|Alabama and Ten Commandments monument||BikeViking|
Aug 21, 2003 1:08 PM
|I'll try to kep this short, but I have a few opinions/questions about this whole mess.
1. That monument had no place on government property. It being a subtle "statement" to all those evil "non-Christians" who may have to enter the AL Supremen Court building. I would also protest any other "monuments" (stone copies of the Quran/Vedas/Upanishads, etc) that a Muslim or Hindu judge may want to put up. Put that stuff in your office, not at the entrance to the courthouse.
2. Isn't the USA a nation of predominantly Christians and not a Christian nation? That's the way I see it. I am not too worked up about the God on the money and the Pledge, but Judge Moore is pushing his religious agenda...Perhaps a Wiccan judge would be allowed to install such totems to his/her belief?
3. We all know the establishment clause, but if a State CHOOSES, by vote of it's population, to be a "Christian" state and set up their society in a very Christian manner, do the Feds have a right to intervene? It seems to me Judge Moore would have had a better argument using State's right, but I don't think the people of AL approved this thing being put in front of THEIR courthouse.
4. It's so strange being on the opposite side of the political tracks when it comes to religion...I almost feel "dirty"!! Ha Ha
A little bit of a rambling rant, but talk amongst yourselves!!
|re: Alabama and Ten Commandments monument||TJeanloz|
Aug 21, 2003 1:16 PM
|Generally, I agree, however;
I think a monument with religious significance may have a place on Government property, somewhere. Particularly if we are open to different religions erecting monuments of significance to themselves. The Ten Commandments isn't really a bad monument - considering all the Commandments are pretty straight-forward. I think it is not ideal to deny your religious heritage in a fervor to keep church and state seperate. There is a line to be drawn somewhere - but it's not at the point of no tolerence of religion.
|The 10 Commandments are not the law of AL. . .||czardonic|
Aug 21, 2003 1:30 PM
|. . .are they? If not, to imply otherwise, as this particular Judge is very openly trying to do, is an abuse of his office adn evidence of his lack of fitness. I'm not suggesting that a devout Christian can't be a judge. But a devout Christian who can not distinguish his personal convictions from the laws that he is charged with enforcing can and should not.
Maybe they could set up all these relgious monuments in a big glass case labeled "Religious monuments prohibited from our courts", kind of like the display at the airport of potential weapons you can't bring on the plane.
|Here's my question||lotterypick|
Aug 21, 2003 1:51 PM
|Is areligion (not wanting one) a religion.
Any way, I'm not against the ruling. But to think that people, of whatever bent you like, come into any situation a clean slate is ridiculous. every person has a worldview, you can't separate a person from that like they are supposed to be some robot.
here's a quote for you:
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."
John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, Humanist, Jan.-Feb. 1983, p. 26
I guess that answers my question: areligion is a religion.
|The answer is still no.||czardonic|
Aug 21, 2003 2:00 PM
|By defintion. Dunphy is not advocating "areligion". He is advocating a different religion, or a different kind of religion.|
|You're not getting what I'm saying||lotterypick|
Aug 21, 2003 2:19 PM
|Since no one can be sure. Every worldview is a religion unto itself and followed by it's adherents.|
|Yes I am, and I think it is bunk.||czardonic|
Aug 21, 2003 2:38 PM
|Every worldview is not a religion unto itself.
To claim that you'd have to stretch the definition of religion beyond any meaning. Religion implies at the very least a static, codified system of beliefs and generally ties that system to supernatural or spiritual forces.
Don't think that every atheist prattles on about spiritual forces inherent to man and nature etc.
|You are deluded||lotterypick|
Aug 21, 2003 2:58 PM
|Thanks for the atheist definition of religion. What a crack up. You were going good until the general ties to supernatural or spiritual.
I can assure you the humanist quote I gave understood and was intellectually honest about what humanism and atheism is, whereas you are misinformed at best and dishonest at worst.
Atheist don't prattle on about spiritual forces, they prattle on about the power of man to determine his own fate and be his own god. By the way, I don't think you're misinformed, therefore you're ....... we hope only on this issue.
|Whatever <i>you</i> say.||czardonic|
Aug 21, 2003 3:13 PM
|What is your definition of "religion" then? Any belief in anything?
Are all atheists humanists who share the beliefs espoused in the single quote that you've provided? I can assure you that I am not, and while I may believe that man can make the decisions that Christians defer to God on, that does not mean that I think that man is "his own god". (Any more so than I believe that man is a Ford Fiesta because he can get from point A to point B on foot.)
I wonder if your mind has simply been so stunted by your Christian worldview that you can't wrap it around any other worldview without reducing it to an equivalently narrow construct.
|You humanists are funny||lotterypick|
Aug 21, 2003 3:23 PM
|Expose your doctrine and beliefs for what they are and you start whining and crying and talking about my weakness in understanding other worldviews.
Glad you finally admit it, especially since it was clear.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are tons of people like you all around me right now, when I go riding, etc. I get along with them fine, so long as their honest.
|Does this entertain you? (nm)||czardonic|
Aug 21, 2003 3:26 PM
Aug 21, 2003 2:47 PM
|Despite Dunphy's opinion to the contrary. But it is useful for those wanting to insert Christianity into government to assert that areligion is a religion.
One definition of religion is "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe." The areligious principles you mentioned specifically omit such a god.
"Secular humanism" (as this way of thinking is sometimes called) is just as religious as mathematics, physics, and chemistry. It's not.
Let's face it. Your goal is not to have all "religions" to be fairly represented in government (or schools), it's to have your religion there. By defining the absence of your religion as "a religion," you hope to "logically" prove that your religion ought to be there too. Logic and faith are mutually exclusive.
Let's consider the theocracies of the world, to see what you are proposing. Let's see. Iran is a theocracy. Afgahnistan under the Taliban was a theocracy. Any others? What would make a Christian theocracy any different from an Islamic one?
Aug 21, 2003 3:07 PM
|The treatment of evolution as a fact and the only one worthy of being presented in schools lest you face ACLU retribution, is a good example of the "faith" of humanism being pushed as the religion of America.
Humanism is a religion. The quote rightly equated the preacher and the humanist teacher.
Don't try to hide the truth by confusing terms similar to CLintons "What's the definition of sex".
The quote was honest. You humanist try to hide and disguise your religion, which is your worldview (completely your opinion) as rational and logical, when it is not.
What if God, any god, is real and actual refutes something to which secular humanist states as not true or devoid of spiritual influence. Then you would be wrong, correct.
Yet still you ignore the potential of the possible because your worldview doesn't like it and ignores it.
You free thinkers are a joke. Free thinking implies open to ideas if merit is possible, yet you humanist willfully ignore the potential that God or any god is real. Your not free, your religious.
Humanism is not chemistry, physics or math. Those things you can prove and observe. Humanism is a belief. Stop the lies!!!
|i would protest anyone pushing what you call "humanism"||rufus|
Aug 21, 2003 3:51 PM
|in the schools. teaching tolerance, love and compassion i have no problem with. in fact, that's what the churches should be doing, instead of diddling little boys, and then covering up the abuse.
What if God, any god, is real and actual refutes something to which secular humanist states as not true or devoid of spiritual influence. Then you would be wrong, correct.
when i see it i'll let you know. when god shows up and tells me what is right and wrong, then i'll believe it. but i have a feeling he'll want to see a few other people before he gets to me. like jimmy swaggart, pat robertson, oral roberts, and the rest.
|I'll tell you this||lotterypick|
Aug 21, 2003 4:05 PM
|Some Christians really are jerks...really. It's sad.
As for tolerance, they really don't want that, they want acceptance. Look at it that way and that's where the fight begins.
The Bible says there are those types, but you're not to agree with them. In that it's okay or the right thing to do, etc.
Churches do way more good than bad. I'm not catholic, but if you took them out of the world history, I'm sure you'd find less schools, hospitals, rescue mission, red crosses, etc. Get real.
And if you really don't like humanism you're too late. They run the ACLU, Education boards, science boards, etc. ALl the hippies have come of age and the real wackos became...professors and educators.
I doubt that seeing God will help you. The Israelites and Egyptians saw God or His acts and they didn't all believe, let alone remember. I'm sure miracles happen in your life, but you call it coincident...probably because of your loving karma.
|they express a different view and they're "wackos".||rufus|
Aug 21, 2003 4:36 PM
|nice. i see your devotion to the lord has paid off huge dividends.
where is your proof that humanism, as you call it, has taken over? i see a lot of your "opinions", but little evidence to support those opinions.
sorry, maybe i'm just too pessimistic, or too cynical, but i don't take anything on "faith", whether it be the new car i'm buying that's "absolutely perfect" or my president when he says that his tax cuts will spur economic growth. i guess i should be from missouri. show me. so far, i don't see much evidence of good in the christian right and what they show me.
i don't know if i believe in a god. all i know is that i never feel closer to him, or whatever thing it may be than when i'm on my bike. and that's fine with me. don't preach to me, or promise me, or show me the light. just leave me alone, and i'll do the same for you.
|Christian Theocracy of America||PdxMark|
Aug 21, 2003 4:05 PM
|That's your goal. Absence of explicit Christian dogma in American government institutions is an affront to your religious beliefs. You want nothing more than to establish Christianity as the State Religion of these United States.
The quote you cited was one man's opinion - that absence of religion is a religion. You agree with it. I don't. I cited a definition of religion, taken from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, to support my opinion. You call that "confusing terms." From the lack of support for any of your arguments ("Humanism is a religion" -- I sensed that you were petulantly stomping your foot for emphasis), you seem to think that faith, as you apply it to your religion, is a substitute for facts, reasoning and logic in other areas. I think you need to look at just how lost you are in your pursuit of Religious Domination.
You are not proposing an open discussion of all the "possible" Gods in the world, you want your God embedded in the fabric of this country's government and its institutions. We have a Constitution to protect people from your Religious Tyranny. But frustrated by the fundamental law of the land, you find solace in one man's idea of re-defining areligion as a religion. The problem is, that man's idea is nonsense - relative to what the word "religion" normally means.
Returning to math, physics and chemistry... are they religions or areligious? I think you would agree that they are not religions, so they must be areligous. Oh wait, under your thinking, that makes them religions too! You need to attack them because they undermine various tenets of (fundamentalist) Christian faith.
You seem to accept the idea of areligion. You even seem to apply it to math, physics and chemistry ("Those things you can prove and observe.") Then you say secular humanism is also areligious, but only it becomes a religion. Why is non-religion in math different from non-religion in other areas? It's not. It's you that makes the difference. And your dogged pursuit of a Christian theocracy in the United States.
Now go ahead, call me all the names you can think of... Liberal, Humanist, whatever... but let's see if you can explain yourself in any thoughtful, logical way. I'm not holding my breath.
|You're a nut||lotterypick|
Aug 21, 2003 4:12 PM
|I personally think that Christianity and government don't mix. Every example in history has shown that and by the way, I don't think the 10 CM should be in the court house. However...
The loss of a moral code by society is Roman and Greek. What happened to them. Oh ya, they're gone, weakened by their own excesses.
America is heading that way full speed ahead. That doesn't bother you, but it's sad.
Humanism isn't the way. People need, whether through weakness or reality, the hope that there is more to life than themselves.
Where there is hope, there are heroes and grace and mercy and love and selfsacrifice.
Darwin fish cutting people off and giving people the finger, jsut proves my point. They talk like their nice, but really ignore their shortcomings, which is only human.
|How many crusades have Darwinian Humanists prosecuted. . .||czardonic|
Aug 21, 2003 4:20 PM
|. . .againt those who, on pain of torture and death, refused to accept their worldview?
I don't need superstition to entertain hope or find heros. If you do, thats your business (and your problem).
|Safe your breath||jtolleson|
Aug 22, 2003 5:39 AM
|Czar, don't bother. The inflammatory dribble you're getting was first published Twenty Years ago by Tim LaHaye in the "Battle for the Mind." The claim that evil secular humanists were waging war for the souls of the school children, and that "humanism" is a religion, and a label of some insult to be applied to any person who professes NOT to be a religious adherent.
The same book had a checklist in the back of "approved" political views to help you vote, including that true Christian political leaders opposed the nuclear freeze (a hot button issue at the time).
You might as well be arguing with a brick wall.
Aug 22, 2003 8:25 AM
|I've never read whatever Lahaye book you're talking about.
But in any case, even if it were who cares, if it's right?
Even if some crazy looking lady with purple hair and three inch long eye lashes said the truth, isn't it right to stand with her on that point.
I think, right is right and true is true and I'll stand with anyone if they're speaking it.
Aug 22, 2003 9:12 AM
|I didn't think you had. I take you for a much younger, newer convert to the politics of paranoia.
I also see you've got Radical Ron Pruitt last-worditis.
Here. Have the last word. I've had my say.
|Ever heard of the Reformation?||Matno|
Aug 23, 2003 3:55 AM
|How many Christian churches today think the crusades were a good thing? None of them do. Not even the Catholics.
Then again, as a Mormon, I'm coming at this from the standpoint of a Christian faith that believes that Christ's true church was lost shortly after his death and resurrection and wasn't restored until much more recently.
|I may be a nut - But you are dishonest...||PdxMark|
Aug 21, 2003 4:30 PM
|You push your religious agenda, you refuse to (or are unable to) support the position you started this thread with, and then when pressed, you bail out with a generalized "moral code" defense that has no relation to the topic you started. There's nothing worse that a hateful hypocritical religious zealot.|
|They talk like their nice, but really ignore their shortcomings||rufus|
Aug 21, 2003 4:59 PM
|sounds like the church. and george bush. bush says he knows he's right and good. but a truly spiritual man knows how arrogant that view is in the eye of the lord. for the lord says that all men come of sin, and the struggle is to do good in spite of that fact.
you want a moral code, then start with your religions and their practicers. how can you be a christian and cheat on your wife, beat your children, deny others comfort and protection. yes, america is heading that way, but it isn't solely due to those who don't follow a religion. how many so-called devout men have cheated on their wives, these same devout men who so arrogantly deign to tell us how we should live our lives? why do catholic priest get to sexually abuse little boys and have the church protect them? why is that same church so reluctant to pay restitution for their suffering; the arch-diocese in boston was ready to declare bankruptcy in order to protect their worldly wealth from lawsuits. what happened to doing what was right? are these men holy and the servants of god, simply troubled by their inner demons, or are they sick, disgusting filth? how can anyone who says they have faith in a god do these things? or is this all part of god's will? god's will-what a copout.
yes, people need something. they don't need the hope that there is something more to life than themselves. they need the knowledge that through hard work and struggle, and commitment and strength, that they can become something more than they were, that they can build something for themselves and their loved ones, that they can offer their children more than they themselves had, that they have the ability to love and be loved in return, and there are so many ways that government, and the church, and big corporations, and many so-called "devout christians" are preventing them from being able to do so, through greed, larceny, abuse, apathy, negligence, and even downright willful neglect.
let he who is without sin cast the first stone. don't be condemning of others unless you know your own soul is squeaky clean, and we all know that in the eyes of the lord, that isn't possible. so work on your own house, be faithful unto yourself, and work to becoime the best person you can be. leave others be. if there truly is a good, they will recieve their judgement, from he who the decision rightly rests with. otherwise, you deign yourself to be god. it is not your task, nor are you capable of doing it.
|You're a troll (nm)||The Walrus|
Aug 21, 2003 7:12 PM
|You're a nut||Jon Billheimer|
Aug 22, 2003 8:25 AM
All you ever do is call people names and then stomp your feet some more. You didn't reasonably address one point in the above refutations of your arguments. So before you continue calling people nuts, why don't you go take a look in the mirror?
|I'm not a Humanist. I'm an atheist.||dr hoo|
Aug 21, 2003 6:57 PM
|Humanists are a bunch of wussies.
God does NOT exist. That is not a belief, it is a claim. That makes me an atheist. Note the small a.
I come to my atheism by way of reason. It is not central to who I am, but rather a derivative of how I live my life.
dr (if atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color) hoo
|Dunphy quote ... hysteria-inducing straw man of the last two dec||jtolleson|
Aug 22, 2003 6:37 AM
|This Dunphy quote has been batted around for twenty years since its apparent publication in 1983. Batted around by whom?
The only places I've heard it is from those railing against godless communism, promoting homeschooling, or seeking the teaching of creation science in public classrooms. It is hardly a clarion call to the left.
If you run a google search, you'll get 331 hits for "Dunphy" (otherwise a largely unknown minor leftist thinker) and "humanism." ALL of them are from pages of conservative evangelical ministries, anti "one world" political groups, and the like. So who's really perpetuating this big bad myth?
I see no body of activists rallying around Dunphy's vision of inter-faith war in the schools. But I do see lots of radical religious right groups citing it for fundraising.
What if a tree fell in the forest and no whackadoos were there to repost the message 10,000 times?
If you want to pick an enemy, pick a real one. Not one that's been created or perpetuated for the purpose of a countervailing agenda.
|re: Alabama and Ten Commandments monument||BikeViking|
Aug 22, 2003 5:41 AM
|I would agree that we, as a society, would have to be open to the other religious monuments, but the fundamentalist backlash of having "non-Christian" religions place "equal time" monuments on public land would be really interesting!
Imagine a statue of Krishna in front of the Cobb County, GA courthouse!!!
|A great irony in this whole debate is...||Brooks|
Aug 21, 2003 4:26 PM
|the Ten Commandments are the Old Testament, the Hebrew/Jewish book of the Torah. Although the Bible comprises both the New and Old Testaments, Christianity is really about the New Testament. Those good ol' boys with the white sheets in 'Bama don't like being associated with the Jews yet half of their Holy Book is the same Holy Book of the Jews.
Just a random thought.
|3 commandments unconstitional, 1 is unAmerican||Continental|
Aug 21, 2003 6:18 PM
|Thou shalt have no tother Gods before me--Clearly unconstitional, see first admendment
Thou shalt not take the name of God in vain--Clearly unconstitional, see first admendment
Thou shalt sanctify the Holy Day--Clearly unconstitional, see first admendment
Thou shalt not covet--Come on, the fabric of American society would unravel without covetness. And who would buy a Lightspeed, Merlin, Bianchi, etc if they did not first covet it?
|re: Alabama and Ten Commandments monument||Duane Gran|
Aug 22, 2003 5:31 AM
|Several points to consider:
- Roy Moore is citing the Alabama state constitution, which states in effect that their legal precedent comes from God. This is of course a tricky topic, but many states have similar acknowledgments to the authority of God in matters of Governance.
- Roy Moore purchased the monument with his own money, not state funds.
- The Ten Commandments is a Jewish edict, not strictly Christian.
- As you look around court rooms, have you ever seen the wisdom of the ages inscripted elsewhere? Would any of us be upset to see quotes from the pillars of Western Civilization, such as Plato or Aristotle? I think not. In the same vein, the Ten Commandments are an embodiment of several (but not all, I realize) fundamental rules that govern civil society. It is just plain common sense stuff that shouldn't offend the sensibilities of people living in Western Civilization.
|Roy Moore is fighting for the commandments||SpecialTater|
Aug 22, 2003 7:23 AM
|because he wants to be Guvnuh of Alabama. He's made it to Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court (an elected position) in one year (from a minor state judge role) based on hanging these 10 commandments. He's as fake of a Christian as you can find.|
|I'll comment on #2||bboc|
Aug 22, 2003 7:29 AM
|Can I put up a monument to Fundamentalist Islamic Law on any court site in the US as long as I pay for it myself?|
|I'll comment on #2||Duane Gran|
Aug 22, 2003 9:30 AM
|Can I put up a monument to Fundamentalist Islamic Law on any court site in the US as long as I pay for it myself?
No, but in many Islamic countries (where Islam is a part of the culture, as Chrisitiany and Judiasm is a part of ours) you may well find reference to Sheria law in public places. The point I was making was simply that people assume that public funds are being used for the monument, which isn't true.
|Other countries are not bound by our Constitution.||czardonic|
Aug 22, 2003 9:39 AM
|So whatever you might find enshrined in their public places is completely irrelevant.
Frankly, I am not convinced that confusion over who is paying for this monument plays a significant part in people's objections to it. This is a cut and dry case of someone abusing their office to insert their religious beliefs into the business of the state.
|I'll comment on #2||BikeViking|
Aug 22, 2003 12:38 PM
|But he put an arguably religious monument on STATE property...
Not kosher in my book.
|Ahh, Duane, this monument has nothing to do with common sense.||Turtleherder|
Aug 22, 2003 7:17 AM
|It has to do with a religious zelot trying to erect a monument to HIS religious views in a government building. If it really was about common sense ideals of how to live your life then why not just reprint the language of the Alabama state statutes that govern the same issues? How about the same ideals as stated in the Koran? The good and honorable judge (sarcasm) couldn't care less about religious freedom, he just wants his views put front and center.|
|You might be right||Duane Gran|
Aug 22, 2003 9:34 AM
|There is a possibility that Roy Moore is a zealot who is concerned about his own political ambitions. He is definitely setting up a lightning rod to test his interpretation of the Alabama constitution, but none of us can really know his intentions. That said, I think it is more interesting to discuss the philosophical nature of move rather than the intentions.|| |