Topic awaiting preservation: "10 Commandments Judge" Removed from Bench... (Page 1 of 1) |
|
---|---|
Bipolar (III) Inmate From: The Lost Grove |
posted 11-14-2003 02:03
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. |
Maniac (V) Inmate From: under the bed |
posted 11-14-2003 02:08
Yep, read that this morning. |
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: Vancouver, WA |
posted 11-14-2003 04:27
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. |
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist From: New California |
posted 11-14-2003 04:50
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. |
Maniac (V) Inmate From: Seoul, Korea |
posted 11-14-2003 05:37
cfb: I think the idea is to make sure that everyone feels equally alienated. |
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: Vancouver, WA |
posted 11-14-2003 06:15
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. |
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist From: New California |
posted 11-14-2003 06:41
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. |
Maniac (V) Inmate From: Seoul, Korea |
posted 11-14-2003 07:31
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. quote:
|
Bipolar (III) Inmate From: Vancouver, WA |
posted 11-14-2003 07:41
Suho: Yes, I know. I've researched it, but the idea that's it's happening now is what I don't like. |
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: 92064 |
posted 11-14-2003 09:28
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." |
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist From: New California |
posted 11-14-2003 09:41
quote: I don't understand this question. I wanted to answer it but wanted to make sure I don't misunderstand your point. |
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: 92064 |
posted 11-14-2003 11:00
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. |
Maniac (V) Inmate From: under the bed |
posted 11-14-2003 15:04
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. |
Bipolar (III) Inmate From: houston, tx usa |
posted 11-14-2003 20:15
The heart is a wonderful organ, but so is the brain. |
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: |
posted 11-14-2003 21:04
heart is an organ that pumps blood |
Maniac (V) Inmate From: Seoul, Korea |
posted 11-15-2003 02:55
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). |
Maniac (V) Inmate From: under the bed |
posted 11-15-2003 03:33
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. |
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: 92064 |
posted 11-16-2003 04:27
Threats to Christianity are itself, and internal feudalistic behavior. |
Maniac (V) Inmate From: under the bed |
posted 11-16-2003 04:57
I suppose I'd agree with that. |
Maniac (V) Inmate From: Oblivion |
posted 11-16-2003 05:05
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. |
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: |
posted 11-16-2003 05:14
^ What he said... =) |
Bipolar (III) Inmate From: College Station, TX |
posted 11-16-2003 05:28
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:
|
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist From: Houston, TX, USA |
posted 11-16-2003 05:34
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. |
Maniac (V) Inmate From: under the bed |
posted 11-16-2003 19:49
Spyx - if it were just "a piece of sculpture" then I'd agree with you. |
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: The Astral Plane |
posted 11-17-2003 18:08
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. |
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: 92064 |
posted 11-19-2003 07:26
quote:
|