Judge allows Ten Commandments monument

Yahoo ^

[TexasJackFlash]

It was the blinking words in the excerpt, from your post, presented below that prompted my question, mama.

The first 5 Commandments are moral duties, sometimes called 'vertical' laws. These laws are (or are not, depending on your beliefs) punishable only by God."

[MamaTexan]

It was the blinking words in the excerpt, from your post, presented below that prompted my question, mama.

Sorry. I wasn't purposely trying to be obtuse.

I was in fact, agreeing with you, yet stating why a display of only the last 5 Commandments would look rather silly.

It is true that 'once upon a time' violation of the first 5 were punishable by law, but these were delegated as issues of conscience not long after the Constitution was ratified.

[osideplanner]

Last I looked the commandments say you can't worship any other God. If that's not endorsing a religion I don't know what is. But you can't run with that simple response here without getting steamrolled by those who need the government to endorse and put money into their religious beliefs.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

That's the difference between being the foundation for law and the letter of the law. No one has ever been arrested for worshipping other gods. In fact, the law protects religious freedom even while the 10 Commandments are foundational. Pretty cool.

And I still say that if it were endorsing a religion, it would be Judaism.

You don't need to fear these monuments. They are an example of religious freedom rather than oppression. That is, they were an example of religious freedom until the government decided to endorse atheism.

[osideplanner]

I don't fear the moinuments, I don't want my tax money paying for other people's religious beliefs, Judaism or otherwise.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Most if not all of the momuments are not funded by taxpayers. But I believe the 10 commandment tablets on the doors of the Supreme Court as well as the figure of Moses on their building may have been funded by taxpayers. Even if they were, it wasn't your tax dollars.

It seems a much fairer request to make to simply not have your money spent on it, than to demand that it be forbidden and removed.

[osideplanner]

I have no problem with monuments. I think it's wrong morally and legally for the government to spend tax payer money on public monuments which endorse the religious beliefs of certain religions. I oppose my money being spent on chaplains for the congress. If it wasn't my tax dollars then they spent more because they spend money of these religious exercises.

Let me know when we get to earmark where all of our taxes go and how to sign up.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I've thought it would be nice if the government gave us opt out agreements, or "I wash my hands of this" statements to sign. LOL! It would be nice.

The chaplains also represent freedom of religion, and recognize that our rights come from God, that we should give Him His due. It is a principle worth preserving. But I wouldn't care if you were given an opt out of that -- just a statment that says, "None of my money can be used for this." Wouldn't it be interesting to see who opted out of what?

[Intolerant in NJ]

A true Christian, such as Founding Father Isaac Backus, would refuse to perform any act that would imply that any government had authority over his religion...This is why a true Christian would have problems atttending a church built under civil construction codes - according to your own words, he or she would "refuse to perform any act that would imply any government had authority over his religion" - does not telling him under what standards he may build his church "imply authority" over his religion...
I don't believe it does, any more than telling him that he may erect a monument is telling him how to practice his religion - I would not want the government to pay for the church or the monument, but in both cases as long as the project is designed according to and expresses the tenets of the religion sponsor, I don't believe government interferes until it starts prohibiting its completion.....

[TexasJackFlash]

It is true that 'once upon a time' violation of the first 5 were punishable by law, but these were delegated as issues of conscience not long after the Constitution was ratified.

Are you saying that violations of the first five commandments (such as the Commandment pertaining to keeping the sabbath) were punished by the government after 1788?

[TexasJackFlash]

The word "religion" as it is used in the establishment clause means the "duty which we owe to our Creator. Complying with civil building codes is a duty owed to our fellow man. It is not a "duty which we owe to our Creator" ; because a "duty which we owe our Creator" is a duty we owe to God, and to God alone.

Thus, building codes are not religious in nature. They are civil in nature; and obeying civil codes is not an acknowledgment of civil authority over the things that are God's; unless the code includes requirements regarding some "duty which we owe our Creator".