Reply #24 By: MusiKitty - 12/30/2004 2:06:12 AM You seem to be missing the point. Separation of church and state does NOT mean that the state is banning religion. It means simply that-- that they are separate. The government does not endorse, nor does it interfere with, religion

Then have them put *back* the 10 commandments statue that was taken down in Alabama. If that's not government interference then I don't know what is! The goverment interfers on a daily basis with religion.

Then have them put *back* the 10 commandments statue that was taken down in Alabama. If that's not government interference then I don't know what is!

it is exactly what the first amendment prohibits.   more than that, how can you support a state supreme court justice..chief justice at that..who publicly stated the 10 commandments were the basis of our legal system.  the man shoulda never graduated from law school--much less admitted to the bar--if he truly believed that nonsense.

I want balance, and it's clearly not there currently (and too far to the left in my view).

i have no idea why you feel that your preference for having the state engage in or endorse religious activities is a leftwing position. it would clearly require and impose more government involvement in our lives which is hardly a conservative position.

Reply #27 By: kingbee - 12/30/2004 4:16:36 AM Then have them put *back* the 10 commandments statue that was taken down in Alabama. If that's not government interference then I don't know what is! it is exactly what the first amendment prohibits. more than that, how can you support a state supreme court justice..chief justice at that..who publicly stated the 10 commandments were the basis of our legal system. the man shoulda never graduated from law school--much less admitted to the bar--if he truly believed that nonsense.

That's just plain BS

Amendment Text | Annotations 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

And just *where* does it prohibit that? There were NO laws made AND they definetly prohibited the free exercise thereof.

what is the point of displaying--at the entrance to a state supreme court-- a graven image representing a direct connection between god and the judeo-christian tradition?  why would a government do that if not to demonstrate its support or approval of religions claiming a direct link to that tradition?   why in front of a court of law where supposedly unbiased justice is meted out?   

why is it so important the 10 commandments be placed there? is that supposed to convey a message?   it's surely not because they help the court dispense better rulings? 

just because you say something is bullshit dont make it so.  ill concede you appear to be much more familiar with the product...but just calling something bullshit doesnt make much of an argument against or for anything except the possibility you couldnt think of any other response, so please explain to me how a man becomes a state supreme court justice without knowing the 10 commandments are not the basis of our legal system.  for that matter, explain to me how someone graduates high school with that misunderstanding of reality.

why are so-called conservatives so damn determined not only to increase government influence but to increase its influence on what is arguably the only other aspect of our lives more personal and private than sexual intimacy?  sounds like totalitarianism to me and i say the hell with it.

It prevents any free exercise there of during school hours, on government (tax payer funded) properties, and in any number of other ways. Your statement would be fine, but the government does interfere, and that's the problem. Again, the mere mention of something related to religion garners a lawsuit to stifle freedom of speech related to it.

that fact that youre mentioning religion in that statement as well as the article which inspired this thread disproves the statement ive bolded for emphasis. your first sentence as quoted is correct.  students and teachers arent and shouldnt be free to do all manner of things permitted to them after school hours or off school property.  government should not permit uncompensated use of taxpayer owned property or resources by any religious organization. 

the government doesnt file lawsuits against religious organizations btw.  and nobody is filing lawsuits to stop the mention, practice, participation or involvement by private citizens of or in their chosen religious activities.  but feel free to prove me wrong by citing a ruling in favor of a plaintiff suing anyone for speaking about or practicing their religion on privately owned property (except for claims the speech or activity is violates existing laws against excessive noise or some other affront to the public peace).

students and teachers arent and shouldnt be free to do all manner of things permitted to them after school hours or off school property. government should not permit uncompensated use of taxpayer owned property or resources by any religious organization.

Again, that is complete BS.

For years in this country, Boy Scouts (and Girl Scouts) and others were able to use public school facilities without problem. It was not until someone had a cow because the Scouts mention religion prominently that these groups were essentially banned from the use of public facilities that their parents help to pay for through their taxes.

You want it gone completely, which is the left wing position I trashed above. You are happy because currently you are seeing those results, but you fear desperately that Bush may get judges in place that will over turn such lunacy and take us back to a point -- which was very reasonable -- where religion isn't directly involved in school, but where public facilities may actually allow for use by faith based organizations. Poor you.

I swear (to god) I really do look forward to the day that some people stand in judgement, as there will be many who fail and it will be because of words and deeds, and actions while here on earth.

Reply #30 By: kingbee - 12/30/2004 6:09:54 AM what is the point of displaying--at the entrance to a state supreme court-- a graven image representing a direct connection between god and the judeo-christian tradition? why would a government do that if not to demonstrate its support or approval of religions claiming a direct link to that tradition? why in front of a court of law where supposedly unbiased justice is meted out? why is it so important the 10 commandments be placed there? is that supposed to convey a message? it's surely not because they help the court dispense better rulings? just because you say something is bullshit dont make it so. ill concede you appear to be much more familiar with the product...but just calling something bullshit doesnt make much of an argument against or for anything except the possibility you couldnt think of any other response, so please explain to me how a man becomes a state supreme court justice without knowing the 10 commandments are not the basis of our legal system. for that matter, explain to me how someone graduates high school with that misunderstanding of reality. why are so-called conservatives so damn determined not only to increase government influence but to increase its influence on what is arguably the only other aspect of our lives more personal and private than sexual intimacy? sounds like totalitarianism to me and i say the hell with it.

First off I am a conservative and I say your last line is bunk! I do NOT want the government any more involved in my life than it already is. How is making them leave religion alone inviting them to stick their noses in? And on top of all that read this. I *borrowed* this from another thread by Evan Trivett

DID YOU KNOW? As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view ... it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments! . DID YOU KNOW? As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door. DID YOU KNOW? As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments! DID YOU KNOW? There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.< DID YOU KNOW? James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement: "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." DID YOU KNOW? Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ". DID YOU KNOW? Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777. DID YOU KNOW? Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies. DID YOU KNOW? Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law.anoligarchy...opopSPANFONT> the rule of few over many. DID YOU KNOW? The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said: "Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers." How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?

Link

Heck, they can even pray DURING school in their heads, if they really feel the need to.

But there's also nothing wrong with a child praying aloud in public with a group of other children, right? After all, in no way does children praying together = government forcing religion onto others. Sure, it might distract those who aren't Christian, but freedom comes at a price, which is that people are going to see and hear things with which they disagree.

messy-- of course there's nothing wrong with student-organized prayers. As long as it isn't during normal school hours (when kids should be learning), or led by teachers, then I don't really care. If a bible study group wants to get together during lunch-- great! If a group of football players wants to pray together before a game- fantastic! But I don't think anyone in a position of "power" (like a teacher, coach, principal, etc.) should be forcing kids to pray.

You were fine until that statement. The Government, thanks to the ACLU and others, has interfered in religion. It prevents any free exercise there of during school hours, on government (tax payer funded) properties, and in any number of other ways. Your statement would be fine, but the government does interfere, and that's the problem. Again, the mere mention of something related to religion garners a lawsuit to stifle freedom of speech related to it. That is interference, and is a result of a complete and total mis-understanding of the meaning of the bill of rights.

Fair enough. I misspoke. I meant that the government, under the Constitution *SHOULD* not interfere with religion. If the ACLU objects, they can if they want to, I suppose. But the government shouldn't be harassing religions. Occasionally, I suppose it does, but for the most part the government tries to stay out of religious affairs, at least to my knowledge.

thought it was the flaky liberals who were mindlessly took everything they heard or read to be the truth and then went about like zombies regurgitating nonsense because they were too lazy or too far out in the zone to check whether it was true.   apparently youre not really a conservative....cuz as you can see, that whole page you copied is nonsense.

As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the  U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view ... it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!

do tell.  the sculpture to which you refer is on the back (eastern) side of the building so you wouldnt likely see it walking up the steps to the court.  the sculptor who created it (herman mcneil) featured 3 lawgivers (kung fu tse, solon and moses) and explained his work this way:  

Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former civilizations. The "Eastern Pediment" of the Supreme Court Building suggests therefore the treatment of such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East. Moses, Confucius and Solon are chosen as representing three great civilizations and form the central group of this Pediment.


enlarge the pic and youll see theyre all facing forward as are some of the allegorical figures.   the others are facing the center three--not just moses.

 

As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

wishin dont make it so.   there is a tablet in the bottom frame of each door but no text is enscribed.   just the roman numberals l thru X.  no commandments...no religious text

As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments!

not hardly.  what is really there is this frieze by aeinman who included two central male figures representing 'majesty of law' and 'power of government'  the tablets--like those on the doors--are enscribed only with roman numebrals l-X and represent the bill of rights.

there are two similar wienman friezes on the north and south walls depicting menes, hammurabi, moses, solomon, lycurgus, solon, draco, kung fu-tze, octavian (on the south wall) and  justinian, mohammed, charlemagne, king john, l hugo grotius, sir william blackstone, john marshall and napoleon (on the north wall).

this is the one on the south wall.  moses is third from the left.  the tablets in this case have some hebrew text comprising part of several commandments.   according to the curator of the court building, the intention of weinman's design (and the reason moses is not prominent nor is any of the others):

Weinman's training emphasized a correlation between the sculptural subject and the function of the building and, because of this, [architect Cass] Gilbert relied on him to choose the subjects and figures that best reflected the function of the Supreme Court building. Faithful to classical sources, Weinman designed for the Courtroom friezes a procession of "great lawgivers of history," from many civilizations, to portray the development of secular law.

James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement: "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

i

find where madison said that please  (but dont feel too badly if you cant because he didnt.  madison was a strong proponent of separation of church and state --as you should know cuz youve directed me to links that proved rather than contradicted that.   the patrick henry quote is also bullshit.  dont believe me tho...find it.   

For years in this country, Boy Scouts (and Girl Scouts) and others were able to use public school facilities without problem

and for years in this country, black men and women--no matter if they were ph.ds, world class opera performers or brilliant scientists--werent able to walk on the same sidewalk as the dumbest white man every born.   that didnt make it right and neither does allowing the scouts to use publicly funded facilities as long as they insist on discriminating on the basis of religioous belief.

a perfect example of the hypocrisy of those christians who extoll their own tolerance and claim they are being constrained by law but insist anyone who doesnt agree with their beliefs and/or swear allegiance to their god is unfit to join an otherwise excellent organization.   

I do NOT want the government any more involved in my life than it already is. How is making them leave religion alone inviting them to stick their noses in?

apparently you do because thats what happens when the government becomes involved in religion--or your sexual activities...or your eating habits...or anytihng else that involves our personal lives.  stop parroting what youve been told is 'conservative'  and think about it for a second.   ask yourself on which side of this argument would you expect to find barry goldwater and john mccain?    

Reply #39 By: kingbee - 12/31/2004 4:08:27 AM I do NOT want the government any more involved in my life than it already is. How is making them leave religion alone inviting them to stick their noses in? apparently you do because thats what happens when the government becomes involved in religion--or your sexual activities...or your eating habits...or anytihng else that involves our personal lives. stop parroting what youve been told is 'conservative' and think about it for a second. ask yourself on which side of this argument would you expect to find barry goldwater and john mccain?

You still are NOT seeing 5 little important words. Try again. In other words I DO NOT WANT THEM INVOLVED AT ALL.

Reply #37 By: kingbee - 12/31/2004 3:54:29 AM thought it was the flaky liberals who were mindlessly took everything they heard or read to be the truth and then went about like zombies regurgitating nonsense because they were too lazy or too far out in the zone to check whether it was true. apparently youre not really a conservative....cuz as you can see, that whole page you copied is nonsense. As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view ... it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments! do tell. the sculpture to which you refer is on the back (eastern) side of the building so you wouldnt likely see it walking up the steps to the court. the sculptor who created it (herman mcneil) featured 3 lawgivers (kung fu tse, solon and moses) and explained his work this way:

Now you wanna go back and reread my post ? It *clearly* states where I got this info. And I suppose you check out *every little detail* of something before you post it? Alot of people would call that being anal!

I suppose you check out *every little detail* of something before you post it?

i certainly try to do that. 

Alot of people would call that being anal!

hopefully even more would consider it responsible.  (one doesnt often hear of anal liberals...maybe things arent what they seem?)  

I DO NOT WANT THEM INVOLVED AT ALL

then why on earth would you take the positions youve been taking on this issue?   the ultimate result of mixing religion and government is--and you need do no more than consider virtually every government back to prehistory to see proof of this; the most unique thing about america is we have so far managed to prevent it from happening here--permitting religion to become entangled with government always produces represssion instead of liberation. 

Bush may get judges in place that will over turn such lunacy

youre referring to them 'activist judges' i been hearin so much about.  the ones who make law by 'overturning such lunacy'  as the constitution?    another jackleg conservative exposed?

Reply #43 By: kingbee - 12/31/2004 5:38:25 AM I DO NOT WANT THEM INVOLVED AT ALL then why on earth would you take the positions youve been taking on this issue? the ultimate result of mixing religion and government is--and you need do no more than consider virtually every government back to prehistory to see proof of this; the most unique thing about america is we have so far managed to prevent it from happening here--permitting religion to become entangled with government always produces represssion instead of liberation.

Maybe you should go reread all of what I posted. My position has not changed.

My position has not changed.

i would be the last person to suggest you ever changed your position.  that's my point.  youre defending the very thing you claim to be against.   you cant have it both ways. 

please try to explain how--in your own words and without some long quote from one of your 'unbiased' sources--religious-friendly government and/or government-friendly religion will not ultimately result in more government interference in our individual lives as it has done in every other country but ours (so far) going back to the the day people began forming governments.

And I suppose you check out *every little detail* of something before you post it? Alot of people would call that being anal!

Actually, most people *DO* do that. And considering you got that little piece from an E-MAIL FORWARD, I would say you're just being ridiculous. I've seen that e-mail before, don't try to tell me you didn't get it from there, word for word. How about getting your "facts" from reputable sources next time?

Reply #47 By: MusiKitty - 12/31/2004 6:10:48 PM And I suppose you check out *every little detail* of something before you post it? Alot of people would call that being anal! Actually, most people *DO* do that. And considering you got that little piece from an E-MAIL FORWARD,

Next time *read* the stinking post, will ya? It clearly states where it came from and it was NOT an e-mail forward.

I *borrowed* this from another thread by Evan Trivett

Now just where does it say *anything* about e-mail? And BTW if you checked the link I provided at the end you would KNOW BETTER!
I believe you were the one accusing me of only reading the first line? Go look in a mirror!

Link

Now try again foolish person.

Very amusing, drmiler. As a matter of FACT, I *have* read that post before. Know where the person who posted that got it? An e-mail forward. So TERRIBLY sorry. And what's with the personal attacks? When have I attacked YOU before? I have never attacked you--- only your ARGUMENTS, with the exception of when I accused you of only reading the first line of my post (which, you must admit, was the only one you quoted/referenced to in your argument). Guess all hopes of friendly discussion have gone down the drain, eh?

Reply #49 By: MusiKitty - 1/1/2005 4:57:46 PM Very amusing, drmiler. As a matter of FACT, I *have* read that post before. Know where the person who posted that got it? An e-mail forward. So TERRIBLY sorry. And what's with the personal attacks? When have I attacked YOU before? I have never attacked you--- only your ARGUMENTS, with the exception of when I accused you of only reading the first line of my post (which, you must admit, was the only one you quoted/referenced to in your argument). Guess all hopes of friendly discussion have gone down the drain, eh?

Very amusing yourself. Here's your quote "

And considering you got that little piece from an E-MAIL FORWARD

And like I stated before I got it from a DIFFERENT thread NOT an e-mail like you claim. Someone else may have gottten it from an e-mail, but I DID NOT! And BTW change the word attacks (plural) to attack (singular). The words "foolish person" were in direct response to your

I would say you're just being ridiculous