The Ten Commandments Situation in Alabama - What do you think?

I personally think that opening sessions of congress with a sanctioned prayer is pretty damn close to establishment.

It very much is establishment, as is "In God We Trust", "One nation under God", prayer at the start of congressional session, et al.

The nation long ago lost its secular nature. Now that some are fighting to get it back, those who worship the same God as our government does are screaming fowl.

 

I don't sweat the small stuff, like the coins or prayer at Government ceremonies. But anything in the legal system or codefied in law gets EXTRA special attention, because of its potentiality for precedence.

 

A few thoughts:

Last I checked, there are a few churches in the U.S. If people want or need exposure to the Ten Commandments can't they go there? Are public displays of the Ten Commandments really necessary?

Government-sponsored promotion of a particular religion, e.g., posting Ten Commandments in a public building or mandating their display anywhere, is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. I assume all the gun advocates are squarely behind the efforts to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama government building? Of course not, when the Constitution supports a claim the RR wave it in your face, when it does not they kick the Constitution to the curb.

Stone v Graham, 1980 Supreme Court case

There are thousands of religions, sects, denominations, etc. in the United States. Are we going to display all their respective laws, rules, etc.?

At the end of the day, Judge Moore is using the Ten Commandments as a political power play. Blasphemy?

 

Singularity,

Stone v Graham was decided because the Kentucky state leglislature passed a law REQUIRING schools in Kentucky to display the ten commandments, even though the display was funded by private sources.

I think it quite clear that anytime a governmental body requires something by law, it can be inferred that it is endorsing it, and is improper.

However, the traditional use of an opening prayer, or the mere display of religious artwork on a courthouse was not covered by Stone v Graham.

As I posted early in the thread, I support the removal of the Ten Commandments in this case, based on the rationale given by the court.

I just find it misleading that people are now trying to make every piece of seperation leglislation fit, or claiming that all religious artwork is now going to be removed.

The above is simply not true..

After all, the Alabama decision was not an attck on religion, it was a valid refinement of seperation issues...

 

"I assume all the gun advocates are squarely behind the efforts to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama government building? Of course not, when the Constitution supports a claim the RR wave it in your face, when it does not they kick the Constitution to the curb."

Excuse me, I am a gun advocate, and I supported the removal of the commandments. Some people do respect both the first and second amendments, you know.

 

What's Really Behind the Controversy in Alabama?

Thursday, August 28, 2003

By Bill O'Reilly

Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight.

What is really behind the Ten Commandments controversy? That's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo. It's not about the commandments monument in the Alabama hallway. This is about a significant power in this country that does not want any mention or reminder of spirituality in public, period.

On the radio today, a guy called me, named Sean from Virginia, and he admitted it. He said it offended him to hear the word "God". And he didn't care if it were attached to any religion or not. He just didn't want to hear the word.

So that's what this dispute in Alabama is all about. But if you look deeper, there's another reason why people like Sean want to banish God. The secularists in America have an agenda. They want total personal freedom. That means no judgments about anyone's behavior. They want legalized drugs, gay marriage, soft criminal penalties, and rehabilitation in prisons instead of punishment.

The agenda goes on and on, but the message is that the USA should be a place where all non-criminal conduct is permitted and moral judgments about right and wrong should never be made.

If you take the God factor out of the country, that agenda is easier to impose. But that would lead to social chaos. Last night, I told you about a guy who lit up a marijuana cigarette in front of two young boys at a rock concert. Now I made the idiot put it out, but he didn't want to. And if drugs ever become legalized, he'll be able to blow that pot smoke right in your kids' face. Is that the kind of society you want, where any kind of boorish behavior is acceptable?

In my upcoming book, Who's Looking Out for You?, I prove that the Founding Fathers wanted a spiritual presence in the public arena for a very practical reason. They understood the new government did not have the power to control behavior. They rightly figured that a God-fearing people would behave better than people with no moral boundaries.

So in every debate about the Constitution, God was mentioned. I have all the letters written between [James] Madison and [Thomas] Jefferson in my home library. There's no question those two men, who forged the Constitution, wanted God on the minds of Americans.

But now we have powerful judges and politicians who reject the intentions of the framers. And that is what we are seeing in the Ten Commandments debate. Those slabs in Alabama do not establish any religion, nor do they intrude on any sane person's sensibilities. They are simply a reminder that our laws are based on Judeo-Christian philosophy. And the Alabama debate is a reminder that our freedoms and traditions are under assault by secular forces.

And that's The Memo.

 

If you take the God factor out of the country, that agenda is easier to impose. But that would lead to social chaos.

This is so far fetched...

But why try to rebut DM's posts, he drops an idea of him and runs away from the debate....

 

I've noticed that too, Ki-Adi.

Now, let's proceed. I think I can debunk this.

This is about a significant power in this country that does not want any mention or reminder of spirituality in public, period.

Fundamentalist Christianity is not the world's only example of spirituality. I don't have a problem with the mention of spirituality in public, but I do have a problem with Christianity being shoved down my throat in public places.

But if you look deeper, there's another reason why people like Sean want to banish God. The secularists in America have an agenda.

And the fundamentalist Christians don't?

They want total personal freedom. That means no judgments about anyone's behavior. They want legalized drugs, gay marriage, soft criminal penalties, and rehabilitation in prisons instead of punishment.

Except for soft criminal penalties (and I want rehabilitation with punishment rather than instead of), I agree. Why is this such an issue? Why is it the government's job to judge what I put in my body or what I do in my bedroom?

The agenda goes on and on, but the message is that the USA should be a place where all non-criminal conduct is permitted and moral judgments about right and wrong should never be made.

And...?

If "moral judgments" are going to be allowed to be called, how do we decide who gets to call them? Do only Christians get to make moral judgments?

If you take the God factor out of the country, that agenda is easier to impose. But that would lead to social chaos. Last night, I told you about a guy who lit up a marijuana cigarette in front of two young boys at a rock concert. Now I made the idiot put it out, but he didn't want to. And if drugs ever become legalized, he'll be able to blow that pot smoke right in your kids' face. Is that the kind of society you want, where any kind of boorish behavior is acceptable?

One, what are two young kids doing at a rock concert, and two, I'd much rather my kid catch a whiff of pot smoke than be in a car wreck because someone else has been drinking. But alcohol is still legal here.

But now we have powerful judges and politicians who reject the intentions of the framers. And that is what we are seeing in the Ten Commandments debate. Those slabs in Alabama do not establish any religion, nor do they intrude on any sane person's sensibilities.

So I'm insane now?

I could say that the right to homosexual marriage didn't intrude on any "sane person's" sensibilities, but I'll bet you'd consider it a flame.

And they don't establish anyone's religion? No--they're just a passage from a religious book.

They are simply a reminder that our laws are based on Judeo-Christian philosophy. And the Alabama debate is a reminder that our freedoms and traditions are under assault by secular forces.

And this paragraph is a reminder that those in favor of erecting this monument would love to see America ruled by religion.

 

In defense of DM, he's a busy guy. Cut him some slack, he's in med school.

 

I'm sorry, but then he shouldn't try to participate in a debate. I, and probably many others here, like to discuss topics with someone who can respond to what we are saying.

And good rebuttal, a_g

 

Thanks Ki-Adi.

 

Give me a break.

Thanks for the defense JM201, it's very much appreciated. I'm actually an RN, and I work in ICU and I'm getting ready to go to work...


I agree completely with what Bill O'Reilly said. Secularists have wroght much damage upon the fabric of this society. Kids have no respect, anything is permissible. It's sad. No judgements are made about bad behavior.

 

That's not always bad behavior, DM.

Sex isn't a crime.

If one parent is a jerk, the kid is better off not being in a two-parent home. I have a friend, one of the most stable, intelligent people I know, who was raised by his mother and his grandmother because his father drank and womanized. He has told me that he was better off without his father around.

 

My bad, DM. I knew it had something to do with medicine.

 

ssssOk JM201

 

Secularists have wroght much damage upon the fabric of this society.

So do you think the country should be ruled by religion? And if so, what about non-Christians?

Kids have no respect, anything is permissible. It's sad.

Kids having no respect has to do with slack parenting. And I blame trial lawyers for what we are and aren't allowed to do in the school system. People sue if their kid breathes in mold spores and catches a cold. But that has nothing to do with the Ten Commandments.

No judgements are made about bad behavior.

Again, who should make the judgments? And then who makes the judgments about the judgment makers' bad behavior?

 

Well the issue in Alabama is now over, the monument has been removed, however there are several court houses across America that still have the 10 Commandments on the walls, unlike the situation in Alabama, the Supreme Court most likely wont come down on them.

The difference is Judge Moore recently erected the monument, other courts have had the 10 Commandments displayed since their buildings erection, mostly in the 1920's and 30's, the judges of these courts have moved to have these walls and monuments declared historical preservations.

I am kind of curious as to what many of the people who were against the monument in Alabama think of other judges having their 10 Commandments displays ruled as historical preservations.

 

I think they ought to come down, but it's not such a big deal to me that I'm going to go on a crusade about it.

I was as much appalled at this judge's attitude as anything else.

 

I never have supported Moore, his attitude was rather appalling, and I question if he did it for the fame.

However I was rather sickened by the attitude taken by some in the forums here. The word theocracy was way over used, it kind of reminded me of the Red Scare.

EDIT: Let me add it was from both sides that reminded me of the Red Scare. People on one side said if it remained the US would be a Theocracy, people on the other side cried if it was removed we'd become a Godless nation.

 

On the radio today, a guy called me, named Sean from Virginia, and he admitted it. He said it offended him to hear the word "God". And he didn't care if it were attached to any religion or not. He just didn't want to hear the word.

So that's what this dispute in Alabama is all about. But if you look deeper, there's another reason why people like Sean want to banish God. The secularists in America have an agenda. They want total personal freedom. That means no judgments about anyone's behavior. They want legalized drugs, gay marriage, soft criminal penalties, and rehabilitation in prisons instead of punishment.

Why is this dopey Republican talking head quotable? This here is the meat of his argument. O'Reilly goes from an anecdote about a radio call-in show to "so this is what it's all about".

I'm sorry, what?

DM, I know you can do better than to quote this stupid article. O'Reilly here, as he does so, so often, is just making stuff up.

 

DM: That is a hilarious "report" by your friend Billy O'reilly! I especially liked:
The secularists in America have an agenda. They want total personal freedom. That means no judgments about anyone's behavior. They want legalized drugs, gay marriage, soft criminal penalties, and rehabilitation in prisons instead of punishment.

The agenda goes on and on, but the message is that the USA should be a place where all non-criminal conduct is permitted and moral judgments about right and wrong should never be made.


Bah-hahahaha!!!!

 

Bill O'reilly is 4 years old. Oooh, the boogeymen are out to get my religion!

Yes, there are secularists who have an agenda, but fundies have bought the Repub party - that proves they have an agenda as well. Most of us, as evidenced by close elections, are in a more reasonable frame of mind and can make up our own minds, agree to disagree, and find better things to worry about.

If the 10 commandments didn't include the 1st one, about "worshipping no other god before me" I would find it a lot less to be establishing religion.

 

DM:
Give me a break.

Oooohhh... I'll so give you a break

 

But bill O'Reilly is fair and balanced, isn't he? He MUST be right!!

[snicker]

 

He's a registered independent, you know! (Oh no wait, he's actually a registered Republican)