Topic awaiting preservation: "10 Commandments Judge" Removed from Bench... (Page 1 of 1)

This was a topic of discussion a few months ago, regarding the removal of the 10 Commandments monument from an Alabama courthouse. The judge who refused to move it has been removed from his office.

Full article here.

Yep, read that this morning.

All I can say is - hurray.

And that has little-to-nothing to do with the actual issue of the 10 commandments monument.

When a judge defies a court mandate, it is obvious he considers himself above the law, and is very clearly no longer fit to preside over legal issues.

Period.

Well, hopefully this will at least bring a little bit of attention to the complete lunacy of the initial removal of the 'first' one in the first place.

(I haven't read the article yet, BTW). but:

This country (America) is so hung-up on being politically correct that were alienating both Christians (Catholics included, and of course Jews, but their a seperate religion/group).

__________________
War is Peace,
Freedom is Slavery,
Ignorance is Strength.

I disagreed with the order to remove the monument, but I also disagree with this judge thinking he can defy the law and keep his office. He should be prepared to step down if he cannot abide by the very law he is sworn to uphold.

. . : slicePuzzle

cfb: I think the idea is to make sure that everyone feels equally alienated.


___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org

Suho: I realize that your statement was (at least partially) in jest, but I truly do beleive that America is slowly alienating Christianity, but not intentionally.. In my school, a teacher can get away with saying that they are Bhuddist, Hindu, Muslim etcetera, but not Christian. It'b because they don't want to alienate those peop[le. Well, they can say their Christian, but not talk about their Christianity. But they could talk about Bhuddism all day. It just seems slightly unfair. I'm not anti Bhuddism, in fact, one of my better friends is Bhuddist, but I say equal rights for all or no rights for all. Seems fair. THey should keep in mind that it's "Freedom OF religion" and not "Freedom FROM religion." And the word religion is being interpreted as Christianity, It just bugs me.

__________________
War is Peace,
Freedom is Slavery,
Ignorance is Strength.

[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 11-14-2003).]

CFB, don't sweat it. Our faith is not dependent on government support. One of the things I disagree so strongly with the judge on is that it is God alone that gives us our power, we do not need all of this government patronage. While it is nice that the government is friendly to religion in this country, it can also be a detrement to our vitality. He would do his God far more service getting about the business of living the gospel message than he will with this crazy legal war he's beginning.

Another thing that really chaps my hide are all these protesters with signs saying "obey the 10 commandments". There is a movement afoot lately that suggests following the 10 commandments is the essence of Xianity. What a huge load of misconception that is going to perpetuate to those we're trying to reach with the gospel! grrrrrrr

. . : slicePuzzle

cfb: Yes, it was mostly in jest. I understand your concerns, but I think Bugs has a good point in that respect. It might make you feel better to know that, historically, Christianity has flourished when persecuted by the government.

By the way, I also found this amusing. Please don't take it the wrong way...

quote:

---

I'm not anti Bhuddism, in fact, one of my better friends is Bhuddist

---

I just couldn't help chuckling at that... sorry.

[Edit: Hey, wait a minute--I though counterfeitbacon was dead. ]
___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org

Suho: Yes, I know. I've researched it, but the idea that's it's happening now is what I don't like.

Hehe...and on that quote: What I mean is: I'm not anti-Bhuddist. I like a lot of the Bhuddist philosophy and ideology (although, I do see some of it as being idealistic). By the second part I mean that I know about Bhuddism. Rereading it, I do sound stupid

Umm, I'm kinda trading off between both. I'm used to typing in cfb or .cfb on other forums, and counterfeitbacon on this one and other, so I get confused.

Christians, would you rather be taxed by the State for participating in your religion or separated from it? According to Jefferson and Madison, the separation of Church and State was not intended so much to protect the church from the state as to protect one religion from another. Right up into the late 1800s the US was plagued with riots between Catholics and Protestants, which lead to large scale unrest and its usual messy consequences. It was not much different in the 1770s when fundamentalists in various states were proclaiming an assortment of "Official State Religions", but it should be noted that "scarce one in ten" was "churched" (i.e. a member of a conventional religion). This explains the response to Franklin's suggestion that Congress open with prayer (ignored) and the Treaty of Tripoli, Art 11, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

All religions are fundamentally a mechanism permitting extended, non-genetically based tribal groups to form and work together against other groups. This is still very visable in many parts of Africa. As this is not only irrational but highly counterproductive in the modern context, when our greater interest is better served by minimizing the scale of conflicts, I think that most rational people and those with intellectual integrity would likely advocate that religious exercises, like the equally messy processes of masturbation and the writing of poetry, be avoided in public forums.

By the way, the United States is a very theistic country with the majority being Christian. If you think Christians are being "alienated", think again. Furthermore, think about the people you alienate by the erection of a monument to the Ten Commandments on government property. Think about the atheists who will never in this Christian society have a promising chance to be elected to presidential office. More than 80% of the public say they will not vote for an atheist. When you get right down to the basics, it is not about religion; it's about liberty.

Believe it, or not, Americans are three times as likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83 percent) as in evolution (28 percent).

quote:

---

Christians, would you rather be taxed by the State for participating in your religion or separated from it?

---

I don't understand this question. I wanted to answer it but wanted to make sure I don't misunderstand your point.

. . : slicePuzzle

If you wanted the monument to the Ten Commandments to remain on government property, evidently you want the law to shy away from the separation of church and state. Since the church enjoys many freedoms because of that separation, if the law did start destroying that barrier, the church would not enjoy the freedoms it does today. It is in this context that my question is located.

I have to say I find it really funny that the idea of the church being "persecuted" by the government is even being hinted at here.

Chritianity is by far the largest religion in the US, and it's trappings have wormed their way into many public and governmental places with little notice taken.

Try to remove any, and christ-almighty it's time to fight!

I don't understand how so many christians come to beleive they have this intrinsic or historical right to impose their religion on the government or the community.

The heart is a wonderful organ, but so is the brain.
per Metahuman's article.

Yes indeed. The heart is a WONDERFUL organ. And for the persons who believe in God, that is where God lives. So in
my opinion if the US of A is growing stronger in its faithful
to God thats because to the faithful God is in every part of their lives, even government.

I personally don't see what the big deal is on the 10 commandment monument affair. I believe the laws should be written in the hearts of people. Not carved in stone for everyone to see to believe. Even Moses original 10 were destroyed and a duplicate was made and kept under lock and key for no eyes to see in the Ark for centuries. I think
the judge stretched it too far to make his point.

Am encouraged with that "believe it or not" article.

heart is an organ that pumps blood

DL has a very good point. I wouldn't consider the removal of a monument to be persecution. Cfb, I'm going to assume that you do not have much experience living in other countries (please correct me if I'm wrong). Christianity is not being persecuted in the U.S. at this point in time. If anything, the danger to Christianity in the U.S. is that of complacency. I have met people from other countries (and even spent good amounts of time in countries) where Christianity was persecuted. Not "throw them to the lions" persecution, but persecution nonetheless (for example, you would be thrown out of the country if it were found out that you were a Christian, and that you might be proselytizing).

There is no doubt in my mind that you have encountered anti-Christian sentiment in the U.S. That is not, however, the same as persecution. In fact, my comment above about Christianity flourishing under persecution was made in the knowledge that Christians in the U.S. are not currently being persecuted.

As for what the future holds, who knows? I think it is unlikely that there will be open persecution of Christianity in the U.S. any time soon, though.


___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org

I think, if anything, christianity has begun to fall prey to the same type of "political correctness" that being white, being male, being financially secure, etc., have fallen to.

It's the relative "norm", and as such it is villainized by the minorities.

In the same vain that black comedians can fill their acts with nothing but anti-white jokes, but a white guy would be shot for doing the same...minority religions are being viewed as more acceptable, and so the acceptability of christianity has to take a step back (but, for crying out loud, taking a "step back" in this case is nothing even resembling going away, being persecuted, etc. it's just a little less limelight, and it isn't going to hurt.... )

It's kind of the "ok, you've had your day" kind of thing. Time to step aside and let something different see some sunshine for a while...

=)

I don't agree with the PC bullshit that leads to such things, but I don't see how anyone can possibly view it as anything more negative than that.




[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 11-15-2003).]

Threats to Christianity are itself, and internal feudalistic behavior.

All other perceived threats are visions of the paranoid.

I suppose I'd agree with that.
Though it seems a little too "sound-bite"-ish.

I'd prefer to hear some actual reasoning as opposed to simple statements...

I never found the monument to be offensive. It really didn't bother me that it was there, even if it was a contradiction to our Constitution.

And.. I'm going to have to agree with DL, and Suho (I especially liked DL's analogy with the comedians). It hasn't even come close to being persecution. While there are Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists living in America, the majority, and probably most dominant religion, would have to be Christianity. For hundreds of years Christians have been persecuting other religions (i.e. The Spanish Inquisition), and suddenly one completely irrelevant incident occurs and a small sect of Christians cry bigotry. What is the rest of the Chrisitan population doing? Not caring... There really isn't much to talk about. Someone from each side made a bad call, but is it really worth getting all pissed off about? In a sense that only makes it worse, which is why the rest of America just doesn't care, or not enough to make a statement. I really don't understand why you feel the way you do cfb.

^ What he said... =)

The main problem is that monument does NOT violate the constitution. The only mention of religion in the constitution is in the first amendment:

quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

---

The placing of a piece of sculpture in a state court house has nothing to do with Congress or law making or the establishment of religion or prohibiting the practice of religions. Apart from the judge's convictions, the monument isn't even one religion specific.

The courts have usurped far too much power in America. A body of elected officials make a law and appointed judges rule the law "unconstitutional" because they personally disagree with it. I want to believe that all this is going to come to boil and something will be done within the next decade. But, as my friends remind me, this isn't new. It has been on going problem for a very long time.

Edit: typos


It's pronounced "Spikes!"

[This message has been edited by SPyX (edited 11-16-2003).]

one very relevant point to consider is that the actual believing practicing christian population in the US is quite different from those that would claim to be christian. if the numbers were accurate i think we'd see a very different country, but many people that are at best semi-theist in nature consider themselves christian yet have no actions or true beliefs that reflect that.

i do find DL's point interesting tho. think about the numbers of politicians that have bashes churches, christianity, or conservative values. now imagine if a politician said the same about muslims. he'd be gone in a heartbeat.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Spyx - if it were just "a piece of sculpture" then I'd agree with you.

But it was quite clearly far more than just a sculpture - it had a very definate point. A point which the actions and words of this judge strongly reinforced.

That point was this:

"In this court, the laws of America are irrelevant. I judge you by my interpretation of god's laws instead"

That is why he needed to be removed. Plain and simple. None of the rest of this matters in regard to this issue.

He can have all the religious convictions he wants, but when it hinders him from carrying out his appointed duty, he is no longer fit to hold that position of responsibility.

Another point to be made is that these self same people who were for this monument being allowed to remain would be against it if it's center piece was of a non-christian religion. If it were the Rede (basically the Golden Rule) prominantly displayed along with the other secular and non-secular tidbits, these people would be having an apoplexy over religion in the courthouse.

I'm reminded of a Christian group that hounded Tibetan monks out of a school district they were visiting because they were practicing Buddists. That same group supports the Ten Commandments being placed in schools every time that issue comes up. The intent of the Freedom of Religion is 'All for All or None for All, not All for Yours and None for Theirs'



[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 11-17-2003).]

quote:

---

The courts have usurped far too much power in America. A body of elected officials make a law and appointed judges rule the law "unconstitutional" because they personally disagree with it.

---

That's what they're supposed to do.