[BurlyShirley]

Recently in Alabama, the 10 commandments were removed from a courthouse because of a ruling based on the supposed Seperation of Church and State.
Earlier this year, a monument was erected on federal property in Sacramento California to honor the achievements of Gay, Lesbian and Transgender (i wasnt aware that we hade these) service members who have served in the military.
Now, these two monuments might seem unrelated at first glance, but i beleive they're nothing more than the physical representation of different lifestyles that occur in our population. Now bear in mind there is no monument specifically honoring straight service members either.
So what's up? Is our government not supposed to be upholding the values we as a society hold? Because Im willing to bet that a larger portion of the country believes in god, than participates in cross dressing or homosexual relations. We cant really discount the fact that our legal system is pretty much based on the ten commandments either right?

Is this some kind of joke?
Why does CNN keep showing the raving church lunatic screaming about jesus instead of people who actually have something important to say?
Is it just that a very vocal minority is making things happen, while the majority just sits back and doesnt care? Why does the larger voice always get the back seat? Do we just love the under dog or what?

As ive said a hundred times, Im not a religious person, but i just see all of this as wrong. Why are you better represented if you're gay rather than christian? What the hell does being gay have to do with serving in the military? We wouldnt allow a site honoring christian service members on federal property would we?

Am i making any sense?

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Honestly, I'm kind of hoping that's a rhetorical set of questions - I agree that it would be nice if the sane, stable, upstanding and majority of the US were the ones represented, but unfortunately in our society today it's the unusual, the different, the sex, the seedier side of life that gets represented, and published on big screens or front page just to boost headlines and numbers. It's like...tabloid America or something.

Personally, I'd rather just be satisfied with the knowledge that somewhere out there are some sane folks working in the trenches for things to be better for everyone.

 

[Andyman_1970]

It's not "PC" to be Christian, but it is to be gay, lesbian, or transgendered. That's why (I think) there are not monuments to str8 or Christian members of the military.

If you're a Christian, you labeled "narrow minded" or a "fanatic" by the vocal minority.

 

[Tweek]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
It's not "PC" to be Christian, but it is to be gay, lesbian, or transgendered. That's why (I think) there are not monuments to str8 or Christian members of the military.

If you're a Christian, you labeled "narrow minded" or a "fanatic" by the vocal minority.

Agree. Being religious is so passé in the eyes of most. (Unfortunately) But we're talking about separation of church and state. Putting a monument to the 10 Commandments sends a message that the courts are possibly biased toward Judeo-Christian people. I still see a non-sequitur about this vs. the gay topic, although I do think the idea of a monument ot g/l/trans servicepeople/things is a bit nutty and unnecessary.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Now, these two monuments might seem unrelated at first glance, but i beleive they're nothing more than the physical representation of different lifestyles that occur in our population.

They are unrelated:

One is demanding a certain way of life, the other is simply recognizing one.

If the 10 commandments monument was simply a recognition of the many legitimate religions and belief systems that make up our society and generate our moral standards, it would be allowed to remain (I hope).

If the GBL monument was somehow demanding a lifestyle of homosexuality onto service members, it would also be removed.

That being said, I think both monuments are a bit absurd.

 

[ummbikes]

I think there are pressing things that religious leaders should be attending to.

I don't really care about the ten commandments being removed, but the fact modern evangelical churches are booming and building massive "Worship Centers" while people are sleeping in the streets of the same community bothers me.

The fact people claim to be speaking for God while preaching a hate filled rant against gays bothers me.

All the petty in-fighting and posturing for the media on issues like a stupid hunk of marble clouds the real issues the church should be focused on.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by Tweek
Agree. Being religious is so passé in the eyes of most. (Unfortunately) But we're talking about separation of church and state. Putting a monument to the 10 Commandments sends a message that the courts are possibly biased toward Judeo-Christian people. I still see a non-sequitur about this vs. the gay topic, although I do think the idea of a monument ot g/l/trans servicepeople/things is a bit nutty and unnecessary.

I don't agree with your first point, Tweek. Being as visibly religious as possible seems to be the in thing these days. It seems to be a side-effect of the evangelical movement. Religious groups aren't protesting that they are losing freedoms, but they are more concerned with losing power (which they shouldn't even have in the first place, but that's another discussion.)

I fully agree with you on the nutty g/l/trans monument. Seriously, how long is is going to be before the army gives out service ribbons for sucessfully wiping your ass, and we're putting up monuments that seem to honor everybody sometimes. I wonder when I'm getting mine

 

[Tweek]

Originally posted by Silver
I don't agree with your first point, Tweek. Being as visibly religious as possible seems to be the in thing these days. It seems to be a side-effect of the evangelical movement. Religious groups aren't protesting that they are losing freedoms, but they are more concerned with losing power (which they shouldn't even have in the first place, but that's another discussion.)

I guess it depends on where in the country you live.

 

[Babar]

Originally posted by ummbikes
I think there are pressing things that religious leaders should be attending to.

I don't really care about the ten commandments being removed, but the fact modern evangelical churches are booming and building massive "Worship Centers" while people are sleeping in the streets of the same community bothers me.

The fact people claim to be speaking for God while preaching a hate filled rant against gays bothers me.

All the petty in-fighting and posturing for the media on issues like a stupid hunk of marble clouds the real issues the church should be focused on.

Im with ummm on this.

 

[LoboDelFuego]

i agree to what ohio said. I also think this goes on the "who gives a sh1t?" list. I certainly dont like religion anywhere near the government but neither do i think that statues should have sexual preferences. Our government is going to waste boatloads of resources putting up these stupid statues and tearing down plaques that shouldnt have been there in the first place, and sadly, there is nothing you can do about it.

It always seemed to me that "decorations" should be somewhere near the bottom of the priority list. Also, all putting up statues just makes some people angry (hawaiian marines) while the lack of statue never bothered anyone.

 

[BurlyShirley]

But you all, its just the message that it sends.

In essence, our government is saying:

Gay=good
Religious=bad

We can have a statue devoted to gays, but not one devoted to christians. Its just wrong.

If i were to go and file suit saying Im offended by the gay statue, Id be labeled as a lunatic, zealot and god knows what else, but its fine for people to do the opposite. Its just a sad state of affairs.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
But you all, its just the message that it sends.

In essence, our government is saying:

Gay=good
Religious=bad

We can have a statue devoted to gays, but not one devoted to christians. Its just wrong.

Burly - I agree with your point, though I think I disagree with where it's coming from. In essence, I think our "government" is doing what it does best, and that is finding an argument it agrees with and taking it too far. i.e. The effort is on the "trying" to say they're/we're in support of diversity in whatever form it may come, and that freedom is an inherent right of the individuals that are here - and to emphasize they're point they are overly welcoming the newest minority group on the block, rather than simply accepting and moving on....and to emphasize they're point they're appearing to "out" older institutions that have come to represent an almost oppressive stagnancy to the public. Mostly it's pandering to the public whims and what sells in the papers. I firmly believe that the heart of our country is regular folks like you and me who simply want all to be equal in the truest sense of the word.

It's not a matter of one is better than the other, but both should be entirely equal and none held to a higher standard than another, and none lifted up and praised more than another. Individuals should be free to live the lives they choose, meaning you or I have no right to impose our judgements upon others nor do they have a right to impose their lifestyles on another's way of life or decisions they would like to make.

Unfortunately, in an effort to pander to the whims of society, we keep leaning too far one direction or another, and it's never an equal balance. Personally, I attribute the constant shift and change to the pressures caused by a society moving at a heightened pace far above that which it was naturally meant to be. Rather than thinking rationally and acting slowly and equalizing everyone, we over REact to changes and shifts in popular behavior.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
But you all, its just the message that it sends.

In essence, our government is saying:

Gay=good
Religious=bad

We can have a statue devoted to gays, but not one devoted to christians. Its just wrong.

If i were to go and file suit saying Im offended by the gay statue, Id be labeled as a lunatic, zealot and god knows what else, but its fine for people to do the opposite. Its just a sad state of affairs.

Go back and read ohio's post a couple of times, and you'll see where you are wrong.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by ohio
They are unrelated:

One is demanding a certain way of life, the other is simply recognizing one.

If the 10 commandments monument was simply a recognition of the many legitimate religions and belief systems that make up our society and generate our moral standards, it would be allowed to remain (I hope).

If the GBL monument was somehow demanding a lifestyle of homosexuality onto service members, it would also be removed.

That being said, I think both monuments are a bit absurd.

How is the 10 commandments demanding a certain way of life? When God gave Moses these commands they only applied to the Israelites, not anyone else. So really today they only apply (if you want to use that word) to either Jews or Christians. As such they only demand a way of life from those that God has a covenant with.

Now they do have some historical relevance in that some of our laws are drawn from them, which is why some people put them up in a courtroom for instance.

If people would stop and examine the historical and cultural context in which the commandments were written, I don't think people would get as wound up as they are. Then again, it seems like anything to do with the Bible or God someone will get thier nose bent out of shape.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver
Go back and read ohio's post a couple of times, and you'll see where you are wrong.

Ok Go back and read my last post 7 times, and you will see that obviously Ohio's post didnt really cover it for me, fella.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
How is the 10 commandments demanding a certain way of life?

Well, they are commandments.

But still, i think those commandments represent the feelings of a Huuuuuuuuge portion of the population here. Its the work of a few narrow minded humanists trying to have everything their own way...which is a religion in and of itself.
Those ten commandments represent a lifestyle, just like the Gay monument does.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Let me clarify: How is the 10 commandments demanding a certain "way of life" from everyone?

 

[SuzyCreamcheese]

If the 10 Commandments statue was a valid idol to be placed in the rotunda of the State Court, why did Chief Justice Moore do it at his own expense in the middle of the night?

The issue is not one of lifestyle, but of the imposition of one religious belief system into state affairs. The Supreme Court has upheld these types of decisions for 40 years now as valid separation of church and state issues.

The Cheese

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by SuzyCreamcheese

The issue is not one of lifestyle, but of the imposition of one religious belief system into state affairs. The Supreme Court has upheld these types of decisions for 40 years now as valid separation of church and state issues.

The Cheese

Im sorry, but I disagree.

No one is imposing on anyone to follow the 10 commandments. It was a simple monument to the respect of the religion most of the country during its formation beleived in. Take a look at moses and the 10 commandments at the supreme court. To say that religion and government were not interelated is just ignorant. Rewriting history will make our kids ignorant. People werent getting prosecuted there for coveting their neighbors wife. All these judges were backed into a corner, and i can see why they had to make the decision they did, but its just sad that it came to that point. Its sad that a few loud mouths are undermining the very foundation of what most Americans want America to be. That's my issue.
You think if the government held a vote and said "OK, what would you rather have, the 10 commandments, or the Gay monument"
What do you think would win? And whats the situation now?

 

[SuzyCreamcheese]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Im sorry, but I disagree.

No one is imposing on anyone to follow the 10 commandments. It was a simple monument to the respect of the religion most of the country during its formation beleived in.

Which has no place in the rotunda of the state supreme court.

Also, at no point did I say that the gay monument was right. That whole situation is just laughable. Two wrongs don't make a right. But 3 lefts do!!!

The Cheese

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Ok Go back and read my last post 7 times, and you will see that obviously Ohio's post didnt really cover it for me, fella.

Let me expand a bit then. The monument to G/L/Bi/TG was on federal property (where I'd like to know, was it in the foyer of a courthouse?), but it basically says, way to go guys, this is honoring the memory of some people who served for us even though the military didn't want their kind.

The 10 commandments monument?
What's the first commandment again? Thou shalt have no other gods before me? Believe or go to hell? That doesn't belong in a court of law.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by SuzyCreamcheese
If the 10 Commandments statue was a valid idol to be placed in the rotunda of the State Court, why did Chief Justice Moore do it at his own expense in the middle of the night?

The issue is not one of lifestyle, but of the imposition of one religious belief system into state affairs. The Supreme Court has upheld these types of decisions for 40 years now as valid separation of church and state issues.

The Cheese

I don't think anyone indicated that the monument was an idol or that people were worshipping it.

If these commandments are what are laws are based on, then whats the problem? If you're not a Jew or a Christian then those commandments (from a religous point of view) don't apply.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging where are laws came from, which is what the monument did. It didn't say (from what I know), "hey you need to believe in the Judeo/Christian God, or else", or "If you don't turn to Jesus now, your going to hell." So it wasn't "pushing" Christianity or Judism on anyone.

It was an acknowledgement of something, just like the gay monument.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by Silver

The 10 commandments monument?
What's the first commandment again? Thou shalt have no other gods before me? Believe or go to hell? That doesn't belong in a court of law.

That was orginally written for the Jews, so what's the problem? If you're not part of that covenant relationship then it does not apply to you. Again, what's the problem?

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
That was orginally written for the Jews, so what's the problem? If you're not part of that covenant relationship then it does not apply to you. Again, what's the problem?

The problem is the judge put them there. You really think an atheist would get a fair shake in his courtroom? Or a homosexual? Or a muslim?

They're all reprobates in his eyes, remember?

 

[SuzyCreamcheese]

The problem is that it is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. It is the establishment of religion in the state court, regardless of where the laws came from.

If you wish to pursue the historical basis of our laws, many of those same laws came from Hamurabi, in what is now Iraq. Do we see any monuments to this? No, even though these are also part of the basis for Judeo-Christian law.

And if the 10 Commandments only apply to Jews and Christians, and these are the basis of our laws, then those of other faiths should not be held to this same standard. In other words our laws don't apply to them. Correct?

The Cheese

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by Silver
The problem is the judge put them there. You really think an atheist would get a fair shake in his courtroom? Or a homosexual? Or a muslim?

They're all reprobates in his eyes, remember?

If (a big "if") he is a real live, Bible believing Christian, he is commanded to abide by the laws of the land. Unless there are laws regarding being a muslim or a homosexual or whatever, he should judge them impartially, regardless of his faith.

Christians are commanded to abide by the authorites here on earth. There is this false "kneed jerk" notion among some people, that just because someone is a Christian and say a judge, he will automatically not give those who do not follow the Bible a fair shake. That's wrong and that's not Biblical.

Now that said, there are ALOT (and it makes me very sad) people who claim to be a Christian and use that as an excuse to discriminate against gay's or muslims or whoever.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

It's not that he's a Christian and a Judge that would make one wonder if he would give others a fair shake if their lifestyle did not meet his "religious" approval, it's the fact that he went out of his way to demonstrate his faith.

It's fine to go home and have religious idols everywhere, or to have some kind of representation of what you truly believe, but in a court of law, when in a position to uphold the laws of the land - in a land where there is an explicit separation of Church and State, there is no place for personal, religious influence upon the law.

I consider myself to be a good upstanding citizen who follows the laws of the land, and I may not go to church every sunday but I am a Christian of sorts - but I would not want to be judged in a courtroom with such a monument demonstrating that particular courtroom places the 10 commandments, at the very least, alongside the laws of the land.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970

Christians are commanded to abide by the authorites here on earth. There is this false "kneed jerk" notion among some people, that just because someone is a Christian and say a judge, he will automatically not give those who do not follow the Bible a fair shake. That's wrong and that's not Biblical.

This is no knee jerk notion. Not only did he campaign on his notoriety of being the "10 commandments judge", but he's also shown that he will ignore federal court orders. Based on his behavior and rhetoric, I feel about as comfortable with Moore being a judge as I do with an Imam who'd like to see us living under Sharia.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by Silver
This is no knee jerk notion. Not only did he campaign on his notoriety of being the "10 commandments judge", but he's also shown that he will ignore federal court orders. Based on his behavior and rhetoric, I feel about as comfortable with Moore being a judge as I do with an Imam who'd like to see us living under Sharia.

Well then in public he has stated in effect that he will not follow the Bible. Intersting, he runs on being a "10 commanments" judge, but contradicts the Word of God.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
But you all, its just the message that it sends.

In essence, our government is saying:

Gay=good
Religious=bad

We can have a statue devoted to gays, but not one devoted to christians. Its just wrong.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with a statue honoring christian soldiers (though a courthouse would be a strange place for such a monument). In fact, I would expect that if you looked at most existing monuments they make clear reference to christian or at least judeo-christian god.


Again, the two are different issues, and should be dealt with seperately.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970

If these commandments are what are laws are based on, then whats the problem? If you're not a Jew or a Christian then those commandments (from a religous point of view) don't apply.

No one is denying that Judeo-Christian beliefs are strongly responsible for our current moral codes. And no one is saying that this judge shouldn't act according to his Christian beliefs. Also, the Christian majority excercised their influence when they elected Moore. I think Burly will agree with me, that this is exactly how things should be.

However, our laws were written as living documents, and seperation of church and state exists at least partially to allow our laws to grow and change along with society and the morality of the current majority. By associating a specific religion with the courtroom, that process is impeded. As stated above, the majority will always be able to set the courts moral standards through our election process, but they should never be allowed to INSTITUTIONALIZE a specific belief system.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
No one is denying that Judeo-Christian beliefs are strongly responsible for our current moral codes. And no one is saying that this judge shouldn't act according to his Christian beliefs. Also, the Christian majority excercised their influence when they elected Moore. I think Burly will agree with me, that this is exactly how things should be.

However, our laws were written as living documents, and seperation of church and state exists at least partially to allow our laws to grow and change along with society and the morality of the current majority. By associating a specific religion with the courtroom, that process is impeded. As stated above, the majority will always be able to set the courts moral standards through our election process, but they should never be allowed to INSTITUTIONALIZE a specific belief system.

Moore seems like a douch-bag to me, and i think he's wrong in his job for going against the ruling.......BUT. There is a point when a person must sacrifice his job title or career for what he truly feels is right. If he's truly doing it all because he honestly feels so strongly, than i admire him, but, if he's just doing it to look like some kind of martyr, which is what i suspect, then whatever. he can die or something. But this is straying from my original post.
Both statues are equally worthless to me, i guess. My tax dollars could be much better spent, but if we're going to be keeping some, and throwing others out....I think its just getting all bassackward.........y'know?
If an alien were to visit the US right now, not knowing anything of culture.....he'd probably be convinced that christians are evil.

 

[shocktower]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
But you all, its just the message that it sends.

In essence, our government is saying:

Gay=good
Religious=bad

We can have a statue devoted to gays, but not one devoted to christians. Its just wrong.

If i were to go and file suit saying Im offended by the gay statue, Id be labeled as a lunatic, zealot and god knows what else, but its fine for people to do the opposite. Its just a sad state of affairs.

Since every single war ever started was because of some stupid religion ,I feel the churches should pay taxes like everone else and stay the Fvck out my rights to terminate a fetus ,Religion sucks

 

[LoboDelFuego]

Originally posted by shocktower
Since every single war ever started was because of some stupid religion ,I feel the churches should pay taxes like everone else and stay the Fvck out my rights to terminate a fetus ,Religion sucks

Although I agree with shocktower, I think there is a much more important reason to separate church and state. If the government begins to endorse a religion (by placing its commandments within the judicial system) then we are essentially giving that government the power to predictate the supernatural to us. So now the state which controls your political life and to a large extent, your biological life, now also controls your afterlife. Some people may think melding religion and government is good, but those are probably the kind of people that would have fun in calvinist geneva. and we all know how much that sucked.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

If you took a census of statues on government property in the U.S., I suspect you'd find that the percentage that's overtly Christian far overwhelms that of those that comment on human sexuality of any version.

One justification that I can think of for the statue that BurlySurly is so riled up about is as a counterbalance to the persecution that military folks of that persuasion have been subject to. Otherwise, it would be foolish and in bad taste.

J

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by shocktower
Since every single war ever started was because of some stupid religion ,

So the invasion of Iraq wasn't about oil then?

A rather sweeping and inaccurate generalisation