What if the U.S. institutionalized the Ten Commandments?

[AdmiralKanos]

That doesn't mean that the Constitution is an anthiest document to promote religious hate, such as you try to make it out to be.

It is "religious hate" not to let people promote religion in the hallways of a public school?

(sigh) another fundamentalist moron crying "persecution!" if he can't shove his beliefs down the throats of others.

Tell you what: you can go post the Ten Commandments on the high school wall, as long as I'm allowed to post "God is an evil, murderous bastard" in giant letters along with my lists of Biblical immoralities right next to it.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Why, I do believe I hear the smackdown of yet ANOTHER fundie idiot.

I shall have to get used to this in much the same way I'm used to breathing.

[Arrow]

Why, I do believe I hear the smackdown of yet ANOTHER fundie idiot.

WOOHOO!

[RedImperator]

If this was so plain and clear then why did the founders themselves, in their official capacity as delegates on the floor of Congress or Convention, engage in the very 'religious throat shoving' that you claim they were so adamently against? Why did they, as Presidents, engage in these religious throat shoving statements? WHY DOES ALL THE EVIDENCE SCREAM, 'YOUR WRONG'

Has it occured to you at any point, you lint-headed little dipshit, that things that politicians say in public aren't always necessarily what they believe in private? The Founding Fathers were the intellectual elite of the nation--extemely well educated aristocrats. Almost to a man, they were Deists, and probably the only reason they believed in any sort of God at all was because they lived before Darwin and thus couldn't understand how the complex, well-ordered world they saw came into being without outside help.

Their constituents, on the other hand, were Joe Farmer, who was either A) a Scots Presbyterian, B) a Quaker, or C) a Puritan. You're an 18th century Deist politician--what, exactly, do YOU say in a speech to the unwashed masses? Read their fucking private correspondance with each other and tell me again the Founding Fathers were a bunch of Bible-thumping born-agains. To a man, they would have been quite happy to see religion disappear off the face of the Earth--hell, some of them probably EXPECTED it to disappear.

The evidence does not scream "YOU'RE WRONG": at least not to Darth Wong, Vympel, and anyone else who cares to get involved in this intellectual ass raping you're recieving, whether or not you chose to believe it's happening. The evidence does, in fact, scream "ONLY A SELF DELUDED FUNDAMENTALIST TWIT WOULD BELIEVE THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS".

[HemlockGrey]

Mmm. On a completely unrelated note, there is such a thing as taking atheism too far- a while back someone tried to get the school to stop teaching about the history of Christianity, because it was 'indoctrination'. Of course, the school also teaches the history of Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism, but all this person(an antitheist in the truest sense of the word) wanted to do was exclude Christianity.

So, you know, not all atheists are paragons of reason.

[InnerBrat]

So, you know, not all atheists are paragons of reason.

Of course they're not. Surely you've noticed that one or two people who post on this board are fundamental athiests?

[Falcon]

That doesn't mean that the Constitution is an anthiest document to promote religious hate, such as you try to make it out to be.

It is "religious hate" not to let people promote religion in the hallways of a public school?

(sigh) another fundamentalist moron crying "persecution!" if he can't shove his beliefs down the throats of others.

Tell you what: you can go post the Ten Commandments on the high school wall, as long as I'm allowed to post "God is an evil, murderous bastard" in giant letters along with my lists of Biblical immoralities right next to it.

You betcha, post whatever you want, thats what FREEDOM is all about.

[Mordred]

So then you don't have a problem with the President of the United States talking about a Christian God as the One and True God? You don't have a problem with the leaders of Congress having a Christian prayer before each session? You don't have a problem with the elected officials of America talking about how the rights embodied in the Constitution come from the One and True God? The founders did ALL of these things, repeatedly, and the Constitution doesn't forbid it.

Some did this. Others behaved in a somewhat different manner. In reference to the Christian prayer of Congress for instance...

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them, and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does this not involve the principle of a national establishment...? -- James Madison, "Essay on Monopolies"

I also like this one, Thomas Jefferson explaining why he never called for a national day of prayer during his presidency.

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority.
But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from.... I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it's exercises, it's discipline, or it's doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it. I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted.... Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U.S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents. -- Thomas Jefferson, to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808

[Falcon]

If this was so plain and clear then why did the founders themselves, in their official capacity as delegates on the floor of Congress or Convention, engage in the very 'religious throat shoving' that you claim they were so adamently against? Why did they, as Presidents, engage in these religious throat shoving statements? WHY DOES ALL THE EVIDENCE SCREAM, 'YOUR WRONG'

Has it occured to you at any point, you lint-headed little dipshit, that things that politicians say in public aren't always necessarily what they believe in private? The Founding Fathers were the intellectual elite of the nation--extemely well educated aristocrats. Almost to a man, they were Deists, and probably the only reason they believed in any sort of God at all was because they lived before Darwin and thus couldn't understand how the complex, well-ordered world they saw came into being without outside help.

Their constituents, on the other hand, were Joe Farmer, who was either A) a Scots Presbyterian, B) a Quaker, or C) a Puritan. You're an 18th century Deist politician--what, exactly, do YOU say in a speech to the unwashed masses? Read their fucking private correspondance with each other and tell me again the Founding Fathers were a bunch of Bible-thumping born-agains. To a man, they would have been quite happy to see religion disappear off the face of the Earth--hell, some of them probably EXPECTED it to disappear.

The evidence does not scream "YOU'RE WRONG": at least not to Darth Wong, Vympel, and anyone else who cares to get involved in this intellectual ass raping you're recieving, whether or not you chose to believe it's happening. The evidence does, in fact, scream "ONLY A SELF DELUDED FUNDAMENTALIST TWIT WOULD BELIEVE THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS".

Some founders were Christians and I never said that all of them were fundamentalist Christians. You people had your hands in your ears up to your wrists ignoring what I say, then make up whatever trash you want to try and demonize my position by filling it with things I never said.

[Durandal]

Fine, the next time I see a nativity scene at Christmas i front of a courthouse, I'll hold a black mass right next to it, and use the Baby Jesus as the infant sacrifice. Then I'll set up a mannequin of a naked guy fucking the Virgin Mary up the ass.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Fine, the next time I see a nativity scene at Christmas i front of a courthouse, I'll hold a black mass right next to it, and use the Baby Jesus as the infant sacrifice. Then I'll set up a mannequin of a naked guy fucking the Virgin Mary up the ass.

Ow, ow, ow, my innocent little mind!

[Falcon]

Fine, the next time I see a nativity scene at Christmas i front of a courthouse, I'll hold a black mass right next to it, and use the Baby Jesus as the infant sacrifice. Then I'll set up a mannequin of a naked guy fucking the Virgin Mary up the ass.

If you can get in Congress talk about how Satan is great on the floor of the Senate for all I care. If your a teacher post a black rite on your wall behind your desk too.

[HemlockGrey]

Fine, the next time I see a nativity scene at Christmas i front of a courthouse, I'll hold a black mass right next to it, and use the Baby Jesus as the infant sacrifice. Then I'll set up a mannequin of a naked guy fucking the Virgin Mary up the ass.

Those sounds you hear are demons casting lots for the grubby remains of your soul.

[Durandal]

Fine, the next time I see a nativity scene at Christmas i front of a courthouse, I'll hold a black mass right next to it, and use the Baby Jesus as the infant sacrifice. Then I'll set up a mannequin of a naked guy fucking the Virgin Mary up the ass.

Those sounds you hear are demons casting lots for the grubby remains of your soul.

Falcon is basically saying, "Well if the other religions were as popular as Christianity, then they could shove their beliefs down everyone else's throat, too. It's not Christianity's fault it's so popular!"

In other words, he knows that Satanists will never be elected to Congress, so he can smugly sit back and say he has no problems with the idea of a black mass being performed before every session of Congress, because he knows that he'll never have to answer for his claims.

Such is the hallmark of Christian jackasses all around the country. They know they can't support legislation and interpretations of the Constitution which place Christianity above other religions, so they support things that don't explicitly elevate Christianity above everything else, but effectively do just that. It's really a brilliant approach to circumventing the separation of church and state, since most people (like Falcon) are too stupid to see what's wrong with it, and the argument will hold up in court because of moronic, strict legal interpretations.

[HemlockGrey]

Yes, of course. I fully understand that only secular governments really work well.

[Falcon]

Fine, the next time I see a nativity scene at Christmas i front of a courthouse, I'll hold a black mass right next to it, and use the Baby Jesus as the infant sacrifice. Then I'll set up a mannequin of a naked guy fucking the Virgin Mary up the ass.

Those sounds you hear are demons casting lots for the grubby remains of your soul.

Falcon is basically saying, "Well if the other religions were as popular as Christianity, then they could shove their beliefs down everyone else's throat, too. It's not Christianity's fault it's so popular!"


In other words, he knows that Satanists will never be elected to Congress, so he can smugly sit back and say he has no problems with the idea of a black mass being performed before every session of Congress, because he knows that he'll never have to answer for his claims.

No, I'm saying that a teacher hanging the Ten Commandments or the Black Rites in their office is not shoving religion down someone's throat. I'm saying that a Satanist in Congress is not shoving religion down someone's throat. We have a disagreement on what is or is not government propagated religion, not if government should push religion.

Such is the hallmark of Christian jackasses all around the country. They know they can't support legislation and interpretations of the Constitution which place Christianity above other religions, so they support things that don't explicitly elevate Christianity above everything else, but effectively do just that. It's really a brilliant approach to circumventing the separation of church and state, since most people (like Falcon) are too stupid to see what's wrong with it, and the argument will hold up in court because of moronic, strict legal interpretations.

See, this is what really bothers me about people like you. You don't bother to get the arguement right, you just blather on blindly letting irrational hate be your guide. You don't know what the meaning of the word 'tolerance' is, so the meaning of the Constitution is right out. You basically accuse others of what you are guilty of (stupid insensitive jerk trying to shove your beliefs down everyone else's throat)

[Durandal]

No, I'm saying that a teacher hanging the Ten Commandments or the Black Rites in their office is not shoving religion down someone's throat. I'm saying that a Satanist in Congress is not shoving religion down someone's throat. We have a disagreement on what is or is not government propagated religion, not if government should push religion.

Please explain how a government employee using his office to promote religion isn't equivalant to the government pushing religion.

See, this is what really bothers me about people like you. You don't bother to get the arguement right, you just blather on blindly letting irrational hate be your guide. You don't know what the meaning of the word 'tolerance' is, so the meaning of the Constitution is right out. You basically accuse others of what you are guilty of (stupid insensitive jerk trying to shove your beliefs down everyone else's throat)

Need I remind you of your own statements?

If you can get in Congress talk about how Satan is great on the floor of the Senate for all I care. If your a teacher post a black rite on your wall behind your desk too.

In other words, if Satanism suddenly becomes as popular as Christianity, then you think that would give Satanists the freedom to use government office to push their beliefs. As I said before, you know this will never happen, so you can sit back and preach about religious tolerance all you want.

Christianity is the most aggressive, expansionist religion on the planet, therefore any policies which allow people to use government offices and resources to promote their religion automatically favor Christianity. The thing you don't realize is that not every religion wants to shove their beliefs down everyone else's throats, so there is no need to grant them the right to use government resources to do so. The only religion which seeks this kind of power is Christianity (and to a lesser extent, it's sister religions, Islam and Judaism, but they're pretty much the same), so any policies which grant that power will favor Christianity's aggressive expansion beliefs.

[Falcon]

No, I'm saying that a teacher hanging the Ten Commandments or the Black Rites in their office is not shoving religion down someone's throat. I'm saying that a Satanist in Congress is not shoving religion down someone's throat. We have a disagreement on what is or is not government propagated religion, not if government should push religion.

Please explain how a government employee using his office to promote religion isn't equivalant to the government pushing religion.

I don't think that posting the Ten Commandments on your workspace is any different than posting a picture of your family or a rock band. The government didn't tell you to put it there nor did it forbid a certian religion so I don't see the problem. Thats the key, I believe, if it is an officially sanctioned effort or a matter of personal choice.

See, this is what really bothers me about people like you. You don't bother to get the arguement right, you just blather on blindly letting irrational hate be your guide. You don't know what the meaning of the word 'tolerance' is, so the meaning of the Constitution is right out. You basically accuse others of what you are guilty of (stupid insensitive jerk trying to shove your beliefs down everyone else's throat)

Need I remind you of your own statements?

If you can get in Congress talk about how Satan is great on the floor of the Senate for all I care. If your a teacher post a black rite on your wall behind your desk too.

In other words, if Satanism suddenly becomes as popular as Christianity, then you think that would give Satanists the freedom to use government office to push their beliefs. As I said before, you know this will never happen, so you can sit back and preach about religious tolerance all you want.

It isn't a matter of the government pushing a religion though, its a personal choice on the part of the representative. I have no problem with any one (Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Satanist, etc...) making a personal statement, even if they happen to be an elected official. I believe that Jews and Catholics are just as wrong in their faiths as Satanists, yet I don't complain about the Catholics in the Congress who spoke of their faith on the floor. (I even like some of them, as people and representatives, Bob Dorlan for example)

Christianity is the most aggressive, expansionist religion on the planet, therefore any policies which allow people to use government offices and resources to promote their religion automatically favor Christianity. The thing you don't realize is that not every religion wants to shove their beliefs down everyone else's throats, so there is no need to grant them the right to use government resources to do so. The only religion which seeks this kind of power is Christianity (and to a lesser extent, it's sister religions, Islam and Judaism, but they're pretty much the same), so any policies which grant that power will favor Christianity's aggressive expansion beliefs.

As I've said before, becoming an official of the United States Government does not stip you of your rights. Nailing a cross to your wall doesn't = using government to push religion, no matter how much you might think it is. Wearing a tie to work in Congress with 'I love Jesus' on it isn't an infringement of the 1st Amendment. As to the rest of it...

You may feel that way about it, thats your right. If you want to change the laws to reflect such a xenophobic view, thats also your right to try. I for one believe that the Constitution is on my side (for good or ill) and I am just as entitled to my opinion as you are.

[Arrow]

As I've said before, becoming an official of the United States Government does not stip you of your rights. Nailing a cross to your wall doesn't = using government to push religion, no matter how much you might think it is. Wearing a tie to work in Congress with 'I love Jesus' on it isn't an infringement of the 1st Amendment. As to the rest of it...

I don't know about the government, but my employer (a government contractor), forbids me from posting any offensive material in my cubical. This includes pornography and religious items.

Basically, an if employee does something that offends someone, such as cussing them out or giving the appearance of telling them what to believe, the company is held responsible. Its all about appearances.

[Durandal]

I don't think that posting the Ten Commandments on your workspace is any different than posting a picture of your family or a rock band. The government didn't tell you to put it there nor did it forbid a certian religion so I don't see the problem. Thats the key, I believe, if it is an officially sanctioned effort or a matter of personal choice.

When you work for a privately-owned company, yes. The government is forbidden from endorsing any religions. Do you honestly think that the government only consists of a bunch of laws on paper? Why do you think police officers (government employees) must respect citizens' rights to speech and privacy? Because they represent the government.

Now, when you work for the FBI as a copy-boy and you want to put the Ten Commandments in your cubicle, I really don't see a problem with it, because it isn't public. When you're a teacher, with influence over children, and you post the Ten Commandments on the chalkboard or begin each class with a prayer, that is a problem.

It isn't a matter of the government pushing a religion though, its a personal choice on the part of the representative. I have no problem with any one (Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Satanist, etc...) making a personal statement, even if they happen to be an elected official. I believe that Jews and Catholics are just as wrong in their faiths as Satanists, yet I don't complain about the Catholics in the Congress who spoke of their faith on the floor. (I even like some of them, as people and representatives, Bob Dorlan for example)

Then you have a severely warped definition of the separation of church and state. Your failure to recognize that government employees speaking to the public is representative of the government doing so doesn't change anything.

As I've said before, becoming an official of the United States Government does not stip you of your rights. Nailing a cross to your wall doesn't = using government to push religion, no matter how much you might think it is. Wearing a tie to work in Congress with 'I love Jesus' on it isn't an infringement of the 1st Amendment. As to the rest of it...

Bad analogy, see above. Public endorsements of religion by government officials is unacceptable, period. The government is made of laws and people. If congressmen can't forget their religious beliefs when they're in public, then they shouldn't be in office because they're obviously incapable of serving all citizens of all religions equally. Get that through your fucking head.

[The Dark]

Congress has had non-Christian prayer before meetings before. Personally, I feel both sides are over-reacting here. The Congress should allow for religious blessings before meetings for those who choose to attend, and not require members to be there. This would settle the minds of those who are religious without insulting those who are not. Records of who attends should necessarily be kept confidential so such things cannot be used against a Senator in a campaign. As to posting religious documents in classrooms, ONLY if they are for a historical reason, and ONLY if multiple religions are being studied. We used the TC ONCE, and that was along with other OT laws, contrasting with Hammurabi's code (how the OT placed more value on human life, while Hammurabi placed more value on property, stuff like that).

[Durandal]

Congress has had non-Christian prayer before meetings before. Personally, I feel both sides are over-reacting here. The Congress should allow for religious blessings before meetings for those who choose to attend, and not require members to be there. This would settle the minds of those who are religious without insulting those who are not.

Except for when one non-religious congressman is singled out as the guy who doesn't attend prayer, thus impacting the election in his state. Or, when his opponent does let it slip that he doesn't attend prayer meetings. You know as well as I do that the punishment for leaking that kind of information would be a slap on the wrist and a fine, at best. The 99% Christian congress won't give a shit if the non-religious guy isn't back for another term.

Can't you see the problem with this scenario yet?

Records of who attends should necessarily be kept confidential so such things cannot be used against a Senator in a campaign.

Don't be so naive. Congressmen seeking to discredit their opponents could easily arrange for those documents to be leaked. It's best for both parties to simply not have the stupid fucking prayer meeting. It serves no purpose. Show me evidence that prayer before a session of Congress has given the dolts in there any more wisdom than what they started with.

As to posting religious documents in classrooms, ONLY if they are for a historical reason, and ONLY if multiple religions are being studied. We used the TC ONCE, and that was along with other OT laws, contrasting with Hammurabi's code (how the OT placed more value on human life, while Hammurabi placed more value on property, stuff like that).

Are you serious? Since when do public schools post historical documents on a regular basis in their hallways? And what history do the Ten Commandments tell us? They're from a bias source with no collaborative evidence. They can give us information on the religious beliefs of a large, delusional segment of the population, but certainly not anything historically useful. The Bible doesn't even come close to meeting the standards that published history books do, therefore it is utterly useless as a historical document. Even if you're studying different religions in a classroom, I really don't see a reason for the things to be posted because other classes will invariably use the same room. You can discuss them, study them, analyze them or whatever, but they should stay off the walls of schools (exemptions made for student-made presentations that a teacher may want to leave up on a wall for show or something).

Care to think of another lame-ass reason why the Ten Commandments should be posted in public schools? This last one was just gold.

[The Dark]

As to posting religious documents in classrooms, ONLY if they are for a historical reason, and ONLY if multiple religions are being studied. We used the TC ONCE, and that was along with other OT laws, contrasting with Hammurabi's code (how the OT placed more value on human life, while Hammurabi placed more value on property, stuff like that).

Are you serious? Since when do public schools post historical documents on a regular basis in their hallways?

Learn to read, Durandal. I didn't say hallways. I said classrooms. They should be placed within the classroom only to be compared with other legal codes of the same time period.

And what history do the Ten Commandments tell us? They're from a bias source with no collaborative evidence. They can give us information on the religious beliefs of a large, delusional segment of the population, but certainly not anything historically useful.

Given that they were instituted in Israel, they provide a portion of the legal code of the Judah/Israel theocracies.

The Bible doesn't even come close to meeting the standards that published history books do, therefore it is utterly useless as a historical document.

For anything other than the legal code, I agree. However, we do have some sources that confirm portions of the history contained within the Bible (certain kings and their activities, the aid of Hiram of Tyre in the construction of the Temple). It's still not to be used as a history book, but for comparison of ancient legal codes it is useable (unless you want to throw out Hammurabi's code because nobody outside Sumeria mentions it and it's biased, being written by people Hammurabi could have executed for no reason ).

Even if you're studying different religions in a classroom, I really don't see a reason for the things to be posted because other classes will invariably use the same room.

Oh, yes. The other four classes that were the same course. I realize most high schools aren't 5000 students, and of course it should be taken down if another class is coming in. I never said it shouldn't. Only those courses directly studying the topic at hand should be presented the materials.

You can discuss them, study them, analyze them or whatever, but they should stay off the walls of schools (exemptions made for student-made presentations that a teacher may want to leave up on a wall for show or something).

Except as used within the class, I certainly agree. The Ten Commandments have no purpose as a permanent part of the classroom environment.

Care to think of another lame-ass reason why the Ten Commandments should be posted in public schools? This last one was just gold.

I'll admit I didn't write it out well and didn't think of all the possible ramifications. I do think my Congress idea was worse, and you're perfectly right in tearing that one apart. I think the OT laws can be studied as part of a look at ancient legal codes, in order to see what ancient cultures considered important for a society to maintain order.

[Durandal]

Learn to read, Durandal. I didn't say hallways. I said classrooms. They should be placed within the classroom only to be compared with other legal codes of the same time period.

Learn to read, The Dark. We're discussing the posting of the Ten Commandments as religious expression, not for the purpose of analysis.

<snip rest>

[The Dark]

Learn to read, Durandal. I didn't say hallways. I said classrooms. They should be placed within the classroom only to be compared with other legal codes of the same time period.

Learn to read, The Dark. We're discussing the posting of the Ten Commandments as religious expression, not for the purpose of analysis.

<snip rest>

Fair enough. It has no purpose being posted as part of religious expression.