negroes with guns! Wait! Wait! We don't believe in
the second amendment after all!" -- Texas GOP, as Armed Black Panthers
marched toward their convention.
George W. Bush: Putting the "W" in "AWOL"
**********************************************************
Not dead, in jail or a slave?
Thank a liberal!
For more of Zepp's Commentary, go to http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
Warning: Contains ideas
For all things liberal/leftist http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/lynx.htm
************************************************************
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.