10 Commandments Ruling, Where do You Stand?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-08-26 08:45pm

A new survey of what Alabamans think.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-08-26 09:17pm

"Let them have their statue. It's Alabama. No one there can read it, anyway."
Arthur Serra
Order Filler

I do believe that sums the situation up nicely.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-08-26 09:32pm

"At the rate the liberals are going, it won't be long before our country has an official policy mandating the separation of church and state."
Stanley Welty
Systems Analyst

I like this one. Damn liberals!

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-08-27 12:19am

"I know they have to take down the big granite monument at the Judicial Building, but what about the small tin sign tacked up in the Negro Courtshack?"

ROFL, it's crap like that that makes black activists go off, and most of America laugh its collective ass off. Go Us!

Post 1400!

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-08-27 12:44am

"People can be so stupid about religion. I always have to explain my 'I'm A Fundament-tail-ist!' T-shirt to people. It means I like ass-fucking, all right?"

How can you not like this one.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-08-27 12:58am

Sometimes the Onion tells so much more than real newspapers....

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2003-08-27 09:17am

Good that they removed that damn thing. Do you know, that half of the stuff in the ten commandents is totally useless....

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-08-27 09:29am

<-- can't open The Onion for some reason. [sniff]

~ver

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-27 09:44am

May I just add that the coverage of this by Fox (who were until a few minutes ago had cameras fixed on the monument as workers milled about it, wondering how to move the monstrosity) has been especially appalling. Not only were soft cock questions thrown underhanded to the fundies outside the courthouse, but when questioning some Democrat congressman on his views, continuously took up the cause of the fundies. Fair and balanced. Made me sick ...

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-08-27 11:21am

I agree with the Wall Street Journal that even those who would have supported the Ten Commandments should be appalled by the Judge Moore's actions in this case. The US District Court did the right thing by suspending Judge Moore.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-08-27 11:43am

It was just moved. Some lunatic is out there screaming "Put it back", but that's about it as far as I know.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-08-27 11:53am

Agree/disagree at the same time. It shouldn't have been there or it should have included more 'faiths'or what ever. That being said, they attacked the wrong target imo. They attacked the symbol when they should have attacked the personell.

If Judge Moore, or any other judge, is using his/her belief system as a basis for judicial reasoning, they should be removed from the bench. Instead, we had a big hoopla about a monument based on 8 reliegious tendents and 2 semi quasi legal tendents. Granted, Moore was suspended but in the grand scheme of things I'd perfer that the monument stayed and the fundie judges go.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-08-27 11:55am

Lagmonster wrote:It was just moved. Some lunatic is out there screaming "Put it back", but that's about it as far as I know.

That guy is funny. He's also screaming, "Get your hands off of my God!"

Can anyone see the inconsistancy in that, even by their own rules? Doesn't the fucking monument have "Don't worship false idols" written on it? Hahahahahah, you gotta love these guys, if for nothing else, the entertainment factor.

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2003-08-27 05:10pm

I was just watching CNN Crossfire with ACLU's president as one of those who opposed the Ten Commandments position in the court house. A very interesting debate which really showed the fine line that both parties walked in their reasoning.

On the one hand, yes indeed. The ten commandments while being a fine set of laws that most of our judicial systems is based off does have significant ties to a particular religion, Christianity in this part (if we shaved off the first two commandments would people still really have a problem then?). Those that supported the monuments position were asking why were they particularly targeting the monument in Alabama as opposed to any other word of God or statues of Moses here in the United States in use by the government.

The ACLU president responded it was all about context of the wording that neither really were "religion-specific" and could not really be enforcable by the laws. I just thought that was a really weak argument in most regards.

But as for my personal opinion, this is the United States and all religious beliefs should be tolerated. That unfortunately brings up the conundrum as to how all religions could be equally tolerated so the logically one would be to either pick one or exclude them all from the law. Since the latter would result in mass-rioting, the former is the only one left.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-08-27 05:29pm

Bah. All religions should be equally excluded from the law and left entirely to the public.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-08-27 06:16pm

Trytostaydead wrote: The ten commandments while being a fine set of laws that most of our judicial systems is based off.

Bullshit, I count two of the ten that are actual laws in this country. And they were laws in other countries long before the 10 Commandments were nothing more than one of Moses' wet dreams.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-08-27 06:26pm

Trytostaydead wrote:IOn the one hand, yes indeed. The ten commandments while being a fine set of laws that most of our judicial systems is based off does have significant ties to a particular religion, Christianity in this part (if we shaved off the first two commandments would people still really have a problem then?).

What is there so fine about the ten commandments?

1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself a graven image. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not kill.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 are very christian specific and have no place what so ever in secular law. Number 5 is redundant as a law (are we supposed to illegalize disrespecting your parents?). Number 7 is an attempt to legislate morality and number 10 attempts to legislate thoughts. 9 has it's place if "false witness" is considered to be perjury, but other wise illegalizing lying is just silly. What we are left with is numbers 6 and 8 and since those are blatantly obvious and pretty much universal in all moral codes and legal systems around the world, I see no reason to congratulate the authors of the bible for including them in their laws.

And since you so boldly assert that most of your (U.S.) judicial system is based on the ten commandments could you tell me is having gods other then YHVH, creating graven images, using the name of god in vain, not keeping the sabbath holy, adultery or "coveting" really illegal in the U.S.? Hmm, it would appear that while most of the your judicial system is based on the ten commandments, most of the ten commandments are not included in your law. Perhaps you could also tell me where such concepts as freedom of speech, human rights, religious freedom and democracy, you know the stuff that supposedly makes America a great nation, is mentioned in the ten commandments or the bible for that matter?

Oh, and I would have a problem with the ten commandments even if you shaved off the first two ones.

Trytostaydead wrote:But as for my personal opinion, this is the United States and all religious beliefs should be tolerated. That unfortunately brings up the conundrum as to how all religions could be equally tolerated so the logically one would be to either pick one or exclude them all from the law. Since the latter would result in mass-rioting, the former is the only one left.

Are you saying that the U.S. should pick and favour one religion over others, to the point of including it's beliefs in the law, because excluding religion from the law would cause mass riots? Dare I quess which religion you belief should be selected...

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2003-08-27 06:35pm

Are you saying that the U.S. should pick and favour one religion over others, to the point of including it's beliefs in the law, because excluding religion from the law would cause mass riots? Dare I quess which religion you belief should be selected...

Eeer.. no. Read it again. What I was saying that the only way to resolve an equal representaiton of religion in the laws would be impossible. So if they're going to do it, might as well pick one. If not, it should be kept out completely.

BUT, you do have to admit.. in some ways, both sides of the arguments for this debate were running a fine line and while I'm all for seperation of state and government, neither side was able to convince me of their reasoning. As the for the 10 commandments were of course very christian-centric and the against team really just came off as a "because we can" stance.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-08-27 06:51pm

Trytostaydead wrote:BUT, you do have to admit.. in some ways, both sides of the arguments for this debate were running a fine line and while I'm all for seperation of state and government, neither side was able to convince me of their reasoning.

If they cannot convince you, then you have to go out and get your opinion yourself. There are many ways to look at an issue. Don't simply limit yourself to only two.

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2003-08-27 07:19pm

Wicked Pilot wrote: If they cannot convince you, then you have to go out and get your opinion yourself. There are many ways to look at an issue. Don't simply limit yourself to only two.

Of course. I was just saying though.. the particular "strong" points being argued were not really strong.

It seemed just like a perfect "hotspot" to do another showdown for state versus church.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-08-27 07:53pm

Religion has no place in government, period. Beliefs are something that individuals choose to participate in on their own time, within their chosen communities-- or not at all, if that is the choice made.

It would be silly to try to make a monument or series of monuments that respect all belief systems-- basically you would end up with a vast museum dedicated to every possible philosophy, faith, or social system ever devised by mankind that is still practiced by at least one person. Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, animism from the Amazon to Zimbabwe... forget it.

Judge Moore was using his government position to push a belief system. America got a kick start by people seeking to flee the imposition of a state religion, and I see no need to replace one with another.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-08-27 09:15pm

These kinds of things can almost make one wish there was such a thing as the UPL from Starcraft: go on a world-wide purge to destroy all religion and erase it from history and the memories of the world's people.

Wasn't there even an Arthur C Clarke book where people went off to colonize some planet and left behind all traces of religion cause they were filled with dangerous ideas?

Anyway, good thing it's getting rid off.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-08-27 09:19pm

Shinova wrote:Wasn't there even an Arthur C Clarke book where people went off to colonize some planet and left behind all traces of religion cause they were filled with dangerous ideas?

When humanity reach the level of technology required to colonise other planets,the fundies will follow.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-08-27 09:33pm

Wasn't there even an Arthur C Clarke book where people went off to colonize some planet and left behind all traces of religion cause they were filled with dangerous ideas?

There were a couple like that actually. You're probably thinking of Songs of a Distant Earth where we leave as the sun goes nova prematurely.

Jadeite · Post by **Jadeite** » 2003-08-27 10:27pm

Im all for it. Not that I really care about religion that much either way, but the thing itself looks ugly, and Moore's quotes have pissed me off.