The Audacity of Alabama

[chip anderson]

Did you read/hear the decision of the Alabama panel of judges fireing Judge Roy Moore? They may or may not have been correct on fireing him, they may or may not (I believe not) been correct in removing The Ten Commandments from it's display area. But did you see the wording of the panel:

"We are all creatures of the law and as such must obey same."

Don't know about you, but I damn sure was not created by any law written by men. I was not created by Alabama Law, U.S. Law, The U.S. Constitution or the United nations or any other body of law. I may or may not have been created by God or just some sort of "spontainious generation" But I certianly was not created by Law.

Question: Should we obey or even recognise a law that conciders itself superior to God?

Chip

[PAkev]

Chip,

The position which Roy Moore has taken is indeed commendable in standing up for what he believes in. It would be interesting to see what position the decision panel would take if they knew THEIR jobs were on the line. Ironically, many of these officials placed their hands on a Bible to uphold the law are now denying the existance of biblical principals in our LAW.

Unfortunately, our human nature is often inclined to do what is popular rather than what is right and the big grey area is masked behind what has been termed THE LAW. From my understanding, we haven't seen the last of Roy Moore. I've heard there is already overwhealming support for a political career.

I am grateful for having the opportunity and freedom to live in America but am shameful of the LAW which has begun to represent it.

Kevin

[shanbaum]

Save your shame; the guys who removed Roy Moore hardly did "what is popular".

Were one to examine the second of these commandments (as originally reported in Exodus 20) a little more closely, one might not be so ready to admire the creation of a monument to them.

The law, in this case, produced exactly the right result - other than the fact the now this guy's a martyr to the Protestant analogue of the Taliban... we'd better start planning the invasion of Alabama (oh drat, not again...)

[Jo]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So now, the first amendment has been re-translated to provide freedom from religion, instead of freedom of religion. In my opinion, the government is just trying to keep up appearances. Why else would they create situations where even more intolerances are created for the sake of appearing to end an existing intolerance?

You see this in the school systems. Children are being taught that open worship of Christianity is bad. Why not do more to expose children to all of the religions instead of working so hard to expunge one major religion.

[shanbaum]

Jo said:
So now, the first amendment has been re-translated to provide freedom from religion, instead of freedom of religion. In my opinion, the government is just trying to keep up appearances. Why else would they create situations where even more intolerances are created for the sake of appearing to end an existing intolerance?

You see this in the school systems. Children are being taught that open worship of Christianity is bad. Why not do more to expose children to all of the religions instead of working so hard to expunge one major religion.

I haven't heard anyone, anywhere argue that any child in any school cannot at any time when he's not occupied by the task at hand (viz., attending class), say any prayer to any such god or gods as he may want.

The issue is, and has always been, whether a public employee - an agent of the government - can lead a group over which he has some kind of authority in any form of worship. This cannot be done without violating the rights of those who are not inclined to participate. If restricting this kind of "open worship" (a better characterization might be "Public worship" - with a capital "P") is tantamount to "[teaching] that open worship of Christianity is bad", then I say, "so be it." I don't think that's the case, but then, I am not a Christian.

"Why not do more to expose children to all of the religions?" What if I choose to keep my religion private? Maybe I invented it myself. The constitution allows me the right to do that. What are you going to teach my kids?

OK, that's being a little facetious. But even if I were a follower of an organized religion, I might well prefer to have religious instruction performed by people in whom I have confidence that they can perform it correctly.

To borrow a phrase from Scrooge: are there not enough churches and synagogues to manage the religious education of our youth?

And who do you think you are to presume to manage the religious education of my children (you infidel)? Do you know who is on your Board of Education? Do you know what their religious inclinations are? (By the way, I don't know the latter - the Constitution protects me from needing to know that. At least, here in Connecticut; in Texas, I'd be very, very concerned).

This is something too important for the government to undertake to do; something for which it is ill-suited, and something which its rules prohibit, for which I am thankful.

To whom I am thankful is my business.

[Jo]

You're correct Robert. Things like this, http://www.uyghuramerican.org/HumanR...spunished.html, gratefully do not happen here. That was what the First Amendment protects us from, the establishment of a state religion.

I understand what you are saying. The government should not support any one religion nor should it support all religions. Which leaves the question of morality. Should moral teachings be left to families? Can you teach human morals in school and avoid religious teachings? Perhaps the media has just tricked us all into thinking that parents aren't capable of teaching their children to be good citizens. Or perhaps many of us are believing in a form of facism in disguise.

At any rate, at least we can all have these opinions. Or can we really?

Here's an interesting viewpoint written by Rev. Roger Bertschausen:
"RETHINKING THE SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE"

[shanbaum]

Jo, it certainly strikes me as curious that the people who complain most about the "government prohibition of religion" are frequently the same people who advocate limited government.

They appear to believe that the government should stay out of people's business except when it serves to make people behave the way they think they should.

Damned right-wing liberals.

I'd say that morals are learned at home, regardless.

[chm2023]

This is the same chief justice who sat on his hands while the state of Alabama executed a man with an IQ of 66?

Yeah the big problem in that state is that the 10 Commandments can't be displayed on public property.

I say if anyone is so hot on the public display of the 10 Commandments, go visit a good tattoo artist, hire a topiary team, learn how to write really small on grains of rice, become an expert at ice sculpture--there are countless ways to express yourself. Or you could live a good life, and worship God in your own way (and privately), and stop bothering other people with this nonsense. When you think about it, only 3 of the 10 Commandments are actually "laws"; hell, the one about coveting is in direct conflict with capitalism!!!!

[Blake]

Roy Moore didn't lose his job because of the ten commandments. He lost his job because as an officer of the court, he is supposed to uphold the law. In this case, a federal judge had ruled that "Roy's Rock", the huge granite monument inscribed with the commandments, must be removed from the court building. Moore refused repeatedly, even after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear his case. (I find it interesting that he even bothered appealing to them, considering that he claimed federal courts had no jurisdiction in the case.)
Courts have ruled in the past, even quite recently, that there are ways to display such things that pass constitutional muster. Moore was not concerned with these methods. He chose the path of most resistance every step along the way.
Why would he do such a thing? If it is so important to acknowledge God in a public place, why take every effort to ensure that will be unsuccessful, to the point of losing one's job? I believe the answer lies in Moore's political ambitions. He loves the spotlight. He has had numerous speaking engagements since this whole thing started. Of course, now his schedule is free to speak all he wants. Some speculate he may even run for office (there'e a Senate seat up for reelection next year).
Many of the officials who made the decision to remove Moore from office are elected officials, who will likely face the wrath of Moore supporters. At this point, he is more popular than the governor, who dared to propose a tax increase to relieve an almost $700 million budget shortfall.

[karen]

shanbaum said:
I haven't heard anyone, anywhere argue that any child in any school cannot at any time when he's not occupied by the task at hand (viz., attending class), say any prayer to any such god or gods as he may want.
.

I guess that would be true, as long as you don't say it out loud in front of anyone who might be offended by your use of the word "God" It seems to me that any other "god" is allowed more leeway than the one I happen to believe in. I admit to being more passionate than informed about this particular case. Can someone tell me, did he put the monument there? If not, who did and how long ago? How many other monuments of this sort are there in other parts of the country? I agree absolutely that morals should be taught at home. It is not the governments or the schools job to teach my son what is right and wrong, it is mine and we work hard here to accomplish that. But since the 10 commandments are part of what we are teaching him I don't mind a little back up out in the "world". I think those rules aren't a bad idea for anyone to at least consider.

Would you agree or disagree that our country was founded on some Judeo-Christian principles? If you agree would it not also be fair to say that portions of our government (at least as it existed then) incorporated some of those principles? If you look at what this country has been able to accomplish in the short period of time it has been in existence (comparatively speaking) I think we could have done worse and believe personally that the beliefs that the men who founded this country held made the difference. And they believed in God. I am not sure if it was neccesarily the same concept we hold today but I think it was close and that it mattered.

P.S. What exactly is a right-wing liberal??;)

[shanbaum]

Karen, the question is not whether people should "consider those rules". You want to try to sell others on your religious beliefs, have at it. But I don't think that there's any way to employ the government in that endeavor without in effect using its authority to impose your religion on me - whether it's prayer in school, or the Ten Commandments in the courthouse. On what basis do you want to assert that this is a reasonable thing to do? That this is just stuff "everybody believes"?

Exactly which Judeo-Christian principles do you believe supported the American Revolution? Were they the same ones that supported the divine right of kings? The authority of the church hierarchy? Slavery?

"Right-wing liberal" is an attempt at light humour. But since right-wingers love to disparage the way liberals allegedly think that the government knows best how people should live, the phase might be instructive, however zen-like.

[Darris Chambless]

What if the majority of constituents in Alabama wanted the monument to remain, wouldn't and weren't their Constitutional rights also trampled on by the courts decission in that case? The problem is that in either scenario it was wrong, Constitutionally speaking of course.

Most of the arguement boils down to what each individual "thinks" or "feels" about the subject in which case it's nothing more than a p*ssing contest which is what this is. Once one starts trying to rationalize ones own religion to another who refuses to try to understand what YOU believe or chastize anothers religion (typically out of ignorance of said religion) one is left dealing with a fool.

Take care,

Darris C.

PS. "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."

[hcjilson]

reducing things to their lowest common denominator! Darris..........you continue to slay me!:D :D :D Are you sure you are not a mathematician at heart?

[shanbaum]

Darris Chambless said:
What if the majority of constituents in Alabama wanted the monument to remain, wouldn't and weren't their Constitutional rights also trampled on by the courts decission in that case? The problem is that in either scenario it was wrong, Constitutionally speaking of course.

Most of the arguement boils down to what each individual "thinks" or "feels" about the subject in which case it's nothing more than a p*ssing contest which is what this is. Once one starts trying to rationalize ones own religion to another who refuses to try to understand what YOU believe or chastize anothers religion (typically out of ignorance of said religion) one is left dealing with a fool.

I suppose a democracy could consist of a simple "majority rule", but ours doesn't. The Founding Fathers were seriously concerned about the possibility of a "tyranny of the majority" - a lot of what one sees in the Constitution is there to protect everyone's rights, not just those of a majority. No matter how a majority of voters might feel about it, they can't cause the government to act so as to promote their religion - that's pretty much the point of that provision. That doesn't trample on anyone's rights, because according to the Constitution, there is no right to use the government to promote a religion.

Perhaps you thought that there is a provision in the Constitution that says a majority of voters can do what it pleases?

Heck, a majority of voters can't even elect a president!

[karen]

shanbaum said:
Karen, the question is not whether people should "consider those rules". You want to try to sell others on your religious beliefs, have at it. But I don't think that there's any way to employ the government in that endeavor without in effect using its authority to impose your religion on me - whether it's prayer in school, or the Ten Commandments in the courthouse. On what basis do you want to assert that this is a reasonable thing to do? That this is just stuff "everybody believes"?

Exactly which Judeo-Christian principles do you believe supported the American Revolution? Were they the same ones that supported the divine right of kings? The authority of the church hierarchy? Slavery?
.

I am not trying to sell others on my religious beliefs nor impose them on you-I think I have read enough of your posts to know that would not be possible :bbg: and having stated earlier that you are not a Christian I do not expect you to agree with much if any of what I am saying. I don't think it is stuff 'everybody believes" I am concerned with the fact if I want to pray in school ( I don't expect you to pray-but if three of my friends and I want to and we don't make the rest of you listen to it, what is the problem??)or look at a monument of the Ten Commandments and admire it because it is something that resonates with me that other people who do not agree with me seem to be geting increasingly vitriolic and hateful ( I am speaking in generalities, not to a specific individual). It is OK for a student to not participate in the pledge of allegience because they object to the word God but a school valedictorian cannot mention the word Jesus in her speech because it might offend others. There seems to be more freedom to worship anything else, be it money. sex, power, Buddha than what I believe. I have to respect everybody elses right to worship what they choose while those same people that expect tolerance from me scream the loudest when I want to talk out loud in a public place about my faith. I am not asking everybody else to believe in what I do. I personally try hard to be an example of my faith that is not intolerant, cruel or judgemental. I don't get to judge-someone else gets that job and He is better qualified

What principles do you think this country was founded on? Just curious...

[chip anderson]

Roy Moore will be the next govenor of Alabama, and this makes me very happy.

Sorry,
Shanbaum

[Jo]

karen said:
Would you agree or disagree that our country was founded on some Judeo-Christian principles? If you agree would it not also be fair to say that portions of our government (at least as it existed then) incorporated some of those principles? If you look at what this country has been able to accomplish in the short period of time it has been in existence (comparatively speaking) I think we could have done worse and believe personally that the beliefs that the men who founded this country held made the difference. And they believed in God. I am not sure if it was neccesarily the same concept we hold today but I think it was close and that it mattered.

(Someone help me, but I think I am about to support Robert's side a little bit on this one.)

The US Constitution was written in the 1700's. The US, most of the world, is a whole different scene today. 18th Century Law is not always going to be applicable today. If our sense of law and morality didn't grow with the times, we would end up being one pretty sorry society. The question becomes how do we maintain our checks and balances. How much government involvement is too much? Can being PC be pushed to the point of beind downright silly?

[chip anderson]

Our sense of Law and Morality has certianly changed. But grow, no I don't think you can say that.

Chip

Would we have been better had it not changed? Usually.

And Shanebaum, the reason they had the Revolution is they did not support or beleive in the "Devine Right of Kings".

As for slavery, we sometimes miss that down Heah.

Of course, in truth the Revolutionary War, Like the War of Northern Agression was started over Taxes.

[shanbaum]

Would we have been better had it not changed? Usually.

You can't be serious.

And Shanebaum, the reason they had the Revolution is they did not support or beleive in the "Devine Right of Kings".

So, I guess that part of it doesn't come down through the "Judeo-Christian" tradition, which did support it for the better part of two millennia.

Of course, in truth the Revolutionary War, Like the War of Northern Agression was started over Taxes.

The Civil War started over taxes? That's a new one on me. Can you elaborate, or are you jes' a-talkin' fer Buncombe?

[shanbaum]

karen said:
I am concerned with the fact if I want to pray in school ( I don't expect you to pray-but if three of my friends and I want to and we don't make the rest of you listen to it, what is the problem??)or look at a monument of the Ten Commandments and admire it...

I think that if you and your friends want to pray in school you should pray in school - in fact, I am absolutely certain that a great deal of praying takes place in schools everywhere, especially before and during exams. Pray all you want. Do you not understand the difference between your freedom to pray wherever you want and the Constitutional restriction on the government's leading students in prayer? The Framers of the Constitution provided that restriction to protect us from each other - you from me and my (possibly over-zealous) friends, and me from yours. And quite obviously, they were very right to do so; it's obvious that there are plenty of people in this country who figure that it wouldn't do anyone any harm to say a little ol' prayer every now and then. The notion that other people might not adhere to the same beliefs as they do (now, we all pray to the same God, don't we?) escapes them.

There was a really good example of what happens when religious zealots are allowed to have their way with a government; they were the Taliban. They not only think you should pray in school - oh wait, they had some other belief about females in school, sorry. But they sure 'nuff saw to it that the boys said their prayers.

And if you want to "admire" a graven image of the Ten C's - do you really feel constrained from doing that? It's not enough that you could put such a monument on your front lawn? Do you have to have it at the Courthouse - what, so I have to "admire" it, too?

Nobody has said that you can't have a monument to the Ten Commandments - the Constitution says that the government can't have a monument to the Ten Commandments. That means that neither a judge nor a janitor can put one in a Courthouse.

I'm surprised that you appear to feel repressed - you can't "talk out loud in a public place about [your] faith?" Exactly where do you want to do this, that you can't? Disorderly conduct notwithstanding, what's stopping you? It's certainly not stopping other people. There must be a hundred cable TV shows you could appear on just by asking. Tens of thousands of street corners out there; pick one. Pick a hundred.

I'm baffled how a Christian could feel repressed in this country. From an outsider's perspective, we are drenched in Christianity. It's damn near everywhere I look; the fact that that's apparently not enough for you makes me real glad that the Framers - god-fearing Christians that they were - had the wisdom to constrain the extent to which zealots - who might be very benign and well-meaning people - could use the government to promote their beliefs.

If there was a case in which a school valedictorian was prohibited from mentioning Jesus, I think that was an error in someone's judgment; a valedictory address is a personal statement. There is no sense in which a valedictorian is an agent of the government. He should be completely free to say whatever he wants, even to the point of giving offense. Even to the point of saying that Jesus was a jerk - or the saviour of mankind.

The issue is not about "giving offense". The issue is about what the Constitution says the government can and cannot do. Conservatives usually claim to focus on the latter; why is this issue different?

What principles do you think this country was founded on? Just curious...

Classical liberalism, which developed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, during the Enlightenment. Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau. Granted, they were concerned with reconciling their revolutionary ideas (chief among which was, liberty) with their religion; but what they really did was create the possibility of secularism, if not secularism itself; which in my opinion, was a great leap forward for mankind's liberation.

[chip anderson]

Yes Shanbaum:

The War of Northern Agression started over taxes. The government of the north passed an insufferable tax on Southern agraculture. We refused to pay, they invaded. John Brown was just a side issue. Acutally Slavery was not mentioned as an issure for The War until quite late in The War.

The first use of the Northern Federalies was incidentally also over a tax (the whiskey tax) in Pennsylvania of all places.

Chip

Shanbaum: I know them Liberal history re-writers (from the Ministy of Truth) likes to make folks up Nawth feel like they had a noble cause liberating slaves, but if the Nawth and Lincon had really cared about this (slaves released by the north to actually destroy the ecconomic power of Southern Agriculture) Lincon would have freed the slaves of the Northern States (he did not, only those of the South). Never forget the Golden Rule: "He who has the Gold Rules." Prior to the War of Northern Aggression Mississippi was the most prosperous state in the Union, now we are the poorest, so I guess the stratagy worked.

[shanbaum]

chip anderson said:
Yes Shanbaum:

The War of Northern Agression started over taxes. The government of the north passed an insufferable tax on Southern agraculture. We refused to pay, they invaded. John Brown was just a side issue. Acutally Slavery was not mentioned as an issure for The War until quite late in The War.

The first use of the Northern Federalies was incidentally also over a tax (the whiskey tax) in Pennsylvania of all places.

Chip

Shucks. Now I gotta go back and do some reading.

[Jo]

Robert,

We'll beat you in this discussion yet. "Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms - Oh damn! ...

you are accused of heresy on three counts -- heresy by thought, heresy by word, heresy by deed, and heresy by action -- *four* counts. Do you confess? ...

you have one last chance. Confess the heinous sin of heresy, reject the works of the ungodly -- *two* last chances. And you shall be free -- *three* last chances. You have three last chances, the nature of which I have divulged in my previous utterance."

[shanbaum]

Just pretend, for God's sake.

[karen]

shanbaum said:


There was a really good example of what happens when religious zealots are allowed to have their way with a government; they were the Taliban. They not only think you should pray in school - oh wait, they had some other belief about females in school, sorry. But they sure 'nuff saw to it that the boys said their prayers.



I'm surprised that you appear to feel repressed - you can't "talk out loud in a public place about [your] faith?" Exactly where do you want to do this, that you can't? Disorderly conduct notwithstanding, what's stopping you? It's certainly not stopping other people. There must be a hundred cable TV shows you could appear on just by asking. Tens of thousands of street corners out there; pick one. Pick a hundred.

I'm baffled how a Christian could feel repressed in this country. From an outsider's perspective, we are drenched in Christianity. It's damn near everywhere I look; the fact that that's apparently not enough for you makes me real glad that the Framers - god-fearing Christians that they were - had the wisdom to constrain the extent to which zealots - who might be very benign and well-meaning people - could use the government to promote their beliefs.

If there was a case in which a school valedictorian was prohibited from mentioning Jesus, I think that was an error in someone's judgment; a valedictory address is a personal statement. There is no sense in which a valedictorian is an agent of the government. He should be completely free to say whatever he wants, even to the point of giving offense. Even to the point of saying that Jesus was a jerk - or the saviour of mankind.

I think you might even be more literal than me and that is saying something. "Repressed" is too strong a word. Obviously I am blessed to live in a country with more religious freedom than anywhere else. I did not say that current state of Christianity that you feel we are drenched in is not good enough. What I am talking about is the way society seems to be getting more and more disparaging of it while expecting me to be more and more "understanding" of things that I think are wrong, immoral, and sometimes evil. The example I made of the valedictorian speech is a perfect example of what I am talking about-it was a public school and that was the angle they used to stop her, being state and federally funded and all. You did say the framers were God fearing Christians, that is what I was talking about when I said our country was founded on those principles. I believe that their beliefs were instrumental is shaping what they wanted for our country. Believe me, I appreciate the checks and balances they put into place. Inasmuch as it keeps us from becoming a nation of Christianity it also keeps us from becoming a nation of Islam or that one world religion that those of us who do believe in the Lord are a little concerned about ;) Remind me never to get in a real argument with you- I don't think my pregnant hormones could take it. Thanks for the food for thought-I always enjoy getting other people's perspectives-something some of my fellow beleiving friends could use a little practice in.