Posted on 07/01/2003 2:47:12 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
ATLANTA - A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a Ten Commandments monument the size of a washing machine must be removed from the Alabama Supreme Court building.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a ruling by a federal judge who said that the 2 1/2-ton granite monument, placed there by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
[snip]
Moore put the monument in the rotunda of the courthouse in the middle of the night two summers ago. The monument features tablets bearing the Ten Commandments and historical quotations about the place of God in law.
[click link to read remainder of article]
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Your lord has named you well.
You speak from ignorance. A Hindu who worships God with form does not view the clay idol as a god. Rather, he or she projects their immanent divinity onto the clay sculpture in order to worship God.
This is how I would interperet those commandments, in terms of my religous understanding:
I am the Lord your God. That is the Supreme Godhead speaking, known at that time by those people as Yaweh. He is/was known by other names at other times by other people. No contradiction.
You shall have no other God - don't worship mundane people (see graven images below), communism, tooth fairies, etc.
Graven images - that would mean don't worship idols - idol meaning that which is not God. Don't worship Britney Spears, a sports team, your TV, pornography, or money.
Sabbath holy? In the Hindu religion, there is a holy day that comes twice a month, for fasting and extra prayer and meditation. That fits.
I still don't see a problem. Why should someone - even a judge - be forced to acclaim viewpoints that aren't his? But that's only part of it. The 10 Commandments are historical and the founders of this country were tremendously influenced by them, and considered them actually necessary and basic to the functioning of the country.
I address that above - idols doesn't mean a statue or painting religious in nature. Look at icons of Jesus, Mother Mary and other saints in Orthodox Christianity. I've been in Catholic churches with statues of Jesus, Mary and saints which were revered. Idols mean statues or forms of something that isn't holy or spiritual.
(when I walk around at night and see the blue flickering light from all the houses, I joke about people worshipping at the blue altar! Now that is idolatry!)
In the dominant view in Christianity, neither Buddha nor Yahweh nor Allah is God. And unless one's faith accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and accepts his teachings, one is not in compliance with these Commandments. And you don't get to pick and choose your Sabbath - it was chosen by God.
As I said, I appreciate your view. In Judge Moore's world, the judicial system of the State of Alabama does not.
I also asked whether you believe that, under the U.S. Constitution, a state can favor one religion over others. That is exactly what Moore claimed to do.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.
Doesn't say anything about what any of the states may do...
Promoting and excluding are two different things. One religion (Christianity in this case, especially since it is the principle religion of this country and the founders were mostly at least nominal Christians) can be promoted - or helped - without necessarily prohibiting other religions. If that happens, Hindus will be some of the first to be discriminated against, since unfortunately so many people who consider themselves Christians do not have the charitable or broadminded views I ascribe to.
At this point, I am a lot more concerned about bias against religion in general, using the false "seperation" argument than I am about Christianity becoming a state mandated religion.
Well said. Moral-liberalism is a religion in itself, much as atheism is.
You mean, like the SCOTUS deciding that the US Federal view prohibits criminalizing sodomy, or permits racial discrimination in pursuit of diversity?
Not exactly right - more like this: Since everything is God's energy, a statue or painting depicting Him is not seperate from Him, and for a fully surrendered soul, they see Him in that form. It's not that they project by their own mind. God becomes that form. Kind of like the Orthodox view of icons, as far as I know.
Under your argument, a number of other things would also be permissible. For example, a state could pass laws limiting free speech. A state could establish a state religion. A state could restrict freedom of the press. Under the text of the First Amendment, only Congress is prohibited from doing such things. Do you think that state governments are allowed, for example, to criminalize open criticism of the state government? If your interpretation were correct, there would be no bar to a state doing so.
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.