Re: McCreary v ACLU

Religions > Atheism > Re: McCreary v ACLU

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	30 Jun 2005 06:36:46 AM
Object:	Re: McCreary v ACLU

"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

:|"Nor does the Court hold that a sacred text can never be
:|integrated constitutionally into a governmental display on
:|law or history. Its own courtroom frieze depicts Moses
:|holding tablets exhibiting a portion of the secularly
:|phrased Commandments; in the company of 17 other lawgivers,
:|most of them secular figures, there is no risk that Moses
:|would strike an observer as evidence that the National
:|Government was violating religious neutrality."

BTW, where exactly did that above come from? You forgot to cite it or give
credit. Shame, shame

The above fella goes by a number of names
Everdresh, KC, Kands00
in UseNet I and refer to him as internet nutcase
Others aren't as kind. (grin)
His actual facts are alomst always wrong and he trolls a number of
newsgroups
Here is what he says about himself:
***********************************************************************************
few facts about me
-Homeschooling Father, Husband, and Online Minister
-Freelance Author of published poetry, articles, and books
-Ten years in the US National Guard and Regular Army (many awards)
-Multi-award recipent in High School and College (athletic and academic)
**************************************************************************************
[now my reply]
Dude, you need to really seriously study the USSC friezes before you go
making a bigger ***** of yourself that you have already done over the years
if that is possible.
Let's begin with this:
USSC & WASHINGTONDC
Much is also made by evangelicals of the tablet behind the Bench. Firstly,
it is one tablet, not two which has always been the customary symbolic
porttrayal of the commandments. For a long time, people thought that the
one tablet represented ancient laws between the 2 allegorical figures of
law and government but it turns out that this was not Weinman's intention.
According to the Office of the Curator at the court,
"The East wall frieze is located directly above the Bench and focuses on
two male figures that represent the Majesty of Law and the Power of
Government. According to a letter from Weinman to Gilbert, the tablet
between them symbolizes the first ten amendments to the Constitution, also
known as the Bill of Rights. The allegorical figures standing on either
side of the central figures symbolize Wisdom, on the left, and Justice, on
the right. Weinman described the figures grouped to the right side as the
Safeguard of the Liberties and Rights of the People in their pursuit of
Happiness and those on the left side as The Defense of Human Rights and
Protection of Innocence."
Yes, The Bill of Rights, not ancient laws and not the commandments which
are always represented as two tablets
In no way is Moses shown to be more important than Solo and Confucius.
Because Moses has 2 tablets and Solon and Confucius each have one held on
the outside, it is the only place, based on artistic symmetry and
aesthetics, that Moses could sit. And he is sitting between the 2 great
lawgivers, who are standing. Moses is not in front of Solon or Confucius
either. Because he is sitting, is knees are in front of him. In both the
USSC and the Capitol, classical and non-Christian symbolism far outweighs
the Christian features. The way the frieze is designed is to represent the
many lawgivers as part of our legal heritage. Because Suleiman the Great
and Mohamet are represented does not mean the buildings promote Islam any
more than the building promotes Judeo-Christianity with representations of
Moses and Justinian. Nothing about the Supreme Court building implies our
laws are solely based on the commandments or Judeo-Christianity,. With the
founders of Confucianism and Islam sharing the stage with Moses as historic
lawgivers in human history, it simply doesnt support the religious right's
claims that the Supreme Court somehow supports the notion of a legally
Christian nation.
http://community-2.webtv.net/WesternMind/WASHINGTONDC/page2.html
******************************************************************************************
Next comes this
The following is excerpted from
The Complete Ten Commandments a Study Guide
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/10commsg.htm
[excerpt]
The United StatesSupreme Court Building and the Ten Commandments
Supreme Court of the United States
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
The Court Building
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/courtbuilding.pdf
The West Pediment
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/westpediment.pdf
The East Pediment
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/eastpediment.pdf
Courtroom Friezes: North and South Walls
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf
Courtroom Friezes: East and West Walls
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/east&westwalls.pdf
The Bronze Doors
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/bronzedoors.pdf
The Oak Doors leading into the courtroom,Entire door
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor.jpg
Close up of door
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor3.jpg
The US Supreme Court Building
http://architecture.about.com/library/blgilbertsupremecourt.htm
Biography of Cass Gilbert (Cass Gilbert - Skyscraper Pioneer born November
29, 1859 - died May 17, 1934)
http://architecture.about.com/library/bl-gilbert.htm
Neoclassical Architecture: Neoclassical and Federalist and Idealist
http://architecture.about.com/cs/neoclassical/index.htm
History of the US Supreme Court
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa081400a.htm
******************************************************************************************
Additional Comments by Others
From: forlornh@aol.commode (Lord Calvert)
Date: 12 Sep 2003 18:08:10 GMT
Subject: Re: 10 Com, USSC, Founding FACTS
Yes. I'd like him to go to the USSC building and quote for us the text of
the commandments which appear in the building and just how meaningful that
text is. Here, I'll even quote the text which is used on the US Supreme
Court display.
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
Impressive, isn't it??
****************************************************************************************
From:

(Dave)
Subject: Re: 10 Com, USSC, Founding FACTS
Date: 12 Sep 2003 21:51:00 -0700
I think it's nice that the U.S. Supreme Court building contains graven
images of Moses, which thus ignores Commandment #2, and also includes
graven images of Muhammad (pox be upon him), an image which Islam strictly
forbids. It is also nice to see Moses standing in a line of dull personages
looking like just one more forlorn joker. Not surprising that the fundies
keep cropping the photos to make Moses seem more important. It is rather
sad that on the East Pediment (back entrance) of the Supreme Court building
the image of Moses is indeed central and slightly larger than the other
figures, although he does not seem very much larger, and of course the
building was only constructed in the 1930's.
**********************************************************************************
[my comments]
Take a look at what the architect and sculptor say they considered in the
design and building of the United States Supreme Court Building. here.
http://architecture.about.com/library/blgilbertsupremecourt.htm
I have to add a comment to the above.
I see they have a made a change in the online version versus the booklet
that we received from them in 96 or 97
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/east&westwalls.pdf
I don't know which of the two versions, the one from the printed
booklet:
In the frieze located directly above the Bench, on the East wall, two
male figures in the center represent "Majesty of Law" and "Power of
Government." The tablet between them symbolizes early written laws. The
allegorical figures on either side symbolize "Wisdom" and "Justice."
Grouped on the right side are figures that, according to sculptor Weinman,
embody the "Safeguard of the Liberties and Rights of the People in their
pursuit of Happiness," while those on the left side depict "The Defense of
Human Rights and Protection of Innocence."
or this from the website at
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/east&westwalls.pdf
The East wall frieze is located directly above the Bench and focuses on
two male figures that represent the Majesty of Law and the Power of
Government. According to a letter from Weinman to Gilbert, the tablet
between them symbolizes the first ten amendments to the Constitution, also
known as the Bill of Rights. The allegorical figures standing on either
side of the central figures symbolize Wisdom, on the left, and Justice, on
the right. Weinman described the figures grouped to the right side as the
Safeguard of the Liberties and Rights of the People in their pursuit of
Happiness and those on the left side as The Defense of Human Rights and
Protection of Innocence.
actually best represents what the letter from Weinman to Gilbert says.
The booklet version that we received back in the mid 90s gave a little more
support to those who claimed it represented the 10 Commandments since it
depicted Roman Numerals I-X and the Bill of Rights was not numbered that
way as originally written
Originally the Bill of Rights was Article the First, Article the Second,
through Article the twelfth
Now they are called Amendment I through Amendment X At any rate the online
version is more secular leaning than the booklet sent out in the 90s The
booklet version of ancient laws symbolized how ancient laws were originally
written. Perhaps not on stone tablets, per se, but scrolls, parchment, etc.
Thus, the depiction could symbolize all ancient laws or just the 10
Commandments. Nothing in the Supreme Court building highlights the 10
Commandments for special attention, etc. Some Additional Comments with
Regards to the Ten Commandments and the United States Supreme Court
Building
The East Pediment is another target that the other side likes to use. In
the very center are three figures which are suppose to be Moses Confucius
and Solon. Of the three Moses is standing in the center and appears to
stand out to the forefront of the other two. Well to the other side this is
super important, for they claim it places Moses, who is depicted holding
two tablets which they claim is Ten Commandments as being the all important
person/figure. etc. BTW Moses is sitting while the other two stand one on
either side of him.
What they don't tell you is this: The tablets are totally blank, not even
Roman numerals; but since it is Moses, all one call say is "What else would
he be carryng?" (Grocery list?) Ok, I can buy that; but neither do they
point out that he is holding a tablet in each arm, with the bottom of each
tablet resting on the thigh of each leg, and it is for that reason and only
for that reason that he appears to be out ahead of the other two figures.
In short, the artist did not place Moses in any position that would appear
to make him more important than the other two because he felt he was more
important. The Composition of the whole work required it to be that way
because of the way he depicted the tablets. BTW both Confucious and Solon
are also carrying tablets, but they are carrying them in one arm and it is
the outside arm in relation to the center of the work.
So we have Moses sitting in the center holding TWO blank tablets one on
each side of him, and the other two fellows standing on either side of him
each holding ONE tablet but holding it in the arm farthest from the figure
is the center.
It is the fact that the two tablets that the center figure is holding and
they come out in front of the other two figures that the center figure
appears to be sitting in front of the other two figures, and they appear to
be behind him.
***************************************************************************************
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:14:09 -0700
From: Gregory Gadow
Subject: Re: 10 Com, USSC, Founding FACTS
Gregory Gadow commenting on the south wall frieze in the court room of the
USSC building:
Among the other lawgivers are Hammurabi (god-king of Babylon),
Confucius (expounder of Confucianism) and Mohammad (founder of Islam.) I
demand, therefore, that all government placements of the 10 Commandments
include extracts of the Enuma Elish, the Analects, and the Koran.
Lycurgus, founder of the _polis_ of Sparta, is also depicted. Sparta
strongly encouraged homosexuality among its warriors and allowed men to
live with women and marry only after they retired from the miliary... at
the age of 50. Any presentation of the 10 Commandments must also promote
homosexuality and same sex marriage.
The frieze also includes Menes, the legendary founder of the Egyptian
empire, and Octavian, the first Emperor of Rome. Both were worshipped as
gods (as was Hammurabi, but I've already covered him.) All government
sponsored monuments proclaiming the 10 Commandments must therefore also
proclaim the godhood of the sitting President, and all citizens may be
required, at any time, to prove their loyalty by making sacrifice to the
President. Failure to do so will be taken as de facto proof of treason and
will be dealt with appropriately.
The problem is that Hugo Grotius, the Dutch scholar who wrote one of
the first books on international law, is also depicted. Having seen the
religious wars that had ravaged the Netherlands and which continued to
sweep through Europe, he was a very strong advocate against any and all
religious expression of government. Perhaps it would be best to prohibit
government display of the 10 Commandments altogether.
That is the entire point, the Ten Commandments (their representations)
are totally removed from their religious setting and placed in a accurate
and proper setting of the development ofsecular law throughout history.
Great Figures Gaze Upon the Court By Joan Biskupic, Washington Post Staff
Writer; Wednesday, March 11, 1998
http://www.dailyrepublican.com/sup_crt_frieze.html
Cass Gilbert, designer of well-known buildings, deserves higher profile
10/1/2000
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/gentips/00/10arch.html
Moses and the 10 Commandments are featured prominently in the Supreme Court
Building.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg8.htm
Where do Moses and the 10 Commandments appear in the Supreme Court
building?
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg8a.htm
The Supreme Court Building Commission deferred to the artists of the
Supreme Court in making decisions.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg8b.htm
A critique of Catherine Millard's interpretation of the artistic
embellishment of the Supreme Court building.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg8c.htm
Judge Moore, the Ten Commandments
Ten Commandments Judge' hit with lawsuit over monument By freedomfor um.org
staff, The Associated Press 11.03.01
'Ten Commandments judge' says monument doesn't endorse religion By The
Associated Press 01.10.02
SHOW AND TELL TIME: The Fedral Distritct Court Ruling in Moore Ten
Commandments Case
http://www.almd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Glassroth%20v%20Moore%20Opinion.pdf
[Judge Thompson]
.... In each of these displays, the Ten Commandments are situated in a
secular context and the secular nature of the display is apparent and
dominant.
SEE:
Courtroom Friezes: North and South Walls
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf
[Judge Thompson]
In a mural on the United States Supreme Court building, the Ten
Commandments are displayed as two blank tablets, held by Moses sitting
amongst many other historical lawgivers.
SEE:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/eastpediment.pdf
[Judge Thompson]
The Commandments displayed on the door to the Supreme Court's courtroom are
so small as to be almost unnoticeable, are among many other decorations
such as a lion's head and a head of wheat, and are simply two tablets
containing the Roman numerals I through X.
SEE:
Entire door
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor.jpg
Close up of door
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor3.jpg
An Added Attraction
BurtLaw's Court Gazing II, (Scroll down to Section 4, The "Ten Commandments
movement" revisited.
http://www.lawandeverythingelse.com/id50.htm
The "Ten Commandments Judge" the ACLU helped elect.
http://www.lawandeverythingelse.com/id12.htm#last_november_the_good_voters_of_1
*****************************************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS � Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.

User: "Greywolf"
Title: Re: McCreary v ACLU	30 Jun 2005 11:20:13 AM

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6am7c191f60lsjrm36on271uoit02s5utd@4ax.com...

"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>
I wonder what the evangelicals would think if instead of the Judeo-Christian
set of the Ten Commandments, the equivalent of it, say taken from the Koran
or some other "holy" book - or even a synthesized version of the Ten
Commandments taken from an assortment of holy books were inscribed and
placed in a courtroom. Somehow, I get the impression they wouldn't like it
one bit.
Greyolf
.

User: "Jeff Strickland"
Title: Re: McCreary v ACLU	30 Jun 2005 01:28:49 PM

"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:11c870fhgo0p460@corp.supernews.com...

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6am7c191f60lsjrm36on271uoit02s5utd@4ax.com...

"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

I wonder what the evangelicals would think if instead of the

Judeo-Christian

set of the Ten Commandments, the equivalent of it, say taken from the

Koran

or some other "holy" book - or even a synthesized version of the Ten
Commandments taken from an assortment of holy books were inscribed and
placed in a courtroom. Somehow, I get the impression they wouldn't like it
one bit.

I think your impression is false.
.

User: "Greywolf"
Title: Re: McCreary v ACLU	30 Jun 2005 04:16:05 PM

"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:gdWdnenOU8L0pFnfRVn-qg@ez2.net...

"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:11c870fhgo0p460@corp.supernews.com...

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6am7c191f60lsjrm36on271uoit02s5utd@4ax.com...

"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

I wonder what the evangelicals would think if, instead of the
Judeo-Christian set of

the Ten Commandments, the equivalent of it, say taken from the Koran, or
some other

"holy" book - or even a synthesized version of the Ten
Commandments taken from an assortment of holy books - were inscribed and
placed in a courtroom. Somehow, I get the impression they wouldn't like
it
one bit.

I think your impression is false.

I wonder about that. The evangelicals don't give a hoot about other
religions (aside from Orthodox Judaism). In fact, they disdain them! So I
think it would be an affront to them to have something other than *the*
Ten Commandments on display. They don't really want the *sentiments*
underlying those commandments on display, otherwise they wouldn't object
the above in the slightest. They want those commandments to be THEIR Ten
Commandments and coming from THEIR God. Nothing else will do. And one way
to test if what I'm saying is true, is to conduct a poll and see what the
fundies have to say about it themselves. You watch. If someone were to
conduct a poll of this sort, the evangelicals would overwhelmingly oppose
a multi-religious set of commandments. (And this *is* a discussion
revolving religious articles of faith in a Federal Courtroom where they
don't belong in the first place.) The reason for this is because those
commandments wouldn't be coming from "their" God. I doubt that they would
even *dare* let someone "contaminate" God's "Word" in such a way. (The
idiots.) Leave that stuff in church!

Greywolf
..
.

User: "Mike Craney"
Title: Re: McCreary v ACLU	30 Jun 2005 05:44:49 PM

"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:11c8rnungh1dv55@corp.supernews.com...

"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:gdWdnenOU8L0pFnfRVn-qg@ez2.net...

"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:11c870fhgo0p460@corp.supernews.com...

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6am7c191f60lsjrm36on271uoit02s5utd@4ax.com...

"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

I wonder what the evangelicals would think if, instead of the
Judeo-Christian set of

the Ten Commandments, the equivalent of it, say taken from the Koran,

some other

"holy" book - or even a synthesized version of the Ten
Commandments taken from an assortment of holy books - were inscribed

and

placed in a courtroom. Somehow, I get the impression they wouldn't like
it
one bit.

I think your impression is false.

I wonder about that. The evangelicals don't give a hoot about other
religions (aside from Orthodox Judaism). In fact, they disdain them!

Take it from an ex-evangelical pastor: this is a gross generalization, even
worse than "all blacks like fried chicken and watermelon." There are over a
hundred million evangelicals in the US, and they run the gamut from from
rural conservatives (which is the sterotype you're proposing) to highly
educated urban congregations across two dozen denominations and a host of
independent "free" churches.
The term "evangelical" now means "conservative Christian", one who generally
holds to a literalist (more or less) view of the Bible. Thus, there are your
core evangelical denominations (Baptists, Church of Christ, Assemblies of
God, Church of the Naz, etc.,), mainstream denominations that have divided
to take on the term (Evangelical Lutherans, Evangelical Presbyterians) whose
teachings are roughly analagous to the core denominations, and now Catholics
sometimes refer to themselves as "born again" and "evangelical."
This is not to say that there is not a rejection of groups with a
nonOrthodox Christology -- Mormons, JWs, and Oneness Pentecostals -- and
there still exists lingering suspicions of the traditionals (Catholic,
Orthodox, Episcopalian) but more and more today, fewer and fewer hold the
conspiracy theories of the past ("the Pope is the AntiChrist") and voice
those suspicions in terms of salvation theology, specifically around
misconceptions of the role of good works in the mechanism of salvation.

So I
think it would be an affront to them to have something other than *the*
Ten Commandments on display. They don't really want the *sentiments*
underlying those commandments on display, otherwise they wouldn't object
the above in the slightest. They want those commandments to be THEIR Ten
Commandments and coming from THEIR God. Nothing else will do. And one

way

to test if what I'm saying is true, is to conduct a poll and see what

the

fundies have to say about it themselves. You watch. If someone were to
conduct a poll of this sort, the evangelicals would overwhelmingly

oppose

a multi-religious set of commandments. (And this *is* a discussion
revolving religious articles of faith in a Federal Courtroom where they
don't belong in the first place.) The reason for this is because those
commandments wouldn't be coming from "their" God. I doubt that they

would

even *dare* let someone "contaminate" God's "Word" in such a way. (The
idiots.) Leave that stuff in church!

You're misconscrewing two different issues here. First, Christians don't
have more than one set of 10Cs. Catholics and Evangelicals use the same
bibles nowadays. Zondervan and other publishers translate the Apopcrypha and
put out two different versions. Thus, the 10Cs are the same from edition to
edition.
The second issue is one of accuracy. Christians care about accuracy when it
comes to their writings. This is no surprise and not unique to them -- I
doubt if you'd accept a monument to the Bill of Rights that left out Nos. 3
and 4 because the writer didn't have room or didn't think they were
important. In fact, Christians *should* pitch a fit if someone screws with
their Scriptures, just as Jews do, and just as Muslims do, because what is
at stake are the guiding principles of their beliefs. So, no, there oughtn't
be any ecumenical version of the 10Cs so as to be "inclusive." No people of
any faith would think that was a good idea -- only nontheists, who value
social order more than (someone else's) ideas, would be so crass as to
suggest it.
Mike

Greywolf

.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: McCreary v ACLU	01 Jul 2005 08:22:21 AM

"Mike Craney" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

way

to test if what I'm saying is true, is to conduct a poll and see what

the

fundies have to say about it themselves. You watch. If someone were to
conduct a poll of this sort, the evangelicals would overwhelmingly

oppose

would

even *dare* let someone "contaminate" God's "Word" in such a way. (The
idiots.) Leave that stuff in church!

You're misconscrewing two different issues here. First, Christians don't
have more than one set of 10Cs. Catholics and Evangelicals use the same
bibles nowadays.

Nope. The Catholics either use the Douay-Rheims, or the New American
Bible
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/prefaceold.htm
And here is the footnote on the commandments in the NAB
<1 [1-17] The precise division of these precepts into "ten
< commandments" is somewhat uncertain. Traditionally among Catholics
< Exodus 20:1-6 is considered as only one commandment, and Exodus 20:17
< as two. Cf Deut 5:6-21.
That division into commandments differs from the Protestant version,
and hence the commandments are numbered differently.

Zondervan and other publishers translate the Apopcrypha and
put out two different versions. Thus, the 10Cs are the same from edition to
edition.

Zondervan is not a Catholic publisher, and their Bibles are not
accepted by the Catholic church.

The second issue is one of accuracy. Christians care about accuracy when it
comes to their writings.

Nonsense. If that were true, then all contemporary Bible translations
would read the same, but Christians would realize the inherent failure
of translation and use the original Greek or Hebrew in their worship
(and learn those languages so that they understood what they were
reading).
There is a reason why the Moslems insist on only considering the
Arabic Koran to be valid.

This is no surprise and not unique to them -- I
doubt if you'd accept a monument to the Bill of Rights that left out Nos. 3
and 4 because the writer didn't have room or didn't think they were
important.

But in fact, we don't even agree in all versions as to what text
belongs in the Bible. You mention the Apocrypha, but to the
Catholics, some of the "Apocrypha" are just books of the Bible.

In fact, Christians *should* pitch a fit if someone screws with
their Scriptures,

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/mark/mark16.htm
Read footnotes 2 and 3. The Scriptures have been fiddled with for as
long as they have been written. There is simply no way to know
whether the "short ending" or the "long ending" of Mark is what the
original author wrote.

just as Jews do, and just as Muslims do, because what is
at stake are the guiding principles of their beliefs. So, no, there oughtn't
be any ecumenical version of the 10Cs so as to be "inclusive."

If the Scriptures were "accurate", then there would only BE one
version of the 10Cs. We would all be using the version used by the
ancient Israelites.
Of course the ancient Israelites couldn't agree what the 10
commandments were, either. There are three different versions, the
one in Exodus 20, the one in Exodus 34, and the one in Deuteronomy 5.
lojbab
--
lojbab

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.

User: "Mike Craney"
Title: Re: McCreary v ACLU	01 Jul 2005 09:41:40 AM

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:1gfac1d68m6ibcmj5l0ovuo48fajqo3vn1@4ax.com...

"Mike Craney" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

So I
think it would be an affront to them to have something other than

*the*

Ten Commandments on display. They don't really want the *sentiments*
underlying those commandments on display, otherwise they wouldn't

object

the above in the slightest. They want those commandments to be THEIR

Ten

Commandments and coming from THEIR God. Nothing else will do. And one

way

to test if what I'm saying is true, is to conduct a poll and see what

the

fundies have to say about it themselves. You watch. If someone were

conduct a poll of this sort, the evangelicals would overwhelmingly

oppose

a multi-religious set of commandments. (And this *is* a discussion
revolving religious articles of faith in a Federal Courtroom where

they

don't belong in the first place.) The reason for this is because

those

commandments wouldn't be coming from "their" God. I doubt that they

would

even *dare* let someone "contaminate" God's "Word" in such a way.

(The

idiots.) Leave that stuff in church!

You're misconscrewing two different issues here. First, Christians don't
have more than one set of 10Cs. Catholics and Evangelicals use the same
bibles nowadays.

Nope. The Catholics either use the Douay-Rheims, or the New American
Bible
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/prefaceold.htm

Double Nope. There are Apocrypha-ready editions of the King James, New King
James, New American Standard and, I believe, the New Revised Standard
Version. Catholics buy 'em, else the companies wouldn't print them. What's
approved is one thing, what's used is another, especially when it comes to
U.S. Catholics.
But, let's play anyway. The point is moot, because as I hope you know,
Protestants use a number of versions, from the very literate NASB, to the
somewhat interpretive NIV, to the VERY interpretive Living Bible. So, in a
given congregation at any given time, you'll have half a dozen different
10Cs in various people's bibles. Conclusion: the EVProts aren't going to be
generally concerned with a word here or a word there, as long as the meaning
is maintained.

And here is the footnote on the commandments in the NAB
<1 [1-17] The precise division of these precepts into "ten
< commandments" is somewhat uncertain. Traditionally among Catholics
< Exodus 20:1-6 is considered as only one commandment, and Exodus 20:17
< as two. Cf Deut 5:6-21.

That division into commandments differs from the Protestant version,
and hence the commandments are numbered differently.

You think the numbering would be an issue?

Zondervan and other publishers translate the Apopcrypha and
put out two different versions. Thus, the 10Cs are the same from edition

edition.

Zondervan is not a Catholic publisher, and their Bibles are not
accepted by the Catholic church.

See above.

The second issue is one of accuracy. Christians care about accuracy when

comes to their writings.

Non Sequitur. What you say is correct, but we're not talking about
substituting the Douay 10Cs for the NIV 10C's here -- Obvously Prots don't
care at that level. We're talking about larger matters like entire
omissions, or including "commandments" from other religions.

There is a reason why the Moslems insist on only considering the
Arabic Koran to be valid.

Sure, but that's a bit off the point I was making.

This is no surprise and not unique to them -- I
doubt if you'd accept a monument to the Bill of Rights that left out Nos.

and 4 because the writer didn't have room or didn't think they were
important.

But in fact, we don't even agree in all versions as to what text
belongs in the Bible. You mention the Apocrypha, but to the
Catholics, some of the "Apocrypha" are just books of the Bible.

In fact, Christians *should* pitch a fit if someone screws with
their Scriptures,

Of course. Again, not the point.

just as Jews do, and just as Muslims do, because what is
at stake are the guiding principles of their beliefs. So, no, there

oughtn't

be any ecumenical version of the 10Cs so as to be "inclusive."

If the Scriptures were "accurate", then there would only BE one
version of the 10Cs. We would all be using the version used by the
ancient Israelites.

And?

Mike
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: McCreary v ACLU	02 Jul 2005 12:10:44 AM

"Mike Craney" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Bob LeChevalier" <

> wrote in message
news:1gfac1d68m6ibcmj5l0ovuo48fajqo3vn1@4ax.com...

You're misconscrewing two different issues here. First, Christians don't
have more than one set of 10Cs. Catholics and Evangelicals use the same
bibles nowadays.

Nope. The Catholics either use the Douay-Rheims, or the New American
Bible
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/prefaceold.htm

Double Nope. There are Apocrypha-ready editions of the King James, New King
James, New American Standard and, I believe, the New Revised Standard
Version. Catholics buy 'em, else the companies wouldn't print them. What's
approved is one thing, what's used is another, especially when it comes to
U.S. Catholics.

But, let's play anyway. The point is moot, because as I hope you know,
Protestants use a number of versions, from the very literate NASB, to the
somewhat interpretive NIV, to the VERY interpretive Living Bible. So, in a
given congregation at any given time, you'll have half a dozen different
10Cs in various people's bibles. Conclusion: the EVProts aren't going to be
generally concerned with a word here or a word there, as long as the meaning
is maintained.

You think the numbering would be an issue?

Yes. Furthermore, while YOU don't think the wording is an issue, I'll
remind you that in the 1800s there were deadly riots by Irish
Catholics triggered by the use of Protestant Bibles in the schools for
Bible readings.

Zondervan and other publishers translate the Apopcrypha and
put out two different versions. Thus, the 10Cs are the same from edition to
edition.

Zondervan is not a Catholic publisher, and their Bibles are not
accepted by the Catholic church.

See above.

You can find some Catholics that do birth control and have abortions
too. That does not mean that they are acceptable to the church.

The second issue is one of accuracy. Christians care about accuracy when

comes to their writings.

Non Sequitur. What you say is correct, but we're not talking about
substituting the Douay 10Cs for the NIV 10C's here -- Obvously Prots don't
care at that level.

Your claim was that Protestants and Catholics use the same 10Cs. They
don't.

We're talking about larger matters like entire
omissions, or including "commandments" from other religions.

I'm not. Though of course the only version of the commandments
labeled the "ten commandments" in the Bible is not the version in
Exodus 20.
lojbab
--
lojbab

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: McCreary v ACLU	02 Jul 2005 06:15:25 PM

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 09:41:40 -0500, Mike Craney wrote:

Most Roman Catholics use Douay-Rheims or, at least, most of
them that asked me about Bibles when I worked at a
Books-A-Million in Jackson, Mississippi.
Most findamentalists use the "standard" King James Version,
especially members of sects/denominations which teach that
the "AV 1611"'s translation was directly inspired by God,
must be taken literally and is not to be questioned at all
(unless it's something decent that is being commanded).
The various translations which include some parts of what
is usually called the Apocrypha are, quite often, sold to
people who, starting years ago, read _Holy Blood, Holy
Grail" and, more recently, read (or heard about) Dan
Brown's _The Da Vinci Code_.

But, let's play anyway. The point is moot, because as I hope you know,
Protestants use a number of versions, from the very literate NASB, to the
somewhat interpretive NIV, to the VERY interpretive Living Bible. So, in a
given congregation at any given time, you'll have half a dozen different
10Cs in various people's bibles. Conclusion: the EVProts aren't going to be
generally concerned with a word here or a word there, as long as the meaning
is maintained.

What is an "EVProt"? Episcopalian Virgins?
One of the more curious things I discovered working at that
BAM store was that the religious section and, especially,
the _Bible_'s themselves were the most heavily shoplifted
items in the store.
Talking with the folks over at a Barnes & Noble as well as
an independent book store, this was true at those stores
also. I have no idea whether this was that one particvular
town, the Deep South in general or is wider than that.
When I worked for Books-A-Million, there were two companies
that I always hated calling.
One was Books-A-Million, because the chances were extremely
"good" that I would be talking with someone stupid.
The other was Zondervan, because they always seemed so
sleazy. [That wasn't true of /any/ of the other Bible &
religious tract publishers.]
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
One man's religion is another man's belly laugh.
- Jubal Harshaw (Channeled through RAH)
.

User: ""
Title: Re: McCreary v ACLU	05 Jul 2005 12:13:55 PM

"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:

There is no evidence of this jeffy
*****************************************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS � Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.

User: "Mike Craney"
Title: Re: McCreary v ACLU	30 Jun 2005 11:37:12 AM

"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:11c870fhgo0p460@corp.supernews.com...

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6am7c191f60lsjrm36on271uoit02s5utd@4ax.com...

"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

I wonder what the evangelicals would think if instead of the

Judeo-Christian

set of the Ten Commandments, the equivalent of it, say taken from the

Koran

I think you'd be surprised. The "if you let one group do it, you'll have to
let them all do it" defense comes up often in discussions in this regard.
You'd be surprised how many people who identify as Christian Fundamentalists
respond with "Good. Why NOT let them all do it?"
Mike
.

User: "Mark Stahl"
Title: Re: McCreary v ACLU	02 Jul 2005 08:44:06 AM

"Mike Craney" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:YcVwe.1105$Ox3.475@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...

"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:11c870fhgo0p460@corp.supernews.com...

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6am7c191f60lsjrm36on271uoit02s5utd@4ax.com...

"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

I wonder what the evangelicals would think if instead of the

Judeo-Christian

set of the Ten Commandments, the equivalent of it, say taken from the

Koran

I think you'd be surprised. The "if you let one group do it, you'll have
to
let them all do it" defense comes up often in discussions in this regard.
You'd be surprised how many people who identify as Christian
Fundamentalists
respond with "Good. Why NOT let them all do it?"

I'd be surprised if it happened even once, because I for one have never
heard such a thing. I doubt they really mean it, or have thought it through.
Nevertheless, even if genuine this response is not all that satisfying,
either. Courtrooms and such are places for deciding matters of law, they are
not houses of worship for any sect. Realizing that would be a good start in
solving this little debate. Certainly there's room for legitimate artwork,
particularly that which is relevent to jurisprudence, but the idea that
every little religious group has to have representation in a courtroom is
almost as bad as just having the one. Besides, what about the many people
who are not religious at all?
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: McCreary v ACLU	02 Jul 2005 05:33:55 PM

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 08:44:06 -0500, Mark Stahl wrote

"Mike Craney" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:YcVwe.1105$Ox3.475@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...

"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:11c870fhgo0p460@corp.supernews.com...

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6am7c191f60lsjrm36on271uoit02s5utd@4ax.com...

"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

I wonder what the evangelicals would think if instead of the

Judeo-Christian

set of the Ten Commandments, the equivalent of it, say taken from the

Koran

I think you'd be surprised. The "if you let one group do it, you'll have
to
let them all do it" defense comes up often in discussions in this regard.
You'd be surprised how many people who identify as Christian
Fundamentalists
respond with "Good. Why NOT let them all do it?"

The "religious people" have certain, very selected Bible
verses - especially anything Saint Paul the Wack penned -
and the 2000-year tradition of perverting everything Jesus
said.
The "nonreligious people" could post the Constitution, The
Bill of Rights, Aesop's stories, Grimm's stories, Jesus'
words and the Song of Solomon.
Gray Shockley
------------------------------------------------------
If there's two trillion dollars to
privatize Social Security, then there
is /no/ Social Security problem.
.

User: "D_ S.A.L.T."
Title: Re: McCreary v ACLU	30 Jun 2005 12:07:53 PM

"Mike Craney" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:YcVwe.1105$Ox3.475@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...

"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:11c870fhgo0p460@corp.supernews.com...

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6am7c191f60lsjrm36on271uoit02s5utd@4ax.com...

"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

I wonder what the evangelicals would think if instead of the

Judeo-Christian

set of the Ten Commandments, the equivalent of it, say taken from the

Koran

I think you'd be surprised. The "if you let one group do it, you'll have
to
let them all do it" defense comes up often in discussions in this regard.
You'd be surprised how many people who identify as Christian
Fundamentalists
respond with "Good. Why NOT let them all do it?"

The reason they say so is because they know that most of what they consider
the most offensive counter theologies and philosophies won't do it because
it's not a part of their nature. Atheists, agnostics, naturalists, skeptics,
unbelievers, new agers, buddhists, jews, secularists, hindus, satanists,
pagans, and many christian groups don't proselytize, push their beliefs, or
have a political motive.
It's like this. It's easy for me to say that I'll share a parking space with
my neighbor because I know he's almost never home or doesn't drive a car.
I'll take this show of equity because it's really not equity at all. I know
I'll benefit the most because I'll almost never have any competition for the
right to use the space. Of course when he does use the space I won't object
and that's where the comparrison ends. Many if not most times when a pagan,
atheist, or even a Mormon, JW, or non-protestant christian does want equal
access the conservative fundies have a fit about it.
They say that they would welcome prayers on the floor of the capital from
other religions yet when it does happen almost inevitably congressmen walk
out or protest the invocation in some way. When judge Moore placed his
monument on the floor of the courthouse he had security deny other displays
that many wanted to erect.
If they tell you that they would welcome diversity of religious thought so
that they can have their displays, next time tell them that you will rush
right down to put up your own display to unbelief or secularism or whatever
goddess you want and I guarantee they'll be stepping on your toes and
calling their congressmen, flock, and political religious pact to warn them
of what you try to do and will attempt to stop you in any way they can.
.

User: "Mike Craney"
Title: Re: McCreary v ACLU	30 Jun 2005 12:44:32 PM

"D_ S.A.L.T." <DSALT@nospamm.com> wrote in message
news:11c89nbpcb0on3c@corp.supernews.com...

"Mike Craney" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:YcVwe.1105$Ox3.475@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...

"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:11c870fhgo0p460@corp.supernews.com...

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6am7c191f60lsjrm36on271uoit02s5utd@4ax.com...

"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

I wonder what the evangelicals would think if instead of the

Judeo-Christian

set of the Ten Commandments, the equivalent of it, say taken from the

Koran

I think you'd be surprised. The "if you let one group do it, you'll have
to
let them all do it" defense comes up often in discussions in this

regard.

You'd be surprised how many people who identify as Christian
Fundamentalists
respond with "Good. Why NOT let them all do it?"

The reason they say so is because they know that most of what they

consider

the most offensive counter theologies and philosophies won't do it because
it's not a part of their nature.

Demonstrably false. The the traditional arch-enemy of Christianity (Islam)
is indeed a proslytizing faith, and vigorously so. Also, nonproslytizing
faiths (Judaism comes to mind) have been know to put out a holiday
decoration or two based on their own religious traditions, rights which are
also defended when freedom of religious expression matters are debated.

Atheists, agnostics, naturalists, skeptics,
unbelievers, new agers, buddhists, jews, secularists, hindus, satanists,
pagans, and many christian groups don't proselytize, push their beliefs, o

have a political motive.

The motivation in such matters as the 10 Commandments is not proslytization.
After all, the 10Cs are claimed by all three monotheistic religions, so
displaying them points no observer in the direction of a particular faith.
In fact, the more common sentiment for display of such items is to gain the
implicit acknowledgement that the beliefs of the individual are, in fact,
defended by the Constitution, rather than simply tolerated by the political
class and judicial activists.

It's like this. It's easy for me to say that I'll share a parking space

with

my neighbor because I know he's almost never home or doesn't drive a car.
I'll take this show of equity because it's really not equity at all. I

know

I'll benefit the most because I'll almost never have any competition for

the

right to use the space. Of course when he does use the space I won't

object

and that's where the comparrison ends. Many if not most times when a

pagan,

atheist, or even a Mormon, JW, or non-protestant christian does want equal
access the conservative fundies have a fit about it.

Some "fits" are justified. NonChristians don't want Christianity shoved at
them, eh? Should a Christian who feels like another tradition is being
"shoved at them" hold their tongue? Nonsense.
Now, do "unjustified fits" occur? Sure. There's 240 million Christians in
the US, and not all of them play with a full deck. And, in fact, you're
going to hear and see about the deckless more than you will about the
others, since our media reports the sensational and bizarre rather than the
typical. Fools are distributed equally amongst belief systems in the world;
nothing can be done about that, other than to make sure that we don't assume
the fool is typical of his group.

They say that they would welcome prayers on the floor of the capital from
other religions yet when it does happen almost inevitably congressmen walk
out or protest the invocation in some way. When judge Moore placed his
monument on the floor of the courthouse he had security deny other

displays

that many wanted to erect.

Rather untoward behavior, wouldn't you say?

If they tell you that they would welcome diversity of religious thought so
that they can have their displays, next time tell them that you will rush
right down to put up your own display to unbelief or secularism or

whatever

goddess you want and I guarantee they'll be stepping on your toes and
calling their congressmen, flock, and political religious pact to warn

them

of what you try to do and will attempt to stop you in any way they can.

If I were you, I wouldn't "guarantee" those reactions. Possible? Sure. But
typical? Not in my experience.
Mike
.

User: "D_ S.A.L.T."
Title: Re: McCreary v ACLU	30 Jun 2005 01:40:22 PM

"Mike Craney" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4cWwe.1120$Ox3.720@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...

"D_ S.A.L.T." <DSALT@nospamm.com> wrote in message
news:11c89nbpcb0on3c@corp.supernews.com...

"Mike Craney" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:YcVwe.1105$Ox3.475@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...

"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:11c870fhgo0p460@corp.supernews.com...

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6am7c191f60lsjrm36on271uoit02s5utd@4ax.com...

"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

I wonder what the evangelicals would think if instead of the

Judeo-Christian

set of the Ten Commandments, the equivalent of it, say taken from the

Koran

I think you'd be surprised. The "if you let one group do it, you'll
have
to
let them all do it" defense comes up often in discussions in this

regard.

You'd be surprised how many people who identify as Christian
Fundamentalists
respond with "Good. Why NOT let them all do it?"

The reason they say so is because they know that most of what they

consider

the most offensive counter theologies and philosophies won't do it
because
it's not a part of their nature.

Demonstrably false.

Considering I said most, not all, that is not true.

The the traditional arch-enemy of Christianity (Islam)

Arch enemy? Now you are just slathering on the propoganda here.
If christians think they have an enemy it's satan, and then unbelievers.
Islam is a judeo christian faith and if you take the current politics out of
it, Islam is down the list. Jewish, christian, and moslem religious leaders
generally cooperate at least as much as some of the christian sectarians
cooperate with each other. Islam and christianity have fought at times, but
so have protestants and catholics.

is indeed a proslytizing faith, and vigorously so. Also, nonproslytizing
faiths (Judaism comes to mind) have been know to put out a holiday
decoration or two based on their own religious traditions, rights which
are
also defended when freedom of religious expression matters are debated.

Did I say ALL? And now you are confusing the issue here with puting up a
Jewish mannorah with christian proselytizing.
If you want the facts, some Jews do proselytize just as some christians
don't. Depends on the sect and the ethnicity.

Atheists, agnostics, naturalists, skeptics,
unbelievers, new agers, buddhists, jews, secularists, hindus, satanists,
pagans, and many christian groups don't proselytize, push their beliefs,
o

have a political motive.

The motivation in such matters as the 10 Commandments is not
proslytization.

Certainly it is. When it is so easy and non controversial to put the ten
commandments up on private property in full public display, why bother with
the fight over putting them on government property?
It's easy. It's for a payoff. It's to use the property to secure or give the
illusion of government endorsement of their beliefs. Otherwise what's in it
for them?

After all, the 10Cs are claimed by all three monotheistic religions,

But their versions are different.
so

displaying them points no observer in the direction of a particular faith.

Certainly it does, the Judeo/christian faith. It certainly doesn't point
people in the direction of paganism, buddhism, skepticism, or secularism
does it. Such a claim that it's somehow innocent or neutral is playing dumb.

In fact, the more common sentiment for display of such items is to gain
the
implicit acknowledgement that the beliefs of the individual are, in fact,
defended by the Constitution, rather than simply tolerated by the
political
class and judicial activists.

*****.
Displaying such religious crap on the walls of our government dislays
intolerance for any other belief and disrespects the constitution and
freedom of belief.

It's like this. It's easy for me to say that I'll share a parking space

with

my neighbor because I know he's almost never home or doesn't drive a car.
I'll take this show of equity because it's really not equity at all. I

know

I'll benefit the most because I'll almost never have any competition for

the

right to use the space. Of course when he does use the space I won't

object

and that's where the comparrison ends. Many if not most times when a

pagan,

atheist, or even a Mormon, JW, or non-protestant christian does want
equal
access the conservative fundies have a fit about it.

Some "fits" are justified. NonChristians don't want Christianity shoved at
them, eh? Should a Christian who feels like another tradition is being
"shoved at them" hold their tongue? Nonsense.

Holding your toungue and freedom of speech is not the same as government
endorsement of specific religion on the people's property.
No one said anyone had to hold their tongue.

Now, do "unjustified fits" occur? Sure. There's 240 million Christians in
the US, and not all of them play with a full deck. And, in fact, you're
going to hear and see about the deckless more than you will about the
others, since our media reports the sensational and bizarre rather than
the
typical. Fools are distributed equally amongst belief systems in the
world;
nothing can be done about that, other than to make sure that we don't
assume
the fool is typical of his group.

No argument here, but it tends to be the nuts that have the motivation that
the normals lack, and that's no excuse not to fight them. It's actually a
reason to fight them even more since they are a distinct minority that
wishes to and tries to push their beliefs on the country.

They say that they would welcome prayers on the floor of the capital from
other religions yet when it does happen almost inevitably congressmen
walk
out or protest the invocation in some way. When judge Moore placed his
monument on the floor of the courthouse he had security deny other

displays

that many wanted to erect.

Rather untoward behavior, wouldn't you say?

If they tell you that they would welcome diversity of religious thought
so
that they can have their displays, next time tell them that you will rush
right down to put up your own display to unbelief or secularism or

whatever

goddess you want and I guarantee they'll be stepping on your toes and
calling their congressmen, flock, and political religious pact to warn

them

of what you try to do and will attempt to stop you in any way they can.

If I were you, I wouldn't "guarantee" those reactions. Possible? Sure. But
typical? Not in my experience.

In my experience it is typical.
An easy demonstration are christian groups that not only try to foist their
beliefs on us through government but also try to censor, demonize, and
boycott opposing beliefs in the private, industrial, and commercial sector.
These groups regularly call for boycotts, try to get large retail chains to
not carry books, attack television and media outlets when they portray
something or endorse certain beliefs, language, or thought. If they behave
this way in the private sector, what makes you think they don't in the
government. If you listen to what they say you'll see that they don't
believe the private or government public sector should be treated in
different ways regarding religion.
What gives you reason to say that your experience is otherwise?
.

User: "Mike Craney"
Title: Re: McCreary v ACLU	30 Jun 2005 03:02:36 PM

"D_ S.A.L.T." <DSALT@nospamm.com> wrote in message
news:11c8f4oi8cphj23@corp.supernews.com...

"Mike Craney" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4cWwe.1120$Ox3.720@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...

"D_ S.A.L.T." <DSALT@nospamm.com> wrote in message
news:11c89nbpcb0on3c@corp.supernews.com...

"Mike Craney" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:YcVwe.1105$Ox3.475@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...

"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:11c870fhgo0p460@corp.supernews.com...

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6am7c191f60lsjrm36on271uoit02s5utd@4ax.com...

"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

I wonder what the evangelicals would think if instead of the

Judeo-Christian

set of the Ten Commandments, the equivalent of it, say taken from

the

Koran

or some other "holy" book - or even a synthesized version of the Ten
Commandments taken from an assortment of holy books were inscribed

and

placed in a courtroom. Somehow, I get the impression they wouldn't
like
it
one bit.

Greyolf

I think you'd be surprised. The "if you let one group do it, you'll
have
to
let them all do it" defense comes up often in discussions in this

regard.

You'd be surprised how many people who identify as Christian
Fundamentalists
respond with "Good. Why NOT let them all do it?"

The reason they say so is because they know that most of what they

consider

the most offensive counter theologies and philosophies won't do it
because
it's not a part of their nature.

Demonstrably false.

Considering I said most, not all, that is not true.

Fair enough.

The the traditional arch-enemy of Christianity (Islam)

Arch enemy? Now you are just slathering on the propoganda here.

Hardly. Historical fact. Is there another group that has, or still is,
vetting as much carnage and prejudicial bigotry on Christians worldwide? Do
you know the history of the region very well?

If christians think they have an enemy it's satan, and then unbelievers.
Islam is a judeo christian faith and if you take the current politics out

it, Islam is down the list. Jewish, christian, and moslem religious

leaders

generally cooperate at least as much as some of the christian sectarians
cooperate with each other. Islam and christianity have fought at times,

but

so have protestants and catholics.

Granting that "satan" is always #1, you're correct. OTOH, it's no surprise
that Christianity in the US has forgotten other adversaries than unbelief,
as there haven't been any around for the last few centuries. Not surprising,
nor unexpected, and does not negate the fact.
OTOH, Islam is hardly "Christian" in that they deny the core writings of the
Christian faith and take a adoptionist Christology, and even that's being
generous. Cooperation is sparse, in that the definitions of terms normally
used to "cooperate", such as "justice", "peace", "war", and "treaty" have
wholly different meanings in Islam than they do in the West, as Islam does
not separate political and theological concepts from one another by dogma
and tradition. This latter fact is nontrivial to understanding the dynamic
between the two.
Not that there haven't been pockets of cooperation at times. I have in my
posession a photostat of a 1500 year old document signed by Ali Sina, who
was Muhammad's immediate successor, promising protection to the Christian
monasteries of Syria. That protection lasted less than a century,
unfortunately, with many of the monateries repurposed into mosques, which
was the fate of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.

Did I say ALL? And now you are confusing the issue here with puting up a
Jewish mannorah with christian proselytizing.

You're the one asserting that the 10C are proslytizing, a proposition which
simply makes no sense, as outlined abouve. The 10C are simply a matter of
relgious expression and recognition, no different than the menorah (in fact,
less specific).

If you want the facts, some Jews do proselytize just as some christians
don't. Depends on the sect and the ethnicity.>

Atheists, agnostics, naturalists, skeptics,
unbelievers, new agers, buddhists, jews, secularists, hindus,

satanists,

pagans, and many christian groups don't proselytize, push their

beliefs,

have a political motive.

The motivation in such matters as the 10 Commandments is not
proslytization.

Certainly it is. When it is so easy and non controversial to put the ten
commandments up on private property in full public display, why bother

with

the fight over putting them on government property?

It's easy. It's for a payoff. It's to use the property to secure or give

the

illusion of government endorsement of their beliefs. Otherwise what's in

for them?

Affirmation of a Constitutional principle, and the historical acknowlegement
that the roots and laws of this country were, to some extent, sourced from
their faith -- IOW, who they are, and why they're important to America. It's
a simple proposition, and there's no need to read too much into it.

After all, the 10Cs are claimed by all three monotheistic religions,

But their versions are different.

Point being?

displaying them points no observer in the direction of a particular

faith.

dumb.
I'm sorry, how does a monument with the 10C on it (none of which are an
exhortation to become a Jew, Christian, or Muslim) "point" a reasonable
person to join a particular faith? Reasonably, now. The behavior of the
insane or uneducated isn't an example.

In fact, the more common sentiment for display of such items is to gain
the
implicit acknowledgement that the beliefs of the individual are, in

fact,

defended by the Constitution, rather than simply tolerated by the
political
class and judicial activists.

*****.

Erudite response. :-)

Displaying such religious crap on the walls of our government dislays
intolerance for any other belief and disrespects the constitution and
freedom of belief.

So, what you do think? Sandblast the 2nd Inagural Address of the walls of
the Lincoln Monument? Or, just raze the whole thing and forget the man ever
existed? Do you think that the men to authorized those momuments would have
been permitted to do so if they were truly "disrespecting the constitution
and freedom of belief"? Do you think that perhaps they had a bit broader
notion of the matter? Perhaps?

It's like this. It's easy for me to say that I'll share a parking space

with

my neighbor because I know he's almost never home or doesn't drive a

car.

I'll take this show of equity because it's really not equity at all. I

know

I'll benefit the most because I'll almost never have any competition

for

the

right to use the space. Of course when he does use the space I won't

object

and that's where the comparrison ends. Many if not most times when a

pagan,

atheist, or even a Mormon, JW, or non-protestant christian does want
equal
access the conservative fundies have a fit about it.

Some "fits" are justified. NonChristians don't want Christianity shoved

them, eh? Should a Christian who feels like another tradition is being
"shoved at them" hold their tongue? Nonsense.

Holding your toungue and freedom of speech is not the same as government
endorsement of specific religion on the people's property.
No one said anyone had to hold their tongue.

Your point was that "conservative fundies" (whatever that is) would have
something called a "fit" (whatever that is) if they were confronted (in some
nonspecfic way) with Mormonism, JWism, or perhaps Catholicism. I simply
pointed out that what you may call a "fit" might be a reasonable response in
some circumstances.
Besides, nobody's advocating goverment endorsement of specific religions on
public property. What's under debate is the idea that any and all religous
mention on public property is, somehow, "endorsement" of that religion, an
notion which (obviously) the SCOTUS disagrees.

Now, do "unjustified fits" occur? Sure. There's 240 million Christians

the US, and not all of them play with a full deck. And, in fact, you're
going to hear and see about the deckless more than you will about the
others, since our media reports the sensational and bizarre rather than
the
typical. Fools are distributed equally amongst belief systems in the
world;
nothing can be done about that, other than to make sure that we don't
assume
the fool is typical of his group.

No argument here, but it tends to be the nuts that have the motivation

that

the normals lack, and that's no excuse not to fight them. It's actually a
reason to fight them even more since they are a distinct minority that
wishes to and tries to push their beliefs on the country.

If they are indeed a minority, I wouldn't waste too many cycles worrying
about them.

They say that they would welcome prayers on the floor of the capital

from

other religions yet when it does happen almost inevitably congressmen
walk
out or protest the invocation in some way. When judge Moore placed his
monument on the floor of the courthouse he had security deny other

displays

that many wanted to erect.

Rather untoward behavior, wouldn't you say?

If they tell you that they would welcome diversity of religious thought
so
that they can have their displays, next time tell them that you will

rush

right down to put up your own display to unbelief or secularism or

whatever

goddess you want and I guarantee they'll be stepping on your toes and
calling their congressmen, flock, and political religious pact to warn

them

of what you try to do and will attempt to stop you in any way they can.

If I were you, I wouldn't "guarantee" those reactions. Possible? Sure.

But

typical? Not in my experience.

In my experience it is typical.

An easy demonstration are christian groups that not only try to foist

their

beliefs on us through government but also try to censor, demonize, and
boycott opposing beliefs in the private, industrial, and commercial

sector.

These groups regularly call for boycotts, try to get large retail chains

not carry books, attack television and media outlets when they portray
something or endorse certain beliefs, language, or thought. If they behave
this way in the private sector, what makes you think they don't in the
government. If you listen to what they say you'll see that they don't
believe the private or government public sector should be treated in
different ways regarding religion.

What gives you reason to say that your experience is otherwise?

Pastoral experience. I've been involved with many political/religious
discussions over 20 years on this issue, but never has the objective of the
discussion been the idea that the goverment should provide benefit or
position to Christianity above Constitutional and historical grounds.
Mike
.

User: "D_ S.A.L.T."
Title: Re: McCreary v ACLU	04 Jul 2005 12:29:49 PM

"Mike Craney" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:wdYwe.1139$Ox3.319@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...

"D_ S.A.L.T." <DSALT@nospamm.com> wrote in message
news:11c8f4oi8cphj23@corp.supernews.com...

"Mike Craney" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4cWwe.1120$Ox3.720@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...

"D_ S.A.L.T." <DSALT@nospamm.com> wrote in message
news:11c89nbpcb0on3c@corp.supernews.com...

"Mike Craney" <mikecraney@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:YcVwe.1105$Ox3.475@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...

The reason they say so is because they know that most of what they

consider

the most offensive counter theologies and philosophies won't do it
because
it's not a part of their nature.

Demonstrably false.

Considering I said most, not all, that is not true.

Fair enough.

I am suspicious that I might actualy be dealing with a reasonable person.
Most usenet contributers don't admit their mistakes.

The the traditional arch-enemy of Christianity (Islam)

Arch enemy? Now you are just slathering on the propoganda here.

Hardly. Historical fact. Is there another group that has, or still is,
vetting as much carnage and prejudicial bigotry on Christians worldwide?
Do
you know the history of the region very well?

Yes, and I know that in modern religion ecumunism is playing a larger part,
and necessarily so as the population increases and minor religions become
marginalized. Islam, from a practical standpoint, cannot be looked at as an
enemy. Maybe from a political standpoint muslims and their countries can be
marked as adversarial, but that does not mean christianity is an enemy of
Islam.
Throughout history it can be argued whether conflicts were actually between
religions or between religious nations. We all know that power will use
religion for its own purposes to fan the flames of conflict, rationalize
invasion, or manipulate the faithful towards something not in their best
interests but in the interest of the powers that be.
That said, Jesus has bigger enemies than Mohammed

If christians think they have an enemy it's satan, and then unbelievers.
Islam is a judeo christian faith and if you take the current politics out

it, Islam is down the list. Jewish, christian, and moslem religious

leaders

generally cooperate at least as much as some of the christian sectarians
cooperate with each other. Islam and christianity have fought at times,

but

so have protestants and catholics.

The same can be said of Christianity. Even now in this country christian
leaders are telling people what side of the isle they have to be on and what
answers to certain questions they have to give to be a good christian.
Christianity is no different than Islam in this subject.
This latter fact is nontrivial to understanding the dynamic

between the two.

Yes, politics plays a role, but it also plays a role in christianity and
between christians. Seperating the religion and the politics is difficult,
but necessary if you want to get a good idea of what is happening.

Did I say ALL? And now you are confusing the issue here with puting up a
Jewish mannorah with christian proselytizing.

You're the one asserting that the 10C are proslytizing, a proposition
which
simply makes no sense, as outlined abouve.

They are proselytizing depending on how they are used. You are right in that
they are not necessarily proselytizing. Used in a historical sense or as a
symbolic reference (as in the decalogue in the Supreme Court which contains
no scripture) they are not, but used exclusively, centrally, or as in Judge
Moore's monument admittedly to spread his faith, they are proselytizing.
The 10C are simply a matter of

relgious expression and recognition, no different than the menorah (in
fact,
less specific).

The mannorah isn't even close to being the same. If the mannorah were to
have mosaic law inscribed on it, maybe, but as it stands it is merely
symbolic, not instructive.

The motivation in such matters as the 10 Commandments is not
proslytization.

Certainly it is. When it is so easy and non controversial to put the ten
commandments up on private property in full public display, why bother

with

the fight over putting them on government property?

It's easy. It's for a payoff. It's to use the property to secure or give

the

illusion of government endorsement of their beliefs. Otherwise what's in

for them?

Affirmation of a Constitutional principle, and the historical
acknowlegement
that the roots and laws of this country were, to some extent, sourced from
their faith -- IOW, who they are, and why they're important to America.
It's
a simple proposition, and there's no need to read too much into it.

Well, it may be so to you, but not for conservative christians who will
admit it is for a purpose beyond a symbolic position that it played a part
in the history of our laws and government (even though the ten commandments
arguably played no actual significant part justifying it's inclusion central
to such a display).
From the horse's mouth you will hear that we are a christian country and
should honor the commandments, bible, god, and so on as a country and
through our government. You will hear that they believe posting them will
influence people in some way towards christianity or good, or that it
matters to god if our country ignores him by resisting the commandments.
I'm sorry. Though you may be sincere there are many who will openly admit
that our government should be promoting and supporting their version of
religion over all others and that those who resist are bad and will suffer
for it.

After all, the 10Cs are claimed by all three monotheistic religions,

But their versions are different.

Point being?

displaying them points no observer in the direction of a part