| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
22 Jan 2005 03:46:45 PM |
| Object: |
Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/011905/ross.html
Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) wasted little time before introducing two bills
that would require the Ten Commandments to be posted in both the Capitol
and the Senate and House chambers.
Stearns introduced the bill Jan. 4, the first day of the 109th Congress. He
first introduced a similar resolution in the 105th Congress and subsequent
versions in the 106th and 108th.
“Posting the Ten Commandments in places like the House and Capitol would
merely serve to remind members that we have the responsibility as lawmakers
to be as fair and just as possible,” Stearns said.
The bill has been referred to the House Administration Committee.
Klaus Marre and Patrick O’Connor
*************************************************************************
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/21/193135/885
Diaries :: bonddad's diary ::
I am so sick of this religious crap from the right. First, Ashcroft is
offended by a naked breast, then baths himself in oil before taking the
oath of AG, and now this *****.
Never mind the ballooning trade and fiscal deficit, the spiraling costs of
health care or the stagnant wages of the middle class.
In case case you are wondering, the standard to apply in this situation is
from Lemon v Kurtzman , (403 US 602). A law must satisfy each of the below
elements to be valid.
1.) Secular in purpose
2.) Can't advance a religion
3.) Can't inhibit a religion
4.) Entangle the government with a religion.
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/011905/ross.html
******************************************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "sAnToLiNa" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
23 Jan 2005 04:01:24 AM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:rat4v0phe7kinr339dkgbgnqbv48ue5k07@4ax.com...
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/011905/ross.ht
ml
Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) wasted little time before introducing two
bills
that would require the Ten Commandments to be posted in both the Capitol
and the Senate and House chambers.
Stearns introduced the bill Jan. 4, the first day of the 109th Congress.
He
first introduced a similar resolution in the 105th Congress and subsequent
versions in the 106th and 108th.
"Posting the Ten Commandments in places like the House and Capitol would
merely serve to remind members that we have the responsibility as
lawmakers
to be as fair and just as possible," Stearns said.
Most of the Commandments have nothing to do with fairness or justice,
they're simply totalitarian edicts. As usual, the proponents of public
posting of the Ten Commandments are too fucking stupid to realize what they
really say and mean.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
24 Jan 2005 06:29:44 PM |
|
|
() wrote in
news:rat4v0phe7kinr339dkgbgnqbv48ue5k07@4ax.com:
Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol
Of course, it will just be a display model, not an actual working
version.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
25 Jan 2005 06:35:55 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:29:44 -0600, Bert Hyman wrote
(in article <Xns95E87F1BDC7E8VeebleFetzer@news.visi.com>):
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net () wrote in
news:rat4v0phe7kinr339dkgbgnqbv48ue5k07@4ax.com:
Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol
Of course, it will just be a display model, not an actual working
version.
"Do not inventory"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
23 Jan 2005 09:52:15 AM |
|
|
wrote:
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/011905/ross.html
Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) wasted little time before introducing two
bills
that would require the Ten Commandments to be posted in both the
Capitol
and the Senate and House chambers.
He doesn't seem to realize this could be really embarrassing
to his colleagues.
There's the one forbidding adultery, which would make
Henry Hyde blush everytime he walks past it.
There's the one forbidding one from "coveting" -- and
there goes the business world which RUNS on "covet".
Yeah, it would be hard on Congress if they actually
ever read them......
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
28 Jan 2005 06:20:01 PM |
|
|
wrote:
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/011905/ross.html
Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) wasted little time before introducing two
bills
that would require the Ten Commandments to be posted in both the
Capitol
and the Senate and House chambers.
Which ten commandments? The Protestants, Catholics, and Jews all have
different versions. <http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.pdf>.
Which one gets the nod as officially US government stamped correct, and
the others are wrong? (As if we can't predict).
And once we've narrowed it down to one version of the Bible, which
version of the Ten Commandments, which appears in two versions in each
Bible? The one in Exodus 20, where you have to "remember the Sabbath
day" because "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and
all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord
blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it", or the one in Deuteronomy 5,
where you have to "observe the sabbath day" because "thou wast a
servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee
out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore
the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day"? Orthodox Jews
believe both versions were miraculously uttered simultaneously, but I
doubt if any poster could manage that. Won't God get annoyed if we
start editing His Writings to eliminate things we think are redunant?
Nobody likes being told He is not a good Author.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MonkeyHawk" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
28 Jan 2005 06:40:13 PM |
|
|
"z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote
Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) wasted little time before introducing two
bills
that would require the Ten Commandments to be posted in both the
Capitol
and the Senate and House chambers.
Which ten commandments? The Protestants, Catholics, and Jews all have
different versions. <http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.pdf>.
Which one gets the nod as officially US government stamped correct, and
the others are wrong? (As if we can't predict).
And once we've narrowed it down to one version of the Bible, which
version of the Ten Commandments, which appears in two versions in each
Bible? The one in Exodus 20, where you have to "remember the Sabbath
day" because "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and
all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord
blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it", or the one in Deuteronomy 5,
where you have to "observe the sabbath day" because "thou wast a
servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee
out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore
the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day"? Orthodox Jews
believe both versions were miraculously uttered simultaneously, but I
doubt if any poster could manage that. Won't God get annoyed if we
start editing His Writings to eliminate things we think are redunant?
Nobody likes being told He is not a good Author.
Good point.
Why not just wipe out that whole Sabbath thing anyway? I mean, sticklers
might wonder if NFL Double Headers do an adequate job of keeping Sundays
holy. And closing all the Wal-Marts on Sundays will really put a dent in
the economy. So lets just forget that one.
Oh, and the one about coveting? Coveting's what drives business and the
business of America is business. What's keeping up with the Jonses, getting
a bigger flatter TV and a Hummer if not all about coveting. Ya hate to
break up a set, but the coveting commandment just doesn't work these days.
And what if your mother and father are real dicks? Should you have to honor
them anyway? I mean, they might even be liberals!
And maybe we should take this opportunity to clarify "Thou shalt not kill."
I mean it really means "Kill or be killed," doesn't it?
And with Sabbath and Coveting out of the way, it'd be a good time to promote
Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment up into the Top 10; so there'll be nothing
bad said about Republicans.
I think Representative Stearns should introduce a bill calling for the
posting of 7 or 8 out of 10 Commandments.
Joe Myers
"...as amended."
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
30 Jan 2005 04:15:05 PM |
|
|
MonkeyHawk wrote:
"z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote
Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) wasted little time before introducing
two
bills
that would require the Ten Commandments to be posted in both the
Capitol
and the Senate and House chambers.
Which ten commandments? The Protestants, Catholics, and Jews all
have
different versions.
<http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.pdf>.
Which one gets the nod as officially US government stamped correct,
and
the others are wrong? (As if we can't predict).
And once we've narrowed it down to one version of the Bible, which
version of the Ten Commandments, which appears in two versions in
each
Bible? The one in Exodus 20, where you have to "remember the
Sabbath
day" because "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea,
and
all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord
blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it", or the one in Deuteronomy
5,
where you have to "observe the sabbath day" because "thou wast a
servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought
thee
out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm:
therefore
the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day"? Orthodox
Jews
believe both versions were miraculously uttered simultaneously, but
I
doubt if any poster could manage that. Won't God get annoyed if we
start editing His Writings to eliminate things we think are
redunant?
Nobody likes being told He is not a good Author.
Good point.
Why not just wipe out that whole Sabbath thing anyway? I mean,
sticklers
might wonder if NFL Double Headers do an adequate job of keeping
Sundays
holy. And closing all the Wal-Marts on Sundays will really put a
dent in
the economy. So lets just forget that one.
Oh, and the one about coveting? Coveting's what drives business and
the
business of America is business. What's keeping up with the Jonses,
getting
a bigger flatter TV and a Hummer if not all about coveting. Ya hate
to
break up a set, but the coveting commandment just doesn't work these
days.
And what if your mother and father are real dicks? Should you have
to honor
them anyway? I mean, they might even be liberals!
And maybe we should take this opportunity to clarify "Thou shalt not
kill."
I mean it really means "Kill or be killed," doesn't it?
And with Sabbath and Coveting out of the way, it'd be a good time to
promote
Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment up into the Top 10; so there'll be
nothing
bad said about Republicans.
I think Representative Stearns should introduce a bill calling for
the
posting of 7 or 8 out of 10 Commandments.
Joe Myers
"...as amended."
And we can replace one of them with 'No Homos', apparently that's one
of the ones God was serious about, even though he was just kidding with
the 'take care of the poor' and 'seek peace' stuff.
.
|
|
|
| User: "THOM" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
31 Jan 2005 10:15:39 AM |
|
|
On 30 Jan 2005 08:15:05 -0800, "z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote:
MonkeyHawk wrote:
"z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote
Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) wasted little time before introducing
two
bills
that would require the Ten Commandments to be posted in both the
Capitol
and the Senate and House chambers.
Which ten commandments? The Protestants, Catholics, and Jews all
have
different versions.
<http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.pdf>.
Which one gets the nod as officially US government stamped correct,
and
the others are wrong? (As if we can't predict).
And once we've narrowed it down to one version of the Bible, which
version of the Ten Commandments, which appears in two versions in
each
Bible? The one in Exodus 20, where you have to "remember the
Sabbath
day" because "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea,
and
all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord
blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it", or the one in Deuteronomy
5,
where you have to "observe the sabbath day" because "thou wast a
servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought
thee
out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm:
therefore
the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day"? Orthodox
Jews
believe both versions were miraculously uttered simultaneously, but
I
doubt if any poster could manage that. Won't God get annoyed if we
start editing His Writings to eliminate things we think are
redunant?
Nobody likes being told He is not a good Author.
Good point.
Why not just wipe out that whole Sabbath thing anyway? I mean,
sticklers
might wonder if NFL Double Headers do an adequate job of keeping
Sundays
holy. And closing all the Wal-Marts on Sundays will really put a
dent in
the economy. So lets just forget that one.
Oh, and the one about coveting? Coveting's what drives business and
the
business of America is business. What's keeping up with the Jonses,
getting
a bigger flatter TV and a Hummer if not all about coveting. Ya hate
to
break up a set, but the coveting commandment just doesn't work these
days.
And what if your mother and father are real dicks? Should you have
to honor
them anyway? I mean, they might even be liberals!
And maybe we should take this opportunity to clarify "Thou shalt not
kill."
I mean it really means "Kill or be killed," doesn't it?
And with Sabbath and Coveting out of the way, it'd be a good time to
promote
Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment up into the Top 10; so there'll be
nothing
bad said about Republicans.
I think Representative Stearns should introduce a bill calling for
the
posting of 7 or 8 out of 10 Commandments.
Joe Myers
"...as amended."
And we can replace one of them with 'No Homos', apparently that's one
of the ones God was serious about, even though he was just kidding with
the 'take care of the poor' and 'seek peace' stuff.
why not post all 26 Commandments??? Why just the 10 Protestants like?
THOM
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
30 Jan 2005 07:02:06 PM |
|
|
On 28 Jan 2005, z wrote:
Which ten commandments? The Protestants, Catholics, and Jews all have
different versions. <http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.pdf>.
Which ten, indeed.
Which one gets the nod as officially US government stamped correct, and
the others are wrong? (As if we can't predict).
And once we've narrowed it down to one version of the Bible, which
version of the Ten Commandments, which appears in two versions in each
Bible?
Exodus 20
Exodus 34
Deuteronomy 5
I count more than two.
Only one of the three versions refers to itself as "the ten"
is Exodus 34:28
"the ten commandments" or "the ten words" in the Torah.
One of those commandments is "The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou
keep." Another is "But the firstling of an ***** thou shalt redeem with a
lamb; and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the
firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me
empty."
Don't forget: "And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the
first fruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's
end."
Whoever observes that commandment?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
26 Jan 2005 10:13:48 PM |
|
|
wrote:
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/011905/ross.html
Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol
Which is no different than using public funds from NEA which are then
used to insult and attack the religious. Such as the intolerant Bigot
who used public funds from NEA to smear ***** all over the virgin Mary
and call it art, when all it was, was an attack against the religious.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Razzer" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
22 Jan 2005 04:26:51 PM |
|
|
wrote:
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/011905/ross.html
[snip]
I thought the Christians already believed that the Ten Commandsments
were posted on the building that Congress resides. Is this finally an
admittal that they were wrong?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
22 Jan 2005 10:17:45 PM |
|
|
"Razzer" <coolmandan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106411211.460474.200560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/011905/ross.html
[snip]
I thought the Christians already believed that the Ten Commandsments
were posted on the building that Congress resides. Is this finally an
admittal that they were wrong?
What on earth makes you think that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
22 Jan 2005 10:46:56 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:17:45 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> in news message
<diAId.19163$c%6.13878@trnddc03> wrote:
"Razzer" <coolmandan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106411211.460474.200560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/011905/ross.html
[snip]
I thought the Christians already believed that the Ten Commandsments
were posted on the building that Congress resides. Is this finally an
admittal that they were wrong?
What on earth makes you think that?
You are right. The Religopolitical fundamentalists do not admit they
are wrong. The most they will admit is that their actions might have
had unintended consequences.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Religion may in most of its forms be defined as the
belief that the gods are on the side of the government.
-- Bertrand Russell
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
23 Jan 2005 05:37:23 AM |
|
|
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:aul5v0hifato7to53g790p4qkj39dqh38u@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:17:45 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> in news message
<diAId.19163$c%6.13878@trnddc03> wrote:
"Razzer" <coolmandan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106411211.460474.200560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/011905/ross.html
[snip]
I thought the Christians already believed that the Ten Commandsments
were posted on the building that Congress resides. Is this finally an
admittal that they were wrong?
What on earth makes you think that?
You are right. The Religopolitical fundamentalists do not admit they
are wrong. The most they will admit is that their actions might have
had unintended consequences.
Actually, I was asking what made him think that "the Christians" (as if we
all think and believe alike) all already believe that the Ten Commandments
are posted in the Capitol Building, but hey, your interpretation works too,
for at least a few of 'em.
I mean, SOME of us are quite aware of what is, and what is not, displayed
there.
However, they could be confusing the National Archives with the Capitol
Building, or else they could figure that having a depiction of Moses
opposite the Rostrum counts, even if he is nestled between Solon and
Hammurabi in a gallery of 'lawgivers'.
Of course, now that THIS information is 'out', I expect a great outcry to
get Moses' face removed from the wall....
now me, I'm all for having the Ten Commandments displayed, right under
Moses' plaque, next to the documents that made the other lawmakers
celebrated in the chamber worthy of representation; Blackstone, Napoleon,
Mason, Potheir, Edward I, Gergory IX, Suleimon, Maiamonides, Papinian,
Lycurgus, de Montfort and the rest....
.
|
|
|
| User: "sAnToLiNa" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
25 Jan 2005 04:17:21 AM |
|
|
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:nKGId.3981$BL3.1643@trnddc01...
now me, I'm all for having the Ten Commandments displayed,
Including the ones that are 3000-year-old-tribal-deity-specific (i.e. all of
them)? Or excluding all but the ones that are expressions of general moral
principles (i.e. none of them)?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
25 Jan 2005 04:38:46 AM |
|
|
"sAnToLiNa" <mystery@babylon.com> wrote in message
news:35lvjiF4i17fgU1@individual.net...
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:nKGId.3981$BL3.1643@trnddc01...
now me, I'm all for having the Ten Commandments displayed,
Including the ones that are 3000-year-old-tribal-deity-specific (i.e. all
of
them)? Or excluding all but the ones that are expressions of general
moral
principles (i.e. none of them)?
\
All of them. In an appropriate context, that is, right alongside all the
other ancient (whether they appeal to YOU or not) systems of laws that have
contributed to the society we now live in. As I have said before,
repeatedly, and as I will not say again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "sAnToLiNa" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
25 Jan 2005 05:29:49 AM |
|
|
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:q3kJd.19824$c%6.4389@trnddc03...
"sAnToLiNa" <mystery@babylon.com> wrote in message
news:35lvjiF4i17fgU1@individual.net...
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:nKGId.3981$BL3.1643@trnddc01...
now me, I'm all for having the Ten Commandments displayed,
Including the ones that are 3000-year-old-tribal-deity-specific (i.e.
all
of
them)? Or excluding all but the ones that are expressions of general
moral
principles (i.e. none of them)?
\
All of them. In an appropriate context, that is, right alongside all the
other ancient (whether they appeal to YOU or not) systems of laws that
have
contributed to the society we now live in.
You'll need something like the largest imaginable academic library to
accomodate all this, with attendant staff. I'm not opposed in principle,
but I think you should have a special levy to pay for it rather than waste
my tax dollars on stupid horseshit.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
26 Jan 2005 12:57:01 AM |
|
|
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:nKGId.3981$BL3.1643@trnddc01...
now me, I'm all for having the Ten Commandments displayed,
In churches? Fine.
In court houses? Public schools?
Why should a document advocating the opposite of the Bill of Rights be
posted officially when such official posting is the appearance of
endorsement?
The 10K is contrary to the first amendment.
http://www.bushflash.com/faith.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Razzer" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
23 Jan 2005 04:06:30 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:aul5v0hifato7to53g790p4qkj39dqh38u@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:17:45 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> in news message
<diAId.19163$c%6.13878@trnddc03> wrote:
"Razzer" <coolmandan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106411211.460474.200560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/011905/ross.html
[snip]
I thought the Christians already believed that the Ten
Commandsments
were posted on the building that Congress resides. Is this
finally an
admittal that they were wrong?
What on earth makes you think that?
You are right. The Religopolitical fundamentalists do not admit
they
are wrong. The most they will admit is that their actions might
have
had unintended consequences.
Actually, I was asking what made him think that "the Christians" (as
if we
all think and believe alike) all already believe that the Ten
Commandments
are posted in the Capitol Building, but hey, your interpretation
works too,
for at least a few of 'em.
Sorry, I did not mean to overgeneralize. "Hard right-wingers" probably
would have been better.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
23 Jan 2005 05:05:49 PM |
|
|
"Razzer" <coolmandan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106494198.020183.233360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:aul5v0hifato7to53g790p4qkj39dqh38u@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:17:45 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> in news message
<diAId.19163$c%6.13878@trnddc03> wrote:
"Razzer" <coolmandan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106411211.460474.200560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/011905/ross.html
[snip]
I thought the Christians already believed that the Ten
Commandsments
were posted on the building that Congress resides. Is this
finally an
admittal that they were wrong?
What on earth makes you think that?
You are right. The Religopolitical fundamentalists do not admit
they
are wrong. The most they will admit is that their actions might
have
had unintended consequences.
Actually, I was asking what made him think that "the Christians" (as
if we
all think and believe alike) all already believe that the Ten
Commandments
are posted in the Capitol Building, but hey, your interpretation
works too,
for at least a few of 'em.
Sorry, I did not mean to overgeneralize. "Hard right-wingers" probably
would have been better.
Well, no....there are plenty of us hard right-wingers who are quite aware of
what is displayed where, too. (Grin)
But, I know what you meant.
Diana, who would rather not even make left turns in traffic.....
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
25 Jan 2005 03:59:04 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:05:49 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Razzer" <coolmandan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106494198.020183.233360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:aul5v0hifato7to53g790p4qkj39dqh38u@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:17:45 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> in news message
<diAId.19163$c%6.13878@trnddc03> wrote:
"Razzer" <coolmandan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106411211.460474.200560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/011905/ross.html
[snip]
I thought the Christians already believed that the Ten
Commandsments
were posted on the building that Congress resides. Is this
finally an
admittal that they were wrong?
What on earth makes you think that?
You are right. The Religopolitical fundamentalists do not admit
they
are wrong. The most they will admit is that their actions might
have
had unintended consequences.
Actually, I was asking what made him think that "the Christians" (as
if we
all think and believe alike) all already believe that the Ten
Commandments
are posted in the Capitol Building, but hey, your interpretation
works too,
for at least a few of 'em.
Sorry, I did not mean to overgeneralize. "Hard right-wingers" probably
would have been better.
Well, no....there are plenty of us hard right-wingers who are quite aware of
what is displayed where, too. (Grin)
But, I know what you meant.
Diana, who would rather not even make left turns in traffic.....
Too many theists running red lights....
(wicked grin)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shadow Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
23 Jan 2005 06:35:31 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:aul5v0hifato7to53g790p4qkj39dqh38u@4ax.com...
However, they could be confusing the National Archives with the Capitol
Building, or else they could figure that having a depiction of Moses
opposite the Rostrum counts, even if he is nestled between Solon and
Hammurabi in a gallery of 'lawgivers'.
Of course, now that THIS information is 'out', I expect a great outcry to
get Moses' face removed from the wall....
now me, I'm all for having the Ten Commandments displayed, right under
Moses' plaque, next to the documents that made the other lawmakers
celebrated in the chamber worthy of representation; Blackstone, Napoleon,
Mason, Potheir, Edward I, Gergory IX, Suleimon, Maiamonides, Papinian,
Lycurgus, de Montfort and the rest....
And that "turning point" in history is -exactly- what is being
illustrated by those statues. Not one Religion, not one particular
view... but thousands of years of the progress of man.
Given the other characters represented, I doubt anyone will ever
want Moses removed.
They help put it into the Context that it was intended,
as opposed to backing a particular religion, like Moore
and other nutters think.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
23 Jan 2005 08:41:03 PM |
|
|
"Shadow Walker" <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in message
news:ct0qtd$fg7$1@news.onecall.net...
DianaC wrote:
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:aul5v0hifato7to53g790p4qkj39dqh38u@4ax.com...
However, they could be confusing the National Archives with the Capitol
Building, or else they could figure that having a depiction of Moses
opposite the Rostrum counts, even if he is nestled between Solon and
Hammurabi in a gallery of 'lawgivers'.
Of course, now that THIS information is 'out', I expect a great outcry
to
get Moses' face removed from the wall....
now me, I'm all for having the Ten Commandments displayed, right under
Moses' plaque, next to the documents that made the other lawmakers
celebrated in the chamber worthy of representation; Blackstone,
Napoleon,
Mason, Potheir, Edward I, Gergory IX, Suleimon, Maiamonides, Papinian,
Lycurgus, de Montfort and the rest....
And that "turning point" in history is -exactly- what is being
illustrated by those statues. Not one Religion, not one particular
view... but thousands of years of the progress of man.
Given the other characters represented, I doubt anyone will ever
want Moses removed.
They help put it into the Context that it was intended,
as opposed to backing a particular religion, like Moore
and other nutters think.
Version E-Mail This Article
Published on Monday, December 6, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
On Receiving Harvard Medical School's Global Environment
Citizen Award
by Bill Moyers
On Wednesday, December 1, 2004, the Center for Health and
the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School presented its fourth annual
Global Environment Citizen Award to Bill Moyers. In presenting the award,
Meryl Streep, a member of the Center board, said, "Through resourceful,
intrepid reportage and perceptive voices from the forward edge of the
debate, Moyers has examined an environment under siege with the aim of
engaging citizens." Here is the text of his response to Ms. Streep's
presentation of the award:
I accept this award on behalf of all the people behind the
camera whom you never see. And for all those scientists, advocates,
activists, and just plain citizens whose stories we have covered in
reporting on how environmental change affects our daily lives. We
journalists are simply beachcombers on the shores of other people's
knowledge, other people's experience, and other people's wisdom. We tell
their stories.
The journalist who truly deserves this award is my friend,
Bill McKibben. He enjoys the most conspicuous place in my own pantheon of
journalistic heroes for his pioneer work in writing about the environment.
His bestseller The End of Nature carried on where Rachel Carson's Silent
Spring left off.
Writing in Mother Jones recently, Bill described how the
problems we journalists routinely cover - conventional, manageable programs
like budget shortfalls and pollution - may be about to convert to chaotic,
unpredictable, unmanageable situations. The most unmanageable of all, he
writes, could be the accelerating deterioration of the environment, creating
perils with huge momentum like the greenhouse effect that is causing the
melt of the arctic to release so much freshwater into the North Atlantic
that even the Pentagon is growing alarmed that a weakening gulf stream could
yield abrupt and overwhelming changes, the kind of changes that could
radically alter civilizations.
That's one challenge we journalists face - how to tell
such a story without coming across as Cassandras, without turning off the
people we most want to understand what's happening, who must act on what
they read and hear.
As difficult as it is, however, for journalists to fashion
a readable narrative for complex issues without depressing our readers and
viewers, there is an even harder challenge - to pierce the ideology that
governs official policy today. One of the biggest changes in politics in my
lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from
the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the oval office and in Congress.
For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of
power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven
true; ideologues hold stoutly to a world view despite being contradicted by
what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple,
their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is
the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.
Remember James Watt, President Reagan's first Secretary of
the Interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever engaging
Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that
protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return
of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, 'after the last tree is
felled, Christ will come back.'
Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what
he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots
out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is
literally true - one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup
poll is accurate. In this past election several million good and decent
citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index. That's right -
the rapture index. Google it and you will find that the best-selling books
in America today are the twelve volumes of the left-behind series written by
the Christian fundamentalist and religious right warrior, Timothy LaHaye.
These true believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the
19th century by a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages
from the Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the
imagination of millions of Americans.
Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre (the British
writer George Monbiot recently did a brilliant dissection of it and I am
indebted to him for adding to my own understanding): once Israel has
occupied the rest of its 'biblical lands,' legions of the anti-Christ will
attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. As the
Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah will return for the
rapture. True believers will be lifted out of their clothes and transported
to heaven, where, seated next to the right hand of God, they will watch
their political and religious opponents suffer plagues of boils, sores,
locusts, and frogs during the several years of tribulation that follow.
I'm not making this up. Like Monbiot, I've read the
literature. I've reported on these people, following some of them from Texas
to the West Bank. They are sincere, serious, and polite as they tell you
they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical
prophecy. That's why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the
Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers.
It's why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the
Book of Revelation where four angels 'which are bound in the great river
Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man.' A war with Islam
in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed - an essential
conflagration on the road to redemption. The last time I Googled it, the
rapture index stood at 144-just one point below the critical threshold when
the whole thing will blow, the son of God will return, the righteous will
enter heaven, and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire.
So what does this mean for public policy and the
environment? Go to Grist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the
journalist, Glenn Scherer - 'the road to environmental apocalypse. Read it
and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that
environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually
welcomed - even hastened - as a sign of the coming apocalypse.
As Grist makes clear, we're not talking about a handful of
fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. Nearly half the
U.S. Congress before the recent election - 231 legislators in total - more
since the election - are backed by the religious right. Forty-five senators
and 186 members of the 108th congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval
ratings from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups.
They include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Assistant Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell, Conference Chair Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Policy
Chair Jon Kyl of Arizona, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, and Majority Whip
Roy Blunt. The only Democrat to score 100 percent with the Christian
coalition was Senator Zell Miller of Georgia, who recently quoted from the
biblical book of Amos on the senate floor: "the days will come, sayeth the
Lord God, that i will send a famine in the land.' He seemed to be relishing
the thought.
And why not? There's a constituency for it. A 2002
TIME/CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies
found in the Book of Revelation are going to come true. Nearly one-quarter
think the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks. Drive across the country with
your radio tuned to the more than 1,600 Christian radio stations or in the
motel turn some of the 250 Christian TV stations and you can hear some of
this end-time gospel. And you will come to understand why people under the
spell of such potent prophecies cannot be expected, as Grist puts it, "to
worry about the environment. Why care about the earth when the droughts,
floods, famine and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of
the apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why care about global climate change
when you and yours will be rescued in the rapture? And why care about
converting from oil to solar when the same God who performed the miracle of
the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with
a word?"
Because these people believe that until Christ does
return, the lord will provide. One of their texts is a high school history
book, America's Providential History. You'll find there these words: "the
secular or socialist has a limited resource mentality and views the world as
a pie.that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece.' however, "[t]he
Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no
shortage of resources in God's earth..while many secularists view the world
as overpopulated, Christians know that God has made the earth sufficiently
large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people." No wonder
Karl Rove goes around the White House whistling that militant hymn, "Onward
Christian Soldiers." He turned out millions of the foot soldiers on November
2, including many who have made the apocalypse a powerful driving force in
modern American politics.
I can see in the look on your faces just how had it is for
the journalist to report a story like this with any credibility. So let me
put it on a personal level. I myself don't know how to be in this world
without expecting a confident future and getting up every morning to do what
I can to bring it about. So I have always been an optimist. Now, however, I
think of my friend on Wall Street whom I once asked: "What do you think of
the market?" "I'm optimistic," he answered. "Then why do you look so
worried?" And he answered: "Because I am not sure my optimism is justified."
I'm not, either. Once upon a time I agreed with Eric
Chivian and the Center for Health and the Global Environment that people
will protect the natural environment when they realize its importance to
their health and to the health and lives of their children. Now I am not so
sure. It's not that I don't want to believe that - it's just that I read the
news and connect the dots:
I read that the administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency has declared the election a mandate for President Bush on
the environment. This for an administration that wants to rewrite the Clean
Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act protecting rare
plant and animal species and their habitats, as well as the National
Environmental Policy Act that requires the government to judge beforehand if
actions might damage natural resources.
That wants to relax pollution limits for ozone;
eliminate vehicle tailpipe inspections; and ease pollution standards for
cars, sports utility vehicles and diesel-powered big trucks and heavy
equipment.
That wants a new international audit law to allow
corporations to keep certain information about environmental problems secret
from the public.
That wants to drop all its new-source review suits
against polluting coal-fired power plans and weaken consent decrees reached
earlier with coal companies.
That wants to open the arctic wildlife refuge to
drilling and increase drilling in Padre Island National Seashore, the
longest stretch of undeveloped barrier island in the world and the last
great coastal wild land in America.
I read the news just this week and learned how the
Environmental Protection Agency had planned to spend nine million dollars -
$2 million of it from the administration's friends at the American Chemistry
Council - to pay poor families to continue to use pesticides in their homes.
These pesticides have been linked to neurological damage in children, but
instead of ordering an end to their use, the government and the industry
were going to offer the families $970 each, as well as a camcorder and
children's clothing, to serve as guinea pigs for the study.
I read all this in the news.
I read the news just last night and learned that the
administration's friends at the international policy network, which is
supported by ExxonMobil and others of like mind, have issued a new report
that climate change is 'a myth, sea levels are not rising, scientists who
believe catastrophe is possible are 'an embarrassment.
I not only read the news but the fine print of the
recent appropriations bill passed by Congress, with the obscure (and
obscene) riders attached to it: a clause removing all endangered species
protections from pesticides; language prohibiting judicial review for a
forest in Oregon; a waiver of environmental review for grazing permits on
public lands; a rider pressed by developers to weaken protection for crucial
habitats in California.
I read all this and look up at the pictures on my desk,
next to the computer - pictures of my grandchildren: Henry, age 12; of
Thomas, age 10; of Nancy, 7; Jassie, 3; Sara Jane, nine months. I see the
future looking back at me from those photographs and I say, 'Father, forgive
us, for we know not what we do.' And then I am stopped short by the thought:
'That's not right. We do know what we are doing. We are stealing their
future. Betraying their trust. Despoiling their world.'
And I ask myself: Why? Is it because we don't care?
Because we are greedy? Because we have lost our capacity for outrage, our
ability to sustain indignation at injustice?
What has happened to out moral imagination?
On the heath Lear asks Gloucester: 'How do you see the
world?" And Gloucester, who is blind, answers: "I see it feelingly.'"
I see it feelingly.
The news is not good these days. I can tell you, though,
that as a journalist, I know the news is never the end of the story. The
news can be the truth that sets us free - not only to feel but to fight for
the future we want. And the will to fight is the antidote to despair, the
cure for cynicism, and the answer to those faces looking back at me from
those photographs on my desk. What we need to match the science of human
health is what the ancient Israelites called 'hocma' - the science of the
heart...the capacity to see..to feel..and then to act.as if the future
depended on you.
Believe me, it does.
begin 666 icon_email.gif
M1TE&.#EA$ `0`-4``````/___R8^,NWM[>?GY^7EY>3DY.+BXN'AX>#@X-_?
MW][>WMS<W-O;V]G9V=C8V-?7U];6UM75U=34U-/3T]+2TM'1T<_/S\[.SLW-
MS<O+R\K*RLG)R<C(R,?'Q\;&QL3$Q,/#P\'!P<# P+Z^OKV]O;R\O+N[N[JZ
MNK2TM*NKJ____P``````````````````````````````````````````````
M`````````````````````````````````"'Y! $``"L`+ `````0`! ```9]
MP$ `@5@L&HW'0R*A4(0!Q@!*A0X\@42BRLUB%-UN9B$4F,]HH891)G%)`D)@
MTR@?!%3!7=YQE -W=@%Q`1X0?X!F!V5R(A%_*E21A" 391]<'X0D3X-HGW(F
E%E $I::G`2<7!6%4%6X>!JT!%2E0'!P?'R$A(R,E)2@H0D$`.P``
`
end
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
23 Jan 2005 06:50:49 PM |
|
|
"Shadow Walker" <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in message
news:ct0qtd$fg7$1@news.onecall.net...
DianaC wrote:
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:aul5v0hifato7to53g790p4qkj39dqh38u@4ax.com...
However, they could be confusing the National Archives with the Capitol
Building, or else they could figure that having a depiction of Moses
opposite the Rostrum counts, even if he is nestled between Solon and
Hammurabi in a gallery of 'lawgivers'.
Of course, now that THIS information is 'out', I expect a great outcry to
get Moses' face removed from the wall....
now me, I'm all for having the Ten Commandments displayed, right under
Moses' plaque, next to the documents that made the other lawmakers
celebrated in the chamber worthy of representation; Blackstone, Napoleon,
Mason, Potheir, Edward I, Gergory IX, Suleimon, Maiamonides, Papinian,
Lycurgus, de Montfort and the rest....
And that "turning point" in history is -exactly- what is being
illustrated by those statues. Not one Religion, not one particular
view... but thousands of years of the progress of man.
Given the other characters represented, I doubt anyone will ever
want Moses removed.
Wanna bet?
They help put it into the Context that it was intended,
as opposed to backing a particular religion, like Moore
and other nutters think.
Well, I agree with you, actually. But I'm not so sanguine as to think that
someone won't sue to get Moses outa there. ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shadow Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
23 Jan 2005 07:05:54 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"Shadow Walker" <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in message
news:ct0qtd$fg7$1@news.onecall.net...
<snip>
They help put it into the Context that it was intended,
as opposed to backing a particular religion, like Moore
and other nutters think.
Well, I agree with you, actually. But I'm not so sanguine as to think that
someone won't sue to get Moses outa there. ;-)
Given the equal time to other religions, I will be right
there with you defending it.
Besides, with the equal time, almost _all_ landmark rulings
on the subject, to date, still protect it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
23 Jan 2005 07:41:42 PM |
|
|
"Shadow Walker" <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in message
news:ct0smc$g0g$1@news.onecall.net...
DianaC wrote:
"Shadow Walker" <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in message
news:ct0qtd$fg7$1@news.onecall.net...
<snip>
They help put it into the Context that it was intended,
as opposed to backing a particular religion, like Moore
and other nutters think.
Well, I agree with you, actually. But I'm not so sanguine as to think
that someone won't sue to get Moses outa there. ;-)
Given the equal time to other religions, I will be right
there with you defending it.
Besides, with the equal time, almost _all_ landmark rulings
on the subject, to date, still protect it.
I know. But still they keep trying....
My irritation is as much with the individual religions who want just theirs
up as it is with those who don't want ANY up. What is it with these people
that they just don't get it? So far apart, yet in essence, thinking exactly
the same thing; all they want up is THEIR pov.
.
|
|
|
| User: " jls" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
23 Jan 2005 08:38:27 PM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:W5TId.17512$IP6.10355@trnddc05...
"Shadow Walker" <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in message
news:ct0smc$g0g$1@news.onecall.net...
DianaC wrote:
"Shadow Walker" <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in message
news:ct0qtd$fg7$1@news.onecall.net...
<snip>
They help put it into the Context that it was intended,
as opposed to backing a particular religion, like Moore
and other nutters think.
Well, I agree with you, actually. But I'm not so sanguine as to think
that someone won't sue to get Moses outa there. ;-)
Given the equal time to other religions, I will be right
there with you defending it.
Besides, with the equal time, almost _all_ landmark rulings
on the subject, to date, still protect it.
I know. But still they keep trying....
My irritation is as much with the individual religions who want just
theirs
up as it is with those who don't want ANY up. What is it with these people
that they just don't get it? So far apart, yet in essence, thinking
exactly
the same thing; all they want up is THEIR pov.
Whatever your religious POV, I think you're right on the present point.
This morning I heard a minister -- the teevy being full of them in so many
of the channels (and to think that the evangelicals are complaining that
they are being run out of the marketplace of ideas) so there's this preacher
very eloquently peddling the Waldenses POV. Now while doing so he
condemned Catholicism, which I'm inclined to be more partial to because of
their belief that even after death a sinful soul still has a chance to avoid
hell and can be polished and sandpapered up and prayed for and enter heaven
from Purgatory. Well, I kind of like that idea, agnostic that I am,
because if I found myself on the way to hell after dying at least I might
have a second chance by detouring to purgatory. The Catholics say the soul
wanders after death; the Waldenses say it is dispatched straight either to
paradise or perdition and that to contend otherwise is satanic. So you see
the issue is joined. And swords are rattling.
The Waldenses, a protestant sect from the mountains of Northern Italy,
denounces the conception of purgatory and declares it to be the grim work of
the Anti-Christ, according to this preacher. Now that is inflammatory
language --- fighting words one could say, despite the preacher's
broad-grinning toothy Howdy-Doody smile.
So you see as soon as one or the other of the denominations gets that
foothold of the official government religion, you can expect a bit of a
bloodbath. Such as the Papists taking their revenge against the Waldenses
for their blasphemous heresies against the encyclicals which created
purgatory. OTOH, if the Waldenses (or Baptists, though hopefully not the
angry warlike Southern Baptists) get the upper hand in Washington, you can
be sure that Catholics will be hounded and persecuted most dreadfully. Why,
we could even have another 100-year war and certainly skirmishes and St.
Bartholomew-type massacres will spring up everywhere on this continent.
And I would hate to see what will happen to the Mormons and their pugnacious
cousins, the Muslims, if either the reigning Protestants or Catholics
surround them, even if they become allies and worship in each other's
churches.
Of course it will all start, I'm just guessing here, when one or the other
of the congregations burns a few Wiccans for pagan rites on the sabbath.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
23 Jan 2005 10:39:17 PM |
|
|
" jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4XTId.20428$8W4.2129@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
<snip to the meat>
So you see as soon as one or the other of the denominations gets that
foothold of the official government religion, you can expect a bit of a
bloodbath.
Of course. That happens too, when the 'official religion' is no religion, or
more to the point, 'anti-religion'. When the only religious expression
allowed on government property is expression AGAINST religion, then that too
is a problem. A big one. The solution isn't to prohibit such expression. The
solution is to allow ALL of it. Every single opinion. Every single wierd
idea. Devote a space just for that. Keep it there, allow everyone in.
It will make everybody mad, and as far as I can tell, that's the truest
measure of a really good compromise; one that everyone is mad at.
Such as the Papists taking their revenge against the Waldenses
for their blasphemous heresies against the encyclicals which created
purgatory. OTOH, if the Waldenses (or Baptists, though hopefully not the
angry warlike Southern Baptists) get the upper hand in Washington, you can
be sure that Catholics will be hounded and persecuted most dreadfully.
Why,
we could even have another 100-year war and certainly skirmishes and St.
Bartholomew-type massacres will spring up everywhere on this continent.
And I would hate to see what will happen to the Mormons and their
pugnacious
cousins, the Muslims,
Good grief, Muslims and Mormons are cousins??? (looking frantically at my
family and doctrinal tree) Coulda fooled me. Actually, Mormon doctrine
marches better with Catholicism than anything else. ;-)
if either the reigning Protestants or Catholics
surround them, even if they become allies and worship in each other's
churches.
Oh good grief, you KNOW what happens when such things 'happen' (misquote
from "Phantom")...the Mormons get kicked out of the country and the Crusades
start.
So what? The prevention isn't to deny people access, it's to permit it to
all, spiking everybody's guns.
Of course it will all start, I'm just guessing here, when one or the other
of the congregations burns a few Wiccans for pagan rites on the sabbath.
If it didn't 'start' when a preacher's son shot a nine year old Mormon boy
dead with the comment 'nits make lice'...and lived a long, happy and
celebrated life thereafter, then I don't think that in THIS day and age
anything is going to 'start'. Those who predict such things need to look at
history, and see what the cultural context really has to be before such
things can happen unpunished.
But I'll tell you this much; it won't be the wiccans who get burned; it's
more likely some Four Square Gospel group that's going to get sued because
they told a Wiccan not to bless their church grounds as a meeting place.
Diana (who still has some very wierd memories of having her own chapel
dedicated as a Wiccan worship place, had a Muslim cleric call us all to
prayer from the pulpit, had it blessed by a Jewish Rabbi, a Hindu choir and
a Catholic priest all in the space of three hours)
.
|
|
|
| User: " jls" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
24 Jan 2005 02:39:52 PM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:pIVId.10581$J6.7851@trnddc02...
" jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4XTId.20428$8W4.2129@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
<snip to the meat>
So you see as soon as one or the other of the denominations gets that
foothold of the official government religion, you can expect a bit of a
bloodbath.
Of course. That happens too, when the 'official religion' is no religion,
or
more to the point, 'anti-religion'. When the only religious expression
allowed on government property is expression AGAINST religion, then that
too
is a problem. A big one.
Where do you find that to be a problem? I've never heard of it-- case of
first impression for me.
The solution isn't to prohibit such expression. The
solution is to allow ALL of it. Every single opinion. Every single wierd
idea. Devote a space just for that. Keep it there, allow everyone in.
Town squares are everywhere. Street preachers and other nuts and weirdos
all gather and make their pitches there, as if it were a public chatauqua.
We already have places devoted "just for that."
It will make everybody mad, and as far as I can tell, that's the truest
measure of a really good compromise; one that everyone is mad at.
You're inadvertently here making a sound argument for the present-day
interpretation by the courts of the Establishment Clause. You're
implicitly demonstrating the necessity for the Lemon Test, i. e., government
neither inhibits nor promotes religion and must be neutral toward it and
avoid any entanglements with religion.
Such as the Papists taking their revenge against the Waldenses
for their blasphemous heresies against the encyclicals which created
purgatory. OTOH, if the Waldenses (or Baptists, though hopefully not
the
angry warlike Southern Baptists) get the upper hand in Washington, you
can
be sure that Catholics will be hounded and persecuted most dreadfully.
Why,
we could even have another 100-year war and certainly skirmishes and St.
Bartholomew-type massacres will spring up everywhere on this continent.
And I would hate to see what will happen to the Mormons and their
pugnacious
cousins, the Muslims,
Good grief, Muslims and Mormons are cousins???
Tongue in cheek. Have a sense of humor, will you?
(looking frantically at my
family and doctrinal tree) Coulda fooled me. Actually, Mormon doctrine
marches better with Catholicism than anything else. ;-)
OK. You and your emoticon DO have a sense of humor.
if either the reigning Protestants or Catholics
surround them, even if they become allies and worship in each other's
churches.
Oh good grief, you KNOW what happens when such things 'happen' (misquote
from "Phantom")...the Mormons get kicked out of the country and the
Crusades
start.
Which "Phantom" is that --- of the opera? Clue me in here.
So what? The prevention isn't to deny people access, it's to permit it to
all, spiking everybody's guns.
More argument for the strict interpretation of the Establishment Clause in
conformity with the ominous predictions of Madison and Jefferson if it were
not strictly enforced.
Of course it will all start, I'm just guessing here, when one or the
other
of the congregations burns a few Wiccans for pagan rites on the sabbath.
If it didn't 'start' when a preacher's son shot a nine year old Mormon boy
dead with the comment 'nits make lice'...and lived a long, happy and
celebrated life thereafter,
This sounds like a typical case of religious persecution, a hate crime, and
perhaps one of the events preceding the Mormon settlement in Utah Territory.
Where may I read more about this? I found no reference to it by googling.
then I don't think that in THIS day and age
anything is going to 'start'. Those who predict such things need to look
at
history, and see what the cultural context really has to be before such
things can happen unpunished.
Just tongue in cheek, but Twain's story about all the preachers from
different denominations placed in a tight room together and the ensuing fur
flying --- it rings true.
But I'll tell you this much; it won't be the wiccans who get burned; it's
more likely some Four Square Gospel group that's going to get sued because
they told a Wiccan not to bless their church grounds as a meeting place.
No basis for that lawsuit. That kind of discrimination is perfectly legal
and then churches are entitled to the trespass law enforcement.
Diana (who still has some very wierd memories of having her own chapel
dedicated as a Wiccan worship place, had a Muslim cleric call us all to
prayer from the pulpit, had it blessed by a Jewish Rabbi, a Hindu choir
and
a Catholic priest all in the space of three hours)
So. You must be one of those ecumenical Unitarians who accepts all
religions, and the atheists too. Where did this occur, Salt Lake City?
On your advocacy elsewhere that all the icons or lore of the various
religions be given equal treatment by the government in the public sphere, I
disagree. It just cannot be done. It would be a logistical nightmare.
I think you probably realize that, deep down. Government neutrality,
however, is workable. It can be done, and that would be the highest and
best application of the First Amendment.
BTW, most atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, skeptics and the like are
philosophers. They are peaceful and, unlike most Xians, non-aggressive
with their beliefs. Having grown up in a Xian home, I found Xians to be in
your face with their missionary zeal and great commission. As an eloquent
man once said, Priests commit murders and historically incite wars and
rebellions, but philosophers do not. And yes, I know: Stalin was an
atheist, but as a young man he studied for the priesthood.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Lawmaker wants Ten Commandments on display in Capitol |
24 Jan 2005 06:29:56 PM |
|
|
" jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:cK7Jd.5242$ud3.673@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:pIVId.10581$J6.7851@trnddc02...
" jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4XTId.20428$8W4.2129@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
<snip to the meat>
So you see as soon as one or the other of the denominations gets that
foothold of the official government religion, you can expect a bit of a
bloodbath.
Of course. That happens too, when the 'official religion' is no religion,
or
more to the point, 'anti-religion'. When the only religious expression
allowed on government property is expression AGAINST religion, then that
too
is a problem. A big one.
Where do you find that to be a problem? I've never heard of it-- case of
first impression for me.
Because the situation from your POV is that the government is agreeing with
you. That's always a comforting thing, and tends to blur the vision. ;-)
The solution isn't to prohibit such expression. The
solution is to allow ALL of it. Every single opinion. Every single wierd
idea. Devote a space just for that. Keep it there, allow everyone in.
Town squares are everywhere. Street preachers and other nuts and weirdos
all gather and make their pitches there, as if it were a public chatauqua.
We already have places devoted "just for that."
Do we now? We used to. England still does. But a preacher standing in the
'town square' (public property) now would get SUED. And you know it.
It will make everybody mad, and as far as I can tell, that's the truest
measure of a really good compromise; one that everyone is mad at.
You're inadvertently here making a sound argument for the present-day
interpretation by the courts of the Establishment Clause. You're
implicitly demonstrating the necessity for the Lemon Test, i. e.,
government
neither inhibits nor promotes religion and must be neutral toward it and
avoid any entanglements with religion.
Except that in attempting to keep the government OUT of religion, it's
drawing the government ever more closely TO it.
Such as the Papists taking their revenge against the Waldenses
for their blasphemous heresies against the encyclicals which created
purgatory. OTOH, if the Waldenses (or Baptists, though hopefully not
the
angry warlike Southern Baptists) get the upper hand in Washington, you
can
be sure that Catholics will be hounded and persecuted most dreadfully.
Why,
we could even have another 100-year war and certainly skirmishes and
St.
Bartholomew-type massacres will spring up everywhere on this continent.
And I would hate to see what will happen to the Mormons and their
pugnacious
cousins, the Muslims,
Good grief, Muslims and Mormons are cousins???
Tongue in cheek. Have a sense of humor, will you?
(looking frantically at my
family and doctrinal tree) Coulda fooled me. Actually, Mormon doctrine
marches better with Catholicism than anything else. ;-)
OK. You and your emoticon DO have a sense of humor.
(whew) was worried there for a second.
if either the reigning Protestants or Catholics
surround them, even if they become allies and worship in each other's
churches.
Oh good grief, you KNOW what happens when such things 'happen' (misquote
from "Phantom")...the Mormons get kicked out of the country and the
Crusades
start.
Which "Phantom" is that --- of the opera? Clue me in here.
Andrew Lloyd Webber. "Phantom of the Opera", stage and screen both...
So what? The prevention isn't to deny people access, it's to permit it to
all, spiking everybody's guns.
More argument for the strict interpretation of the Establishment Clause in
conformity with the ominous predictions of Madison and Jefferson if it
were
not strictly enforced.
Well, it would do exactly that, actually...whereas I see that the present
attempts to deal with the situation are simply making it worse...and
actually establishing an official government opinion on religion. Which is
in effect if not in name, establishing a state 'religion', or rather, an
official state position on the existance of deity. Now, while that position
would agree with yours, and would thus be at first glance to be a desirable
one, it's a very bad idea. I would be just this argumentative against making
Mormonism the official state religion.
Of course it will all start, I'm just guessing here, when one or the
other
of the congregations burns a few Wiccans for pagan rites on the
sabbath.
If it didn't 'start' when a preacher's son shot a nine year old Mormon
boy
dead with the comment 'nits make lice'...and lived a long, happy and
celebrated life thereafter,
This sounds like a typical case of religious persecution, a hate crime,
and
perhaps one of the events preceding the Mormon settlement in Utah
Territory.
Where may I read more about this? I found no reference to it by
googling.
Do Hauns' Mill. You might find that, and you | | | | | | | | | | | | |
