#
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=1928
A history lesson,
About 50 years ago, there was a movie called “The Ten Commandments”. As a
promotional gimmick, the promoters had all these “Ten Commandment”
monuments made up then distributed across America. At the same time, and in
tune with the aura of the movie, Congress added the words “under God” to
the Pledge of Allegiance. The Cold War was hot and GOD was on the side of
the righteous (that’s us).
60 years ago, these town and city courthouses did not have any “Ten
Commandment” monuments. 60 years ago the Pledge of Allegiance did not
contain the words “under God”. And 60 years ago the nation had just
defeated the Nazis and were turning to the Japanese and needed no reminder
that God was on their side.
If you carefully read the Ten Commandments and then compare it with modern
law, you will find few similarities. Nowhere in modern law am I forced to
worship ANY god, let alone yours. Nowhere in modern law am I not allowed
covet my neighbor’s ***** (even if she doesn’t mind me coveting it). There is
something about “Thou shalt not kill” which modern law will allow when it
is done in the name of the state.
Nowhere in the Ten Commandments does it mention that people in love
(whether straight or homosexual) may or may not marry. Nowhere in the Ten
Commandments are abortion, self-determination, or living wills forbidden.
And I could find no mention in the Ten Commandments that Uzis, AK-47s, or
Saturday Night Specials are just fine to carry around.
The defense that the Ten Commandments are the basis of modern law is a
fallacy. Also, there is no connection between the Ten Commandments, the
Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence.
The first was written to keep ignorant peoples in line while the other
three are grievances / declarations against injustice by the state. The Ten
Commandments has only religious connotations and absolutely NO place in
modern law or civics.
Now the ACLU has stood up for the right of people not to be forced to
adhere to or be intimidated by religion, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Having these movie promotions on the courthouse steps, in the Courts, or
declared a Historical Monuments does not make non-Christians comfortable or
feel secure in the fairness of the courts.
Now, even though there MAY be some similarities between the Taliban and the
EXTREME Christian Right, I can see no mention of a comparison in this post.
Nor will I get into a discussion of the similarities other then to say that
extremists will always think that they alone are right and theirs is the
only way.
Comment by Pat — 5/6/2005 @ 6:55 pm
#
For AB CD:
Displaying the ten commandments in a public building is an attempt to tear
down the first amendment to the Constitution, which reads in part:
” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In short, this means religion
should stay out of government, and government should stay out of religion.
This leads to the conclusion, legally, that religious displays in
government buildings are right out, but you can attend church (or not)
without government interference.
The fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, or other) should get their heads
out of the sand, and read their bible or other sacred book (written
thousands of years ago when the all too human writers knew little or
nothing about science) as a source of religious truth if they like, but not
of scientific truth.
Comment by Floyd — 5/6/2005 @ 10:01 pm
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
