Posted on 09/06/2001 8:11:05 AM PDT by ClancyJ
This is precisely why we don't need them posted up - the ones that are in law (kill/steal) have been in many other societies, religious and non religious, and can pretty much be agreed upon by all (ignoring their rather simplistic nature). The others (no other gods, no craven images) are pretty much scaremongering, and have no use to non-christians.
As an aside, do you really think that these simplistic rules will affect the crime rate, and instill 'morality'??
No, not at all. You are free to spread any religious message you want, in any venue you want.
You are not free to do it using public money or with government imprimateur.
Why are politically correct statements required which are against free speech? Yet any religious views or comments are chastised and belittled with comments such as yours?
We are not idiots - we see what your contorted arguments are meant to do - to persuade us that our views can stand without protection, that our views infringe on others so are not to be considered as equal, our views are to be kept in the closet or appropriate places so as not to have any power or influence over others.
The world you are working toward is not here yet. We have the right of free speech, we have the right to promote any petition or any governmental action we want. The ACLU is not Lord of this land.
That is not our purpose. They may or may not. Our purpose is to have free speech as others do, we are offended at any number of spoken thoughts on TV - do we get the ACLU to proclaim our rights?
Why are you so afraid of a Ten Commandments Petition? Why are you so afraid of religion - you have the choice to ignore as we have the choice to ignore that which offends us. We do so every day.
You have the right to free speech and religion. You do not have the right to obligate others to subsidize your message.
Any radical, blasphemous depiction of Christ is allowed - why? Free speech. Why is free speech only for those that tear down religion and never for those that support religion?
Your rights, as the artists, entail expressing whatever you wish. Neither you nor the purveyors of blasphemous art have the right to have govt pay for it. Your proposal and public funding of the arts are both wrong.
We are not idiots
This remains to be seen.
The ratification of the 1st Amendment completely precluded the Ten Commandments from being established as law.
Most diligent scholars of law can find every one of the commandments buried somewhere in the law codes adopted everywhere in Western societies, particularly in the United States and in every state of the Union.
Yeah, right. Lets start with the very first one:
"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Try enforcing that one. Good luck. You're going to need an awful lot of cattle cars to bring all us non-believers to internment camps for the ghastly crime of not honoring the religion of the State.
Maybe we should contact all signers and tell them they are offending your rights by taking up the time of government officials asking for protection of our rights.
Call me any names you want - I just do not care.
It's against the Ten Commandments to erect a statue of Trent Lott?
And if you wish to pay to have the decalogue placed on private grounds, 50ft high in blazing neon that is your right (zoning laws notwithstanding). However, when you are asking me to have my tax dollars go towards promotion of your religion, and put in a public place (courthouse, school etc) then it is very hard for me to ignore this, especially due to the establishment clause - would you be in favor of state/federal funded plaques with words from Allah or Buddah on them?
Your rights do not include having government pay to promote your religion.
Why do you have the right to make us take them down?
Just keep on speaking up - it just shows those that care about their religious rights exactly what is facing us. You are trying to put your rights above the rights of those who have had the ten commandments in buildings before - YOU are the one causing government to spend money on it. Why?
You want the 10 Commandments posted on public property, at public expense, giving one religion govt's imprimateur, in violation of the First Amendment.
- it prevents government from making us NOT display the ten commandments should we wish to.
You can tattoo them on your butt for all I care. Keep them off govt property though, because it is a violation of the First Amendment.
Free speech doesn't mean you get the government to speak for you. It means government cannot prevent you from speaking.
to persuade us that our views can stand without protection
Are you suggesting that they can't? And it isn't protection you are asking for. You already have that. You can speak freely, or post the commandments wherever you like, provided you provide the forum and funds. What you want is coercion. You want the right to take money, by force if necessary, to provide a state sponsored forum.
that our views infringe on others so are not to be considered as equal
The Ten Commandments do not infringe upon others. Forcing others to pay for a plaque of the Ten Commandments and to provide for a forum to post them does. Quite the opposite of what you claim, we want them on equal ground with all other forms of speech. No belief system can claim to have the backing of the state in a nation that claims religious liberty.
our views are to be kept in the closet or appropriate places so as not to have any power or influence over others.
Oh, I see. Any forum that doesn't involve government is worthless, because we are helpless peons who can't speak for ourslelves.
You're absolutely right about the power part. Power implies force and coercion, which is distinctly different from influence, which implies voluntary choice.
Are you suggesting that it is only through government that your views have any influence? That doesn't speak highly of them. And as everyone has said, you don't have to keep your view in a closet, keep them anywhere you like, just out of government - which must remain neutral in matters of faith if we are to be a free country.
The ACLU is not Lord of this land.
Correct, but you miss the point. In a free country there are no official Lords. If people of their own conscience choose to establish one of their own for themselves, or have none at all, that's their prerogative. Government is nowhere in the equation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.