Posted on 11/19/2002 8:36:24 AM PST by Dallas
You gotta love this guy....
Ah but suffering is not relived by action it is relieved by detachment.
So ok, I'm still struggling at being a Buddhist. :-)
It doesn't matterHuh? Late 18th century America wasn't very religious but it would be a stretch to call it "atheist". Most of the Framers were Christians of varying devoutness. A few were Deists. The majority believed in the then-radical concept of separation of religion and government. Some did not (Patrick Henry and John Jay, to mention prominent names) but they lost.Curious that it's mentioned in the "blueprint", don't you think? In the completely dominate atheistic milieu of late 18th century America, one should be amazed that it appears at all.
The Sunday exception was a courtesy to those potential Presidents who might strictly observe the sabbath, IMO. If it was meant to uphold the Sabbath, a more direct prohibition of government activity would have been likely.
-Eric
You see, you already have a problem This would mean that taxpayers who believe in God vs. taxpayers who don't believe in God are at odds over religious displays.
There's nothing in the constitution that says taxpayers who are anti-god, athiests, or left wingers and who don't like religious displays have the greater right and decisions regarding religious displays or are allowed to prohibit them.
You hit it on the head. When many of these people make comments like, "Its what the people wanted" or "The people voted this", they simply mean "a majority of people who believed a certain way/wanted something", not each and every person. Its a time-tested tradition of denying rights to people because they are in a minority. They refuse to stop using government as a tool to enforce their beliefs. This cuts through the lines of "liberal" or "conservative" for people claiming to be both use the government as their tool of oppression.
Many people here want no one but them, or people with similar beliefs, to have any rights or a say so in where there money goes. They bitch and bitch when people such as Planned Parenthood or the like gets tax money, but scream and yell when an atheist doesn't want his money going to purchase Bibles or to build a monument.
Its sad, and to me, a good example of the hypocracy that started the day the Constitution was signed(and even before). They were talking about "equal rights" and "all men created equal" at the same time enslaving blacks amd denying women certain rights - all the while trying to justify it with some Biblical passage.
As a Buddhist, you may well be out of luck in the Judge’s courtroom.
=====================================
Wednesday, April 9, 1997 10:41 am EDT
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - Judge Roy Moore displays a plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and opens sessions with prayer.
And the judge, a Baptist whose fight to keep religion in his courtroom has inspired a national rally, invites others to pray with him -- as long as they're not Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists.
They do not acknowledge the God of the holy Bible on which this country was founded," Moore says.
….snip….
"My duty under the Constitution is to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian God," not the gods of other faiths, Moore said." We are not a nation founded upon the Hindu god or Buddha. continued…..
=====================================
There certainly is no reason the Commandments shouldn’t be displayed in a historical context. The problem here is the judge, not the display. If you search for and read many of his statements, he’s clearly promoting religion. He’s a terrible example to base a Ten Commandments on public grounds case on.
I'm really not a nut. : ) I just don't like being told what's in the Constitution when I know it's not there (i.e., separation of church and state).
You're right. Alabama has every right under the Constitution to display the 10 Commandments there. And even Alabama is not in any way establishing a religion. It's simply putting out a memorial to the moral foundation of most of those who live in Alabama. It's up to Alabamans whether they want it or not - as the Constitution meant it to be.
But then again it was an ideal, and a noble ideal at that. And like all ideals one must struggle to attain them, after all we are just human.
Well, I see it as six of one, half-dozen of the other. The bottom line is that the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court would be flipping the proverbial bird at the Supreme Court of the U.S. Judges are supposed to interpret the law enacted by citizens, not the law of their personal moral code. A good judge will interpret a bad law honestly, even if he finds the result to the wrong. The man might be a fine Christian, but he'd be a lousy Judge.
Of course not. It's just a memorial to the 10 Commandments - and the fact that it's one of the cornerstones of some of our laws.
In deed. Sometimes, though, you have to question whether some FF's meant what they said, or were they really just being "politicians". I enjoy the wisdom in many of their writings, but consider that some of their concepts of "freedom" and "liberty" were kind of off.
Yeah!
It's up to the people of Alabama to write and/or amend their constitution.
It is provoked by people who make statements like, "I want you to show me where ANY of the Ten Commandments appear, or any direct linkage of ANY kind", and "Other than the date (written according to the convention of the day), show me one reference to Judaism, Christianity, or the Bible in the Constitution.
Cordially,
Of course not, FreeTally. You needn't have this absurd worry - no one is being arrested for such, nor will they be unless the good people of Alabama pass a law regarding such (which they haven't).
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.