Yet another frivolous lawsuit

[plywoody]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

So what does that mean, "That is freedom of religion, and not freedom from religion" I've never figured that one out. Does it mean that the government has the right to preach to me, but I don't have to listen?<br /><br />And I have lots of respect for many traditional "conservative" values. For example, I don't think the government has any business telling me how to lead a "moral" life, or what to believe in. To the extent that laws are needed for society to function, I have no problem with that, but the less intrusive into my private life, the better.<br /><br />And I think the US constitution is a fantastic document that needs to be protected, and the founding fathers, some of whom were Christains and some were not, realized this and did what they could to separate power so that no one group or individual could gain too much power, as power corrupts.<br /><br />Freedom is a difficult thing to maintain. It is not dictated by the majority, but rather individuals protected from the mandates of the majority.<br /><br />And of course it is the sole mission of the ACLU to protect and defend the constitution from assault.<br /><br />And I certainly do not understand the parallel between Hitler and Lenin (and whomever else) outlawing religion, and these ten commandments.<br /><br />What Hitler el al did would have been expressly forbidden under the constitution. To promote a specific religion, or to deny any religion, is specifically renounced by the constitution.<br /><br />And the declaration of Independence, while an impressive document, is not the constitution. there was ample opportunity for the framers to identify "god" in the constitution, and they choose not to. I doubt if this was an oversight, for as long and hard as they fought over the exact wording.<br /><br />And of course, the noble phrase "All men are created equal" must not have included slaves, as Jefferson, among others, owned slaves at the time.

 

[JGREGORY]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Finally,<br /><br />You guys are great and it has been a pleasure to debate with you.<br /><br />I will refrain from anymore post to this topic as it violates one of my selfimposed laws.<br /><br />1. NEVER discuss religion because there is no winner.

 

[mellowyellow]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

next it'll be the "in god we trust" on money...<br />will cost a ton to re-tool the entire mint.<br />or maybe they will outlaw the song; "god bless<br />america"<br />common sense ain't so common no more...

 

[plywoody]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

djohns, this is where you and I agree.<br /><br />It is indeed incrementalism. <br /><br />Have you noticed that many if not most of the arguments in favor of this is that there are other religious symbols elsewhere, and it is on the money, and in the pledge of allegiance, etc. As if one step farther in this progression is no big deal...<br /><br />It is a bunch of baby steps toward establishing this as a "Christian" country, which it is most certainly not. Somewhere a line must be drawn, and this is as good a spot as any. It is important.

 

[DJ]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Plywoody,<br /><br />I agree with you. Our (US) government does not have the authority or ability to promote, deny or legislate morality. Your neighbors, freinds, family, etc. will judge you on that. If you really get out of line, there are laws, that society has created, that will judge you.<br /><br />What makes you think that someone like Hitler would have let a little thing like a constitution get in the way of their agenda? Ditto for the ACLU. Dictators and oppressive rulers do not really care about anything except absolute power for themselves.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Well said MY<br /><br />PW, there was also equal opportunity to excplicitly prohibit the mentioning of God an religion in government, and they chose not to do that either. <br /><br />The decleration is the banner under which the nation was created. It is the founding philosophy. You can't simply ignore it becuase you don't like what is says.<br /><br />JG, in ths case of the Constitutuion, "respecting" means "regarding" - Regarding the establishment of religion. It does not mean "not respect religion" or pretend it does not exist. Relgion and God have always been respected and acknowledged by our government. Every session of congress is opened with a prayer and the Ten Commandments are displayed in the Supreme Court and religious organizations are given special status and not taxed.

 

[aspeck]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Okay, I guess it is time for my .02. Just can't hold off any longer. I believe we need to go back to the men that wrote the Constitution to see what the true intent was. Of these 55 men, approximately 29 were Anglicans, 16-18 were Calvinists, 2 Methodists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 lapsed Quaker and sometime-Anglican, and one open Deist - Dr. Franklin, who attended every kind of Christian worship, called for public prayer, and contributed to all denominations. The furtherist thing from their minds was to form a secular egalitarian state. The majority of them were committed to representative government, to the continued existence of the sovereign states, and to the dependence upon the virtue of the people acting as independent political, economic, and moral agents as the best security for the hope of a common future. But they also believed that man was imperfect and they had no patience with the notion that man was essentially good or that institutions were the culprit in the darker chapters of history. They recognized that man was to live in a society and under government, out of providential necessity. In the place of a prince and an arbitrary Parliament which had denied them the rights of Englishmen, they worked to establish a Federal system of checks and balances under a sovereign law. Yet they were wise enough to realize that a government enforcing a law to cover every situation would eventually become tyranny more dreadful than anything attempted in England. Therefore, they were careful to limit the fundamental scope of the law itself, leaving what they called "internal police" and many of the great questions concerning value and faith to the regulation of state and local government and to the operation of society itself. The neutrality of the general government with respect to the interactions of the many social, political, and religious establishments was not the neutrality of indifference that would permit the destruction of society.<br /><br />It is interesting to note that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights left Congregationalism in Connecticut and Massachusetts as the official religion of those commonwealths. Madison thought briefly of interfering with the states and nullifying this, but when he realized he would have to confront Caleb Strong and Roger Sherman - two popular statesman, over this issue, he gave up the idea.<br /><br />Approximately 30 of the Framers of the Constitution were greatly involved with the growth and administration of their own particular denominations. Another 20 were conventional Christians, in most cases conforming to an inherited faith. Hugh Williamson was a very heterodox Presbyterian who speculated about "unfallen man" living on comets. Others were broad churchman who in an effort to practice tolerance adopted the kind of periphrasis in speaking of God which Deists made fashionable - they avoided the terms of reverence that was provided by the Scriptures and spoke about the "Author of our being" or the "Great Architect." They were no more genuine skeptics than they were democrats, as was often made clear in their private writings.<br /><br />Upon studying the works of the original Framers, and putting the Constitution in their context, they did not want to seperate the Judeo-Christian teachings from government (nowhere in the Constitution can you find "Seperation of Church and State", this came in a letter from Thomas Jefferson who was addressing the issue of a state sponsored denomination) but to build a wall of protection, protecting religion from the government and from the government making one denomination the denomination of the Federal government. These Framers openly called upon God to guide and direct them. Look at the government buildings they built - how many of them have scriptures engraved upon them reminding the population that it is because of the providence of the Almighty God that we have the great nation that we have.<br /><br />I could go on, but I will stop here. I think you understand where I am coming from, and hopefully you will have a greater understanding of where the Framers were coming from when they drafted the Constitution. We are a country that was founded on religious freedom, yes, but it was also founded on a strong belief that God, the Father of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, had blessed us and we should never forget that. These 55 Americans that wrote and passed the Constitution said that the responsibilies of citizenship were part of the moral obligation of the Christian life. Even more serious were the duties of the ruler and magistrate, who would be held to a higher Authority for the use which they made of their special powers.<br /><br />Wouldn't we be better off if we returned to the original intent of the Framers?

 

[JGREGORY]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

No arguement from me.

 

[mellowyellow]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

I love this site! <br />you never know what you will read on a given day.<br />that has to be the most eloquent post I have read<br />in some time aspek.<br />thank you,<br />M.Y.

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Aspeck...You rock. thanx for putting that info into words that I could not.

 

[KennyKenCan]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

You nailed it aspeck...good work!<br /><br />Kenny

 

[wvit100]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

What does he think about religion, America, and the Ten Commandments? <br /><br />If you want to read a little from someone with a different slant on things go to the above. Judge Moore is a little right of conservative in his actions and beliefs. He may be a sincere man in his beliefs but is this the type of person who you would want to sit in judgement of you if you happened to come to trial? I guess it would depend on what you did. If you bombed and abortion clinic he might let you free on probation.

 

[wvit100]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Let's take a closer look at each of the commandments in Judge Moore's display and what they may actually mean in practical terms.<br /><br />Commandment Implications <br /><br />Thou shalt have no other gods before me - Given freedom of religion, this commandment clearly cannot be the foundation of the laws of our country. Ours is a pluralistic society, and the Constitution guarantees free choice of religion. <br /><br />Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image -Okay, so a graven image -- not a common word -- refers to an idol made out of stone or wood that is venerated. You know, like a 5,300 pound chunk of rock inscribed with religious sayings. Ummm. Okay. For the record, I've never once seen any American laws which say it's illegal to create carved idols. <br /><br />Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain - This is usually represented as a command against swearing, or maybe even saying "Jesus Christ!" when you hit your thumb with a hammer. As far as I know, it is still legal for me to do that in the U.S. <br /><br />Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - The observation of Sabbath day, the seventh day for rest, has traditionally included a number of restrictions as to what you're allowed to do. It doesn't just mean "a day off to go to church", but rather a complex set of religious observance. Orthodox Jews and others of the Jewish faith seem to keep this commandment, but there is certainly no law in the U.S. enforcing remembrance of this day, or forcing it to be kept holy. <br /><br />Honour thy father and thy mother - This is a good thing, in general, but it's also not part of our legal system. In general, the children are given much more in the way of legal protection than the parent, especially when they are children. But ultimately, this law was about caring for seniors in their old age, as the Ten Commandments are not laws for kids, but laws for society. By and large, our country does not care for seniors -- and the ones who are strongest against socialized care for seniors and others are, of course, extremist conservatives. Honor for elders does not seem to be one of the bases for the laws of the U.S. <br /><br />Thou shalt not kill - I wonder if Roy Moore or any of his supporters actively believe this, because if they did, they wouldn't support the U.S. military. Personally, I'm all for not killing -- but certainly the laws of the land are not based on this, for they describe a number of cases in which killing is deemed acceptable and even necessary. Capital punishment is the most obvious example, and few religious fundamentalists seem to have any problem with that. <br /><br />Thou shalt not commit adultery - Adultery laws are rarely, if ever, enforced in the U.S. Certainly there are some who would like to see them used more often. It's fair to say that a prohibition against adultery is part of our legal system -- although, as with many of the following commandments (and the preceding one), these aren't unique to the Ten Commandments. A society with a concept of marriage is likely to have a prohibition against breaking such a social contract, even if the society isn't directly based on the Ten Commandments. <br /><br />Thou shalt not steal - Like the adultery and killing prohibitions, you don't need the Ten Commandments in order to have a society in which thievery it outlawed. There have been plenty of legal systems in which theft is banned without recourse to divine commandments. Protection of private and public property is a basic function of many societies. <br /><br />Thou shalt not bear false witness - You also don't need an omnipotent creator God to determine that lying is bad. On all four of these, I'll gladly give "partial credit" and say that there's some similarities between the U.S. legal system and the Ten Commandments -- but you can also likely find the same similarities between the Hammurabic Code and our legal system. <br /><br />Thou shalt not covet - The injunction against greed seems to be the most ignored in our materialist, capitalist society. Laws against covetousness don't, to my knowledge, exist; there is no legal punishment handed out to someone who thinks to themselves, "Wow, I really want that guy's car." This commandment doesn't seem to be part of the foundation of our legal system. <br /><br />Okay, so the grand total is:<br /><br />Six commandments which aren't reflected in our legal system <br /><br />One commandment ("kill") which is ignored whenever the government wants to violate it.<br /><br />Three "common sense" commandments which are nearly universal in human societies <br /><br />The moral basis for our legal system? You be the judge.<br /><br />Oh, by the way, God also commanded these things at the same time that he gave the Ten Commandments:<br /><br />Don't make gods out of silver or gold. <br />Make an altar out of earth, and sacrifice burnt sheep and oxen on it. <br />If you make an altar of stone, don't use hewn stone, because using a tool to make an altar pollutes it. <br />Don't have steps on your altar. <br />...and a whole bunch of stuff about slaves, marriage, lying in wait, eyes for eyes, cows that kill people, asses in pits, and more! <br />Oddly, I almost never hear fundamentalists complaining that altars can't be made out of worked stone.<br /><br />Note: The author of this blog, Kynn Bartlett, is indeed a Christian. The Ten Commandments seem like a decent set of rules for a tribal society, all things considered, but Kynn prefers the Two Commandments from Jesus: Love God, and love your neighbor. In no way does using your position in the legal system to advance a hate-tainted *******ization of Jesus' words amount to love for one's neighbor.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

aspeck ,<br /><br />excellent post. Very well said. Thanks for the history lesson.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

And the declaration of Independence, while an impressive document, is not the constitution. there was ample opportunity for the framers to identify "god" in the constitution, and they choose not to. I doubt if this was an oversight, for as long and hard as they fought over the exact wording.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" <br /><br />Here it is plywoody.<br /><br />In fact it's the entire basis that the our Creator gives us rights, not the government, not my Mother, not The Constitution.<br />Your creator doesn't stop you from being immoral either, if you so chose, he clearly gives you that right.<br />I don't have time to dig it out right now ply, but somewhere it's written a letter from Jefferson to John Adams, that he felt it good to help author an instrument that would eventually free the slaves.<br /><br />

Wouldn't we be better off if we returned to the original intent of the Framers?

I'd give all my worldly possesions and even sacrifice my own life, if only we would.<br />Thanks aspeck.

 

[ob]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Skinnywater,You aint forcing your religion on us are you?

 

[SCO]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

Yea, the framers mostly believed in God and wanted freedon to express it, but it isn't a consititutional mandate. They all wanted the ability to express, so they gave us freedom of religion, but not freedom from it. That's all imclusive, even for the athiest. The athiest has to hear the other opinions as the others have to hear the athiest opinion but those opinions cannot be powered by the force of law. It is realy quite perfect. The english compromizeed by having a tolerant church of england(Queen Elizabeth I). Our framers bettered that.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

tolerant church of england

Tell that to the Pilgrims

 

[JGREGORY]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

I'm going to break my rule.<br /><br />Aspeck, I agree with your post but I do have one Question?<br /><br />You said,<br />

Upon studying the works of the original Framers, and putting the Constitution in their context, they did not want to seperate the Judeo-Christian teachings from government (nowhere in the Constitution can you find "Seperation of Church and State", this came in a letter from Thomas Jefferson who was addressing the issue of a state sponsored denomination) but to build a wall of protection, protecting religion from the government and from the government making one denomination the denomination of the Federal government.

Would you not consider that the Federal Government has been leading towards One Denomination, that of Christianity, I draw this conclusion with the following exapmles.<br /><br />1. Remember the furor that was created when CA fed judge struck down under God in the pledge. Congress was going to pass legislation gurranteing that phrase.<br /><br />2. We have the Ten Commandment in the Supreme court building, do they not reflect judeo/christian values. When was the building constructed?? If it was constructed during the life span of the founding fathers I will put my tail between my legs and leave. If not I have to question the the inscription. I still believe the Bill of Right would have been more appropriate.<br /><br />3. We have in God we Trust on our money. However, not one coin was printed with it untill almost 100 years after the founding of the country.<br />__________________________________________________<br /><br />I whole heartly agree the christian values played a great part in the values during the formation of our country. I also agree that religion has a place in todays sociaty. Maybe if more people had some sort of moral belief system there would be less crime and other social ills. <br /><br />And finally for skinny, Does Creator= just the judeo/Christian god. Or as I believe does it refer to not only our God but to any Sumpreme being that any individual may believe according to their faith. Some one said our founding fathers were careful about the aspect of religion and where purposly vague. Does anybody think this could be because they thought it was someplace the Government did not belong.

 

[aspeck]

Re: Yet another frivolous lawsuit

No, I do not see the courts as supporting a denomination. Christianity was the basis for the founding of the government. Now, I would have a problem if the government said you had to adhere to the tenets of faith as set forth by the Baptists, or Charismatics, or Lutheran, or Anglicans, or....<br /><br />The Constitution addressed the fact that our rights and being came from a Creator, but gave the States, or Commonwealths, the right to determine their own outcomes. It is interesting to note that each of the 13 original state constitutions established Christianity as the state-protected religion. In the 1892 court case of Holy Trinity Church v. United States the court made a survey of previous court cases and then declared the basis of law in Pennsylvania (Vidal v. Girard's)that "It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania."<br /><br />In fact, the first legislative act of Pennsylvania, passed 12/7/1682, declared that the goal of civil government was for "the glory of Almighty God and the good of Mankind, is the reason and end of government, and therefore, government in itself is a venerable Ordinance of God," therefore it is the purpose of civil government to "establish such laws as shall best preserve true Christian and Civil Liberty, in opposition to all Unchristian, Licenteous, and unjust practices, (Whereby God may have his due, and Caesar his due, and the people their due), from tyranny and oppression..." Penn cited 1 Timothy 1:9-10, that the law of God was made for the unrighteous. He went on to cite Romans 13:1-5 and said the divine right of government was to terrify evil doers and secondly to cherish those that do well.<br /><br />The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 declared that every member of the legislature should subscribe to the following: "I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of the wicked; and I acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by Divine inspiration." This was the type of state constitutions that the Framers were trying to uphold.<br /><br />A Supreme Court ruling in the 19th Century dealing with a major tenet of Mormon belief, polygamy, defined the legal protection of the 1st Ammendment to exclude polygamy on the grounds that the practice was out of accord with the basic tenets of Christianity; "It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western World."<br /><br />In August 23, 1831, the New York Spectator reports that a man was not allowed to testify in court because he was a proclaimed athiest. THe judge didn't know there existed anyone of such belief, and in a Christian society should not be allowed to testify.<br /><br />Do I think this is a bit extreme? Yes, but I bring it out for you to understand how important the Christian beliefs were to the early Courts and the Framers. So much has changed over the years - in 1991 the PA Supreme Court overturned the death sentence of a convicted murderer because the prosecutor quoted a Biblical scripture in his closing arguements.<br /><br />So, do I think we are supporting a State-sponsored religion, NO. Do I think we have evolved too far in our desire to be fair and just for all? YES!, to the point that we have moved from the building blocks in which this great country was founded upon. We have lost our foundation, and that scares me.<br /><br />I have said my piece, these posts are too long! Sorry! Have a nice day