Topic awaiting preservation: What is your purpose? (Page 3 of 3)

Yes, it is very purple indeed. I remember when I first told my friends about it here and someone thought I was a girl because of all the purple and pink I used. LOL!!! I've had that homepage design for quite a while now. I am seriously due for a new one.

Back to the 10 commandments in Alabama issue, I'm curious to know whether moving them outside the courthouse would be alright with those who oppose them being in the rotunda?

. . : slicePuzzle

By the way, the commandments weigh 2 tons which is excessive. Bill Maher had a good suggestion on Real Time last night.

_________________________
A devil's work is never done.

I hear a lot of people saying how the monument will make people think that Xianity is the religion the law will be ruled by in that courthouse, but if it's the 10 commandments, how come no one is worried about Jewish fanatics? After all, they are to be found in the Hebrew canon.

So about the right and wrong thing... without a higher authority above you and above me, how can you say that *anything* I do is right or wrong? Wouldn't that simply be a matter of opinion for each of us? That question is for meta, GD, or anyone else interested

Recommendation: Philosophy 101.

_________________________
A devil's work is never done.

You do have your *own* thoughts on these topics, don't you?

Bugimus - I think the difference in our opinoins is very much driven by the fact that you wholly agree with those commandments that relate to god, whereas I wholly disagree

But, I still say the major distinction that determines whether or not they should be there, is the fact that they imply (in part by their mere presence, and in part due to the statements made by the judge in regard to them) that you will be judged on more than just the laws apllicable in this nation. And that is plain wrong.

It's not a matter of being "represented" (though I agree with GD's comments regarding the representation issue!). This isn't a cultural gallery, it's a court of law.

I have no desire to rewrite history, I have no desire to cover the fact that many of the founding father's were rooted in christianity. But they made a wise choice to seperate government and religion. We need to stop revising history to suggest otherwise
We can't allow "god's" laws to overturn America's laws, since we have decided that we can't rightfully determine for the population which god's laws are the right ones.

My main point, I guess, is that this isn't just a random government building that has - in it's area where it places representations of cultural issues - a monument to the 10 commandments. This is a court of law, and the only laws it truly represents are America's laws - regardless of their connection to other things.

As I said - This isn't a cultural gallery, it's a court of law.

=)


{edit - oh, and I missed this before I posted:

quote:

---

without a higher authority above you and above me, how can you say that *anything* I do is right or wrong? Wouldn't that simply be a matter of opinion for each of us?

---

Well, that's been my whole point! WE (collective) have decided and written into state and federal law what is right and wrong!

And one of the things we decided was wrong was government being run by the church =)

And that, as I said above, since we can't decide as a whole (and we have decided that we should *not* decide as a whole) which religion is "right" and which gods' laws are right, there is no way to say that god's laws supercede our own.

You have chosen your higher authority, and that's fine. For you.


{{edit - and have I mentioned that Thomas Jefferson is one of my favorite people of all time? }}

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 08-25-2003).]

DL-44: The framers were Deists not Christians. Deism is not Christianity. Christianity is not Deism. Some of the framers were Doubters too.

By the way, this is a good book: http://bbs.metavirus.net/viewtopic.php?t=19

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 08-25-2003).]

Bugs - I have thought about your last statement quite a bit, and I feel I have to address it -

quote:

---

You do have your *own* thoughts on these topics, don't you?

---

Now, I know you well enough to know that you have given great thought and research to your views. I believe ou know me well neough that I respect you for that.

However, I have to say that all things considered the above quoted statement seems a bit hypocritical.

When confronted with a question/issue, you will give your thoughts on it, but they will very often be based on or backed by biblical passages. You will often quote or paraprhase that passage. That, to you, is a wise thing.

Well, in this case, Meta has done more or less the same thing. His source of wisdom happens to be one of the major players in the framing of this countries laws, and I can't see how quoting him is in any way an indication that meta is not thinking for himself. In fact, it is a very logical source of words, and very fitting for this situation.

If I were going to discuss the 10 commandments, I would certainly involve Moses.

If I am going to discuss the difference between them and the basis of American law, I would most certainly quote Jefferson (among others).

I am not going to address any other aspects of Meta's posts in here in this particular post - but I had to address this particular one.

I'll explain exactly why I said that. I was trying to stimulate more discussion on the issue of how we decide what is right and wrong and meta said, "Recommendation: Philosophy 101." That hurt me because I thought he was trivializing the debate and my attempt to keep it going. So I asked him about his "own thoughts" hoping he would explain his thoughts on how we arrive at our views of right and wrong.

You are absolutely correct that I pass on views of those I respect. I really enjoy the exchange of ideas we have here and I really believe that exchange helps us to grow and I have to believe it helps the no doubt numerous lurkers in these insane waters of the Asylum.

So back to the issues at hand.

I can only speak for myself on this, DL-44, but my earlier comments should have shown that I would not be opposing the 5 pillars of Islam, the Wiccan Rede, or some other religious/cultural monument in that rotunda if the local community held it in high regard. I can only ask that you take my word on that.

I would prefer that all peoples follow the path that Christ has shown us, of course. But I recognize that we have created a pluralistic society. In this grand experiment we call the US, we have decided that religious freedom is a very good thing. I agree with it. I believe we should keep state business and religous business separate. We should have a secular government and religious populace. I think that is a winning combination.

Congress shall make no law respecting... and it shall not prohibit the free exercise thereof...

I believe the spirit in which those words were written was NOT to rid ourselves of religion as so many on your side of this issue seek to do. I believe it was to create an environment where we can all freely practice our beliefs whether they involve God or not. I understand that you personally may not be out to eliminate religion from our public discourse but there are those prominant voices who do, Ira Glasser from the ACLU and Alan Dershowitz to name a couple. I am not sure at all whether or not metahuman doesn't fall into that category. Metahuman, do you?

DL, I am very please to hear that you have no interest in revionism and I join you wholeheartedly in that. I oppose revisionism on either extreme of this debate. Period. I want us to be as accurate as we can be with the facts and go from there.

I hold Jefferson in very high regard and notice that I was the first one to quote him directly in this thread. I don't believe he was a Xian by the definition found in the NT. However, there are different definitions of almost everything and in the common definition he could be said to have been a Xian. Herein lies a problem with metahuman and my view.

meta, you keep saying that the founders we Deists. I am going to say this again, that is too broad of a brush stroke. Not *ALL* of them were Deists... *SOME* of them were Christians. Almost all of them held the Bible and the Judeo-Christian beliefs and ethics consistent with their personal views of the Creator.

. . : slicePuzzle

"Nature's God" does not mean "Christian God."
"Creator" (found in the Constitution) does not mean "Christian God."
"Creator" is a reference to "Nature's God."

Deism is not Christianity. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist and he even said so!

READ that: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 08-25-2003).]

*sigh*

I did not say that Deists were Christians. Please READ. I said that some of the founders were Christians. Jefferson was a Deist.

priests? books of war? huh?

Edited. I'll post more in a different thread. This thread is seriously off-topic.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 08-25-2003).]

That's too much! Fair enough then. Whenever you're feeling in the mood will do, I'll be around

I will have to step up to the plate on something. I have really loved this from Jefferson:

quote:

---

The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty ... students' perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens. --Thomas Jefferson

---

It is quite possible this is one of those spurious quotes that can be found in so many places. I have done a bit more searching on Jefferson lately because of this thread and I'm not sure if the quote is genuine. I withdraw that one.

I believe my point above still holds on the remaining quote that I do believe to be accurate. A search of the Jeffersonian Cyclopedia lists it as authentic.
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-foley?specfile=/texts/english/jefferson/foley/public/JefCycl.o2w&act=surround&offset=3415240&tag=2759.+ETHICS,+Law+and.+--+&query=ethic

I consider ethics...

[edit] had trouble with huge link url [/edit]
. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 08-25-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 08-25-2003).]

Bugimus wrote:

quote:

---

Back to the 10 commandments in Alabama issue, I'm curious to know whether moving them outside the courthouse would be alright with those who oppose them being in the rotunda?

---

Although I'm not an American, I would find religious monuments in or near courthouses to be troubling. Any promotion of deities by the government (even ceremonial deism) automatically excludes some people. Having the Ten Commandments in or near courthouses says to me that the government emphasizes a Christian view rather than a secular view. This automatically excludes me, an atheist, as well as people of other religions. I understand that America was founded by Deists (and Christians too - I'm with Bugimus on this) but that was 200 years ago. The 2003 version of America includes many different religions and cultures as well as atheists and agnostics. It's a melting pot as they say so if the US government is truly secular and interested in the promotion of equal rights, why emphasize Christian values over others? Why not a statue or monument that says "E pluribus unum" or "Out of one, many?" Much cooler.

Edit for grammar

[This message has been edited by Amerasu (edited 08-25-2003).]

Amerasu, I can agree with much of that. Let me pose this question. If I walk into a courthouse that emphasizes a seculare world view... should I be troubled because I am not an atheist?

You should no more be troubled by monuments like this than I should be troubled by secularism everywhere. The point is that our system *should* protects the rights of *everyone*. That means that if a district is imposing religion there is a problem. Having a monument to the foundation of much of our heritage does not do that, IMO.

Western Europe is clearly moving to create a secular society. Religious observance is way down from the numbers I hear. Should religious people in Europe be concerned that their rights will now be in question? *If* the secular laws prevent that, then there shouldn't be a problem, right? Well, I say the converse is also true.

. . : slicePuzzle

It's in a fucking COURTHOUSE, Bugimus! GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. Sheesh...

Oh, and your "I'm Christian and I'm scared of secularism" arguments are really, really strange. I know Christians who would think you were a nut for saying that.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 08-25-2003).]

I know several people who think I'm a nut.

It was a rhetorical point... by the way.

> [Bugimus said...] I know several people who think I'm a nut.

Yea, and I'm one of them!

_________________________
A devil's work is never done.

Bugimus wrote:

quote:

---

You should no more be troubled by monuments like this than I should be troubled by secularism everywhere. The point is that our system *should* protects the rights of *everyone*. That means that if a district is imposing religion there is a problem. Having a monument to the foundation of much of our heritage does not do that, IMO.

---

If the Ten Commandments monuments were only a simple representation of American heritage, I don't think I'd have a problem with them. But they're not really just a representation of heritage, at least not yet and not to me. Perhaps in the future? To many non-Christians, the monuments on government property say to us that the American goverment promotes Christianity and Christian values. And this is backed up by your openly Christian president, your Attorney General and US judges who defy court orders. Perhaps if your government attempted to appear more secular, I could accept the monument as a heritage piece but not this year unfortunately

Bugimus wrote:

quote:

---

Amerasu, I can agree with much of that. Let me pose this question. If I walk into a courthouse that emphasizes a seculare world view... should I be troubled because I am not an atheist?

---

I'd like to say no but I'm sure many theists (of any religion) would not be entirely comfortable and I understand that. However, secular courts would not favour or emphasize one religion over another and I feel this would provide a more balanced and fair system for everyone

Amerasu, I would defend your rights as much as anyone else's. Do you think my personal religious beliefs take away from that conviction to hold to the ideal of liberty and justice for *all*? I believe that good citizens, regardless of creed, should do everything in their power to uphold the law of the land.

I can understand why these things trouble you. When government officials cross the line, they trouble me too! There are abuses. But there are abuses by secularists in our system as well. I don't think religion is the source of the problem and I guess that is my main point.

. . : slicePuzzle

Jeesh... go to the north shore foar a weekend and all hell breaks loose.

quote:

---

So about the right and wrong thing... without a higher authority above you and above me, how can you say that *anything* I do is right or wrong? Wouldn't that simply be a matter of opinion for each of us? That question is for meta, GD, or anyone else interested

---

Without a higher authority it falls to society to choose what is illegal (note... not right or wrong... just illegal) or not. Of course personal opinion is going to influence these decisions. Opinions of religious and non-religious people alike.

Now this is a question I'd like to pose to you Bug's. Regardless of whether you think it is legal to have this monument in/on/near/through the courthouse it is obviously causing problems in the community it is in, yes? Is it worth it to cause such strife amongst people for the sake of one man's ambition and one specific group's views (those who feel the monument should be there on principle rather than acceptance... I don't mean Xians)? As I mentioned before, Isn't this WHY the separation laws were made? So that people of different backgrounds and faiths could interact without feeling persecuted so that situations like this wouldn't be caused?

metahuman-

quote:

---

It's in a fucking COURTHOUSE, Bugimus! GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. Sheesh...

---

Government property is ultimately held by the People. Essentially, there is no difference between a government building and a city park as far as the public's physical view. Government property has been littered with religious symbolism since the inception of this country. Not all of it has been Christian. Remember the Mercury dime, with the god Mercury on the face? Or how about our symbol of Justice, the woman with scales? She is based off of several goddesses of antiquity. These are just a couple examples.

There is no need to reiterate that this monument is in a building designed to uphold man's laws and that man & God's laws need to be kept separate. The point I am trying to make is that if Christian symbology (be it doctrine or symbols) must be removed from government property, then all religious symbology must. This is only an issue because it is Christian. No one would be batting an eye if another statue of Themis were being erected in a courthouse.

So long as the government isn't saying that I have to attend church on sunday or be prepared for criminal charges I don't really care. As long as judges are able to make objective, secular decisions (which sometimes they don't-hence the appeals process) than what difference does it make for a set of religious moral guidelines to be erected in a courthouse? As I stated before, I don't care if religion is taught in public schools, provided that all religions are taught objectively.

Just to reiterate, if one religion's symbology is to be removed from government property than they all must. It's only fair.

BTW - I wasn't ignoring y'all, I was happily camped along the North Shore of Lake Superior this weekend...

Excellent question.

First of all, the local community did not have a problem with the monument. The strife was caused by an organization bringing the legal challenge. That is one of the reasons I am so upset with some of our so called civil liberty organizations who pick and choose the constitutional amendments they fight for. They have too often moved from protecting rights to trying to take them away. I'm arguing for a positive approach to this issue, one that upholds religious freedom while at the same time maintaining the original intent of the founders.

HOWEVER, putting the details of this specific case aside, you're asking me whether putting up a monument that created strife in the community would be worth the effort. My answer is no.

As to why the separation was put there in the first place... it was done to prevent a state religion from being established. I truly believe we have lost sight of that. It was not done to prevent people from feeling persecuted. Can you imagine one of the founders talking about feeling persecuted and complaining about that when real persecution was the order of the day? No one should be persecuted for their religious beliefs, or lack thereof... PERIOD.

I am perfectly willing to be reasonable about this issue and compromise but people like Alan Dershowitz would argue that just seeing a cross in public offends him! That is the sort of position on the other side of this issue that drives me utterly apesh*t. They worry me every bit if not more than the religious zealots do because the left has more momentum at this particular moment in our history. Both extremes must be held in check and I just don't want to see us swing into a period of anti-religious bigotry sneaking into our laws anymore than I want to see the imposition of religion sneaking in.

[edit] just saw MD's post... I agree with that, very well put!!! [/edit]

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 08-25-2003).]

Gabriel has not responded yet, and probably will not.

Bugs - I had barely noticed the 'philosophy 101' bit and had thought your comment was directed at the quotations. I see where you're coming from now

As far as the monument goes...I think we'll just have to agree to disagree at this point.
=)

(Thank goodness the higher courts saw fit to order its removal )

Moon Dancer -

In my personal opinion, the problem is not that the 'symbol' is christian. It is the implication of the specific symbol in relation to the function of the building.

It is a statement of judeo-christian (not just christian...) law. It doesn't belong in a building that exists for the purpose of upholding American law.

A statue of Arthemis would not hold any particular implication that you will be held to standards that are seperate from American law in the way that this monument to "god's" laws does.

.

Of course, one of my other concerns is - who paid for this monument??



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 08-25-2003).]

You make some very valid points, DL. I'm having a little bit of a hard time seeing the fuss regarding the monument because I give as much creedence to the 10 Commandments as I do the statue of Themis. Both are symbols of religious justice. One is very actively followed, the other only minimally anymore. Neither come from the religion I follow, and I don't see their presence around me as a threat.

That being said, it's time I crawl out of my little box here. I've been discussing this at length with GD. I can see how some may feel that they will be judged unfairly with a monument to God's law towering over them, especially if they do not follow the Judeo-Christian tradition. I can see the precedent this could possibly set. However, I maintain that if a judge cannot base his decisions objectively on US laws - regardless of what stands in the rotunda - then he should not be on the bench.

I have a question: Since the erection of this monument, has anyone appealed a decision made by any judge in that courthouse based on being unfairly judged due to the presence of the Commandments?

As an addendum to my previous post - Removing all religious symbology would be unconstiutional as well, given the government is to promote neither religion nor secularism. It's a very fine line that can be crossed over easily in either direction. Perhaps a compromise in this case would be to add to the monument various laws of other religons and some secular philosophies regarding law. Make it a monument to the heritage of law rather than a monument to one God's law.

OK people...time for a new thread. 105 posts is enough for one thread don't you think?

Go here: http://www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum17/HTML/000992.html