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

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-19 07:54pm

Durandal wrote:
Falcon wrote: 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.
An elected official represents the people who elected him, firstly, just as the government is the tool of the people. An official in power is still a citizen, they still have freedom of speech, press, AND religion.

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.
If you teach it yes, its 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.
A public official can speak about religion so long as it is in a personal, not official, capacity. Just like they can place personal items in their office.

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.

As long as public officials don't endorse religion in an official mannor it is not prohibited under the Constitution. You can treat all people equally and fairly under the law without disavowing your religion, just like a liberal can treat a conservative equally and fairly without disavowing their political beliefs.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-19 07:57pm

Durandal wrote:
The Dark wrote: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?
Other than it isn't founded in reality? You don't get fined for not praying, and if you are un-elected for not praying thats between you and the people you represent.

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.

I don't think that the people are going to elect reps based solely on their religious zeal and if they do then isn't that their right as the voters?

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-01-19 08:03pm

I don't think that the people are going to elect reps based solely on their religious zeal and if they do then isn't that their right as the voters?

Your not from the south, are you? Religion is one of the biggest factors in elections in many areas of the country (especially the south). This allows representives to misled the voters for their own purposes. In the end, the voters (and the country as whole) gets fucked by someone manipulating religion for personal gain.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-19 08:08pm

Arrow Mk84 wrote:
I don't think that the people are going to elect reps based solely on their religious zeal and if they do then isn't that their right as the voters?
Your not from the south, are you? Religion is one of the biggest factors in elections in many areas of the country (especially the south). This allows representives to misled the voters for their own purposes. In the end, the voters (and the country as whole) gets fucked by someone manipulating religion for personal gain.

Looks like the South voted pretty good last time around

Nevertheless, if the people want to vote based on religion who am I to say they can't? Ultimately this is a nation of, by and for the people after all.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-19 08:08pm

Don't forget, we're

[img]<snip%20image%20of%20God%20ass%20raping%20Uncle%20Sam,%20caption%20saying%20"One%20Nation%20Under%20God">[/img]

On second thought, best not to dis my own country like that. But God can still go fuck himself.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-19 09:20pm

Falcon wrote:An elected official represents the people who elected him, firstly, just as the government is the tool of the people. An official in power is still a citizen, they still have freedom of speech, press, AND religion.

RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION DOES NOT INCLUDE PROCURING GOVERNMENT RESOURCES TO PEDDLE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, DUMBASS.

I'm getting tired of explaining this to you. If an elected official allows his religion to influence how he votes, that is an example of the government respecting a certain religion. If he speaks in public, he represents the government. The government cannot indicate any religious preference. Therefore, neither can he when he is acting in his capacity as an elected official.

If you teach it yes, its a problem.

See above. A teacher posting the Ten Commandments in his classroom is an example of using his position to influece his students. That is an example of the government indicating a religious preference. That is not allowed.

A public official can speak about religion so long as it is in a personal, not official, capacity. Just like they can place personal items in their office.

Don't trip over yourself while backpedaling. Congressmen act in their official capacity when they open each session with a prayer, you fucking idiot.

As long as public officials don't endorse religion in an official mannor it is not prohibited under the Constitution. You can treat all people equally and fairly under the law without disavowing your religion, just like a liberal can treat a conservative equally and fairly without disavowing their political beliefs.

See above. I see I've finally gotten you to admit that endorsing religion in an official capacity is bad; now you're just clinging to some weird definition of "official capacity" that doesn't include speaking to the public, holding classroom sessions, or opening sessions of Congress.

Stupidity of this magnitude makes me wonder how you've managed to avoid accidentally killing yourself up to this point.

You also forgot that some religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) are intolerant at heart, so representatives must disavow those religious beliefs if they plan to treat everyone equally, because those religions include the demonization of anyone not of those religions.

Didn't you follow the whole Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond affair? Thurmond was a religious bigot who allowed his religion to influence his decision-making. As a result, we got votes against civil rights bills because he couldn't set aside his religion. Do I have to keep explaining every little fucking detail to you? Do you want me to start using smaller words and simpler sentences?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-19 09:28pm

Falcon wrote:Other than it isn't founded in reality? You don't get fined for not praying, and if you are un-elected for not praying thats between you and the people you represent.

You completely missed the fucking point. Such a system of recording attendance for prayer sessions and even holding them at all provides a mechanism by which a representative can be discredited and demonized by his peers based solely on religious beliefs. In other words, it introduces extraneous elements into the process.

I don't think that the people are going to elect reps based solely on their religious zeal ...

Are you fucking retarded? Religious fundamentalists won't vote for me if I'm an atheist. Protestants didn't vote for John F. Kennedy because they thought he'd bow to the Pope on everything.

... and if they do then isn't that their right as the voters?

Non-sequiter. Just because it's their right as voters doesn't mean that the government should be recording the religious practices of congressmen.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-19 10:01pm

Durandal wrote:
Falcon wrote:An elected official represents the people who elected him, firstly, just as the government is the tool of the people. An official in power is still a citizen, they still have freedom of speech, press, AND religion.

RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION DOES NOT INCLUDE PROCURING GOVERNMENT RESOURCES TO PEDDLE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, DUMBASS.

I'm getting tired of explaining this to you. If an elected official allows his religion to influence how he votes, that is an example of the government respecting a certain religion. If he speaks in public, he represents the government. The government cannot indicate any religious preference. Therefore, neither can he when he is acting in his capacity as an elected official.
You're close, but you still arn't quite there. An elected official can use religion to guide his vote so long as he isn't voting to pass a bill that regards religion. Religion isn't something you shut off like a switch. If you elect a religious man to office, his decisions are going to be based on his convictions, some of those convictions will be based in his faith. There is nothing wrong about that at all.

If you teach it yes, its a problem.

See above. A teacher posting the Ten Commandments in his classroom is an example of using his position to influece his students. That is an example of the government indicating a religious preference. That is not allowed.
As long as the teacher doesn't teach it to his students its allowed. The government has nothing to do with that picture being there or not, just the teacher does.

A public official can speak about religion so long as it is in a personal, not official, capacity. Just like they can place personal items in their office.

Don't trip over yourself while backpedaling. Congressmen act in their official capacity when they open each session with a prayer, you fucking idiot.
No they don't, the prayer isn't passing a law, official capicity is referring to government policy\law, not the choice conduct of public officials. You clearly have yet to grasp the arguement here.

As long as public officials don't endorse religion in an official mannor it is not prohibited under the Constitution. You can treat all people equally and fairly under the law without disavowing your religion, just like a liberal can treat a conservative equally and fairly without disavowing their political beliefs.

See above. I see I've finally gotten you to admit that endorsing religion in an official capacity is bad; now you're just clinging to some weird definition of "official capacity" that doesn't include speaking to the public, holding classroom sessions, or opening sessions of Congress. Stupidity of this magnitude makes me wonder how you've managed to avoid accidentally killing yourself up to this point.
I've always said that religion in a official capicty is bad, you're crazy if you think otherwise. This is as plain as it gets, you are wrong, fundamentally wrong on all counts, Constitutional, technical, etc... Further debate is pointless since you cannot understand the truth or descern reality from your own little dream world. You are going to be sorely disappointed in life because no sane rational person is going to give you the time of day.

You also forgot that some religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) are intolerant at heart, so representatives must disavow those religious beliefs if they plan to treat everyone equally, because those religions include the demonization of anyone not of those religions.
Christianity isn't 'intolerent' of people, just other religions. Then it isn't violently intolerent, it just recognizes other religions as false and to be pitied. Once again you display a staggaring ignorence of the real world and the issues that you so loudly and profanely bellow about.

Didn't you follow the whole Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond affair? Thurmond was a religious bigot who allowed his religion to influence his decision-making. As a result, we got votes against civil rights bills because he couldn't set aside his religion. Do I have to keep explaining every little fucking detail to you? Do you want me to start using smaller words and simpler sentences?

Last time I checked many people, including blacks, are Christians and supporters of civil rights. Once again you display an unfathomable inability to comprehend the entire situation, instead focusing in, with the narrow minded focus of a drone, on whatever you think bolsters your position. yes there are Christians who voted against Civil Rights, I recognize this and shake my head at it, but I also realize, unlike you, that many other Christians were on the right side of Civil Rights. Your inability to see the whole picture, to acknowledge the other side of the issue, is what fatally flaws any position you have thus produced. No doubt you will continue to rave and nitpick, no doubt it will be painfully transparent to any but the most close minded intolerent bigots.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-01-19 11:45pm

Darth Wong wrote:Correct. How does this change the fact that people try to use its letter to ignore its spirit?

Considering that we don't have an "unwritten" constitution like the UK, I think I would be hard to define our laws as having a spirit, so to speak.

All of them, in my experience. I have never known a fundie who didn't think society would be better off if the Ten Commandments were made mandatory for everyone. If you can find a fundie who thinks society would not be better off with the Ten Commandments made into law, please convince him to post here.

That's different from actively wanting it to have. I'm sure most Christians do believe that the Ten Commandments in the legal code would make society a better place; however, again, a fair number also believe that the separation of Church and State is biblically mandated (this is based on personal observation of stated opinions thereof, and conversations), and have no desire to emplace the Ten Commandments into the legal code.

In short, you are defending the use of a legalistic loophole to get around the obvious intent of the framers (although, as Patrick Degan pointed out, this loophole was technically closed by a subsequent amendment anyway).

The XIVth applied the Bill of Rights to the States, yes. But it still applies only the actual protections guaranteed therein as interpeted by the Supreme Court -- Not simply an opinion of one of the Founding Fathers.

What I do concede, and already had conceded, was that the Supreme Court and lesser circuit courts basically already have adopted Thomas Jefferson's opinion, if not in such stringent terms.

Black/white fallacy. Are you suggesting that it is impossible to promote one religion over others in any way without making its edicts into law?

Of course not, but that would of course be the only way to do it that would be relevant in terms of the law.

What I'm essentially saying is that the question of things like the Ten Commandments in schools, large blocks of granite with the Ten Commandments on in them in front of Court Houses, and things like the Pledge of Allegiance -- These are grey areas in regard to the First Amendment, and thus up to the courts to decide.

The First Amendment only explicitly bans Congress from making laws in regard to religious freedom, or religious establishments -- and courtesy of the XIVth Amendment that is extended to the State legislatures as well.

Further definition, though, would remain the province of the judicial branch, and is not explicitly forbidden, though according to at least one of the Framers that may have been his intent, which would no doubt affect court rulings.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-01-19 11:46pm

Sorry about the delay; had some posting trouble earlier on.

Incidently: Falcon, the only place a reference to God is made in the Constitution is when it says "The Year of our Lord" in the date. Don't you think that tells you something about the religious measure of the Framers, and their intent for the constitution, more than public statements outside of its wording?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-01-19 11:57pm

For the topic: LIVE FREE OR DIE!

Thurmond was a religious bigot who allowed his religion to influence his decision-making

Out of curiosity, which Christian doctrine supports segregation?

There is a extremely religious English teacher in my school. He keeps pictures of Jesus on his desk. Should he be allowed to do this? I personally say yes, but it seems a lot of you would say no.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-19 11:58pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Sorry about the delay; had some posting trouble earlier on.

Incidently: Falcon, the only place a reference to God is made in the Constitution is when it says "The Year of our Lord" in the date. Don't you think that tells you something about the religious measure of the Framers, and their intent for the constitution, more than public statements outside of its wording?

It tells me that that was how the date was written back then. If the Constitution was written today, it would be "2003 CE".

And don't worry, Falcon, I haven't forgotten about you. I can only take so much stupidity in the span of a few hours, so expect my reply sometime tomorrow or late tonight.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-20 12:01am

HemlockGrey wrote:For the topic: LIVE FREE OR DIE!

Thurmond was a religious bigot who allowed his religion to influence his decision-making
Out of curiosity, which Christian doctrine supports segregation?

Look up stuff about the sons of Ham, a part of the Bible which stated that people of darker skin (the sons of Ham) were made to be servants to lighter-skinned races.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-01-20 12:02am

Look up stuff about the sons of Ham, a part of the Bible which stated that people of darker skin (the sons of Ham) were made to be servants to lighter-skinned races.

Um, where is this? My Bible does not contain an index.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-01-20 12:07am

Genesis 9:24-25
When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers."

The progeny of Ham, the youngest son, would inhabit Africa. Some people debate whether or not this really condemns all Africans to servitude or that interpretation is just a false reading, although I am not a Biblical scholar and would not dare comment.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-01-20 12:19am

The progeny of Ham, the youngest son, would inhabit Africa. Some people debate whether or not this really condemns all Africans to servitude or that interpretation is just a false reading, although I am not a Biblical scholar and would not dare comment.

Erm, wouldn't that be just condeming Ham, and not all his desendants?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-20 12:39am

You can read it either way, but it should be noted that this "Hamitic races" bullshit was used to justify all manner of racist activities in the past (and still is, by some people).

As I've said before, all religions which are based on "Scriptures" carry the inherent risk that they can be interpreted to suit even the most vile intentions.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-01-20 12:41am

Darth Wong wrote:You can read it either way, but it should be noted that this "Hamitic races" bullshit was used to justify all manner of racist activities in the past (and still is, by some people).

As I've said before, all religions which are based on "Scriptures" carry the inherent risk that they can be interpreted to suit even the most vile intentions.

"The devil can cite scripture to his purpose..."

So true.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-01-20 12:42am

As I've said before, all religions which are based on "Scriptures" carry the inherent risk that they can be interpreted to suit even the most vile intentions.

Sad and very true.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-20 01:07am

Durandal wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Sorry about the delay; had some posting trouble earlier on.

Incidently: Falcon, the only place a reference to God is made in the Constitution is when it says "The Year of our Lord" in the date. Don't you think that tells you something about the religious measure of the Framers, and their intent for the constitution, more than public statements outside of its wording?

It tells me that that was how the date was written back then. If the Constitution was written today, it would be "2003 CE".

If written by scholars. Unfortunately, some LibArts major would probably grab it, not understand the meaning of CE, and slap AD on it.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-01-20 01:10am

If written by scholars. Unfortunately, some LibArts major would probably grab it, not understand the meaning of CE, and slap AD on it.

There's nothing wrong with the liberal arts!

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-20 01:12am

HemlockGrey wrote:
If written by scholars. Unfortunately, some LibArts major would probably grab it, not understand the meaning of CE, and slap AD on it.
There's nothing wrong with the liberal arts!

Didn't mean to insult, but the joke among my friends is people who major in Liberal Arts (not majors within liberal arts, but the actual degree) are those who are really undeclared but need to show a diploma for their money.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-01-20 01:13am

Darth Wong wrote:You can read it either way, but it should be noted that this "Hamitic races" bullshit was used to justify all manner of racist activities in the past (and still is, by some people).

As I've said before, all religions which are based on "Scriptures" carry the inherent risk that they can be interpreted to suit even the most vile intentions.

I can post a link to a website by a guy who has a theology degree from Bob Jones University who used the bible to prove that homosexuality is not a sin. After I read that it became pretty obvious that the Bible is a totally random compilation of quotations which can be used for anything.

I suspect that the Church Councils that codified the Canon in part did that intentionally, as it created a document which hence would need to be interpeted by the reigning Pope, or else chaos would ensue. Considering there are over a thousand Christian denominations these days, that's precisely what has happened after the Reformation.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-20 01:13am

The Dark wrote:Didn't mean to insult, but the joke among my friends is people who major in Liberal Arts (not majors within liberal arts, but the actual degree) are those who are really undeclared but need to show a diploma for their money.

You probably don't want to hear the jokes my friends would make about people majoring in liberal arts

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-01-20 01:14am

HemlockGrey wrote:
If written by scholars. Unfortunately, some LibArts major would probably grab it, not understand the meaning of CE, and slap AD on it.
There's nothing wrong with the liberal arts!

Nothing inherently wrong with them. But I think it's fair to say that a Liberal Arts student at any given University is more likely to be a fucktard than say a business or engineering major.