10 Commandments judge gets the boot!

loj68 said:
but he is expanding on the meaning of the establishment clause.......you cannot discount this as he is the one who wrote it. If he says that it was meant to create a "wall of separation" then it was written to do just that.



Just because the founding fathers were christians does NOT mean that they created a Judeo-Christian based society by default. Take a look at the Judeo-Christian based societies of the 1700's and you'll see what a quantum leap our founding doctrines are from them. Not to mention our founding fathers created a completely secular constitution without a single reference to god, jesus, or judeo christianity.

For those who think the U.S. was founded on Judeo-Christian values and ideals, all I have to say is show me where it is......because it's not in the constitution.......there are no values or ideals there that can't be found in countless other non-christian societies.

I'm not saying the Constitution is Judeo-Christian. I'm saying it is US history and heritage. Who came to Plymouth rock? Puritans. The church has always had a great influence on society and politics. Although it's influence has steadily decreased over the years, church ideals were there in history to influence it. The constitution is secular, but the US isn't and wasn't.
 
Mad Ryan said:
Wow... everybody rejoyce! the system beat down somebody who actually had the balls to stand up for his beliefs. Never mind that all western law is based on the 10 commandments/judao-christian ideals... Mustn't pay homage to our roots...

ya know.. i hate the guy.. but i will pat him on the back for standing up for his beliefs.. but there's a problem here. He was appointed a position, on tax payer money, to uphold the law.. he was not only abusing that position by putting his personal beliefs first, but using his tantrum of personal beliefs to further his political career. Would you want him as a judge?

Mad Ryan said:
My real problem with this is that on one side you have a judge that's a decorated combat Veteran who stands up for his beliefs, and on the other side you have the same slimy cocksuckers that want to make sure that convicted child molesters can quietly move into your neighborhood without anyone knowing about it.

Why is it that you can't have any reference to god in a school or government building but you can have a devil as a public school mascot? WTF?

Also, there is no such thing as "separation of church and state", PERIOD. We have what's called the anti-establishment clause which basically states that congress shall not establish one religion. All this means is that the government can't have an "official" religion. Over the last 3 decades or so this has been twisted around by some to mean what we are seeing now.

What really pisses me off (And I'm not a particularly devout person) is that some scumbag can go to a publicly funded library and view porn on publicly bought computers and yet we can't have a representation of the 10 commandments on display in a courthouse.

My feeling on the matter.... People who believe that state and church being seperated are just working their way up the food chain. We already had religious-wanna-theocracy propoganda lined up on dollar bills and school pledges. First... attack the imbred community that is Alabama.. Next.. go after GA.. they have the lowest SAT scores for 2 consecutive years I figure in about 10 years we should have paved a path straight to the supreme court to remove their bulls***.

Would you like to debate our diest and free thinking Founders? Who wrote that first amendment as a way to treat religious and non religious with a sense of neutrility and equality? Thomas Jefforson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, Franklin, even good ol' George Washington, all spoke out tremendously.. not only against religioun mixing with state, but spoke out against religion itself. Adams and Jefferson were freaking athiests!
Jefferson rewrote the bible, leaving out any supernatural mumbo-jumbo. now does that really sound like something a christian would do?

but here.. check this s*** out...

TREATY OF TRIPOLY
ARTICLE 11
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Ratification:
Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all others citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfil the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.


Thomas Jefferson:


I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.

Jefferson again:

Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.

More Jefferson:

The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. -

Jefferson's word for the Bible? Dunghill.

John Adams:

Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?

Also Adams:

The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.

Here's Thomas Paine:

I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible).

Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible).

It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.

Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance.

The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. - Thomas Paine

Finally let's hear from James Madison:

What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.

Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote:

Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

These founding fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Among those who confuse Christianity with the founding of America, the rise of conservative Baptists is one of the more interesting developments. The Baptists believed God's authority came from the people, not the priesthood, and they had been persecuted for this belief. It was theythe Baptistswho were instrumental in securing the separation of church and state. They knew you can not have a "one-way wall" that lets religion into government but that does not let it out. They knew no religion is capable of handling political power without becoming corrupted by it. And, perhaps, they knew it was Christ himself who first proposed the separation of church and state: Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto the Lord that which is the Lord's

In the last five years the Baptists have been taken over by a fundamentalist faction that insists authority comes from the Bible and that the individual must accept the interpretation of the Bible from a higher authority. These usurpers of the Baptist faith are those who insist they should meddle in the affairs of the government and it is they who insist the government should meddle in the beliefs of individuals.

The price of Liberty is constant vigilance. Religious fundamentalism and zealous patriotism have always been the forces which require the greatest attention. .




why do you think people since the 50's were continually trying to rewrite the view of history, implement religious statues, slogans, etc.. on gov't property? Just like the mass of people in the U.S. who think Sadam had something to do with 9/11, people already think things such as the "god" in our pledge, the "god" on our currency, were "always there". Sounds mighty Ray Bradbury or George Orwell F.451 or 1984 literary prophecies to me being fullfilled right before out eyes

THe majority of people in america has always been christian. (well since europe took over anyways). But the founders of this coutry were free thinkers and diests. Even on the the chance, (i'm not buying it) that the founders WERE CHRISTIAN, they still had the ability to think outside of a self serving cause, and write a Constitution that protected all people, whether they agreed with their beliefs or not.

Up above you agreed about religion and lib "special" infecting our gov't.. and to me this is just propogranda.

RELIGION IS THE RIGHT WING'S "SPECIAL GROUP". The gov't should treat people with a sense of equal representation and neautrility on matters where millions of people continaully disagree over ideals. Why set up the propoganda to convince the public of a history that's not true? Ever read Orwell's 1984.. how every passing generation and every passing day things were re-written and re-written to convince people "that's the way it always was".. very very similar IMO.

Do i have a problem with american enforcing morals? YES. B/c morality is subjective, morality on one person doesn't match up to the morality of another. The Goal is to set laws and rights that protect people from one another, to not allow the excess of a freedom to restrict another freedom. To ensure the continuation of our society. Who says God's way is right? Or that the black or feminist movement is right? or the athiest? or the homosexual? Or the buddhist?

Quit stirring up s***? Like the mockery of the Judicial system that AL judge did? This country was founded on many things... one of them being the fleeing of religious persecution. If religion becomes another integral part of our gov't,what do you think will happen? History repeating itself? I think so. But this time.. where are we going to run??

The founding fathers set the freedom of religion dually with the seperation of church and state, not to protect "heathens" like myself soley, but to protect the people (religious and non) from the abuse over a religion.

Look at the power Adolf Hitler gained by claiming the "backing of God". Look at the Middle East problem. Look at the colonies freeing Britain, and why. And please tell me you understand.

I'm not out to deny anyone their religion. I'm out for equal representation. No teacher should lead a prayer. The word "god" shouldn't be in our pledge, or on our currency. What you believe is a PRIVATE matter, not a government one. What if the majority of people in this country were these liberal extremists? And they decided to ban religion? It'd be the equal and opposite, just as wrong. Keep it to yourself, keep it to your community, but out of the tax payers concern.

I personally don't think people should bring their religion period to work or to school. I don't discuss my thinking on such matters in these places, b/c i find it very untactful, rude, and distracting from the work or educational process, but i'm not denying anyone a right to pray as they wish. I'm not denying anyone their belief, no matter how opposed i am to that believe. I just wish i would be shown that very same respect.

Having to hold currency i worked hard for, for the american economy, the taxes i paid for it to be created in the first place... and have it to have a slogan on it that pretty much says "you're not welcome here.. blasphemer!" Isn't what this country stands for.

I find it funny that most conservatives get all riled up and pissed when special groups are blacks, muslims, women, gays, etc... Some take it to extremes and want them treated unequally, others settle for a matter of equality.. which is a-ok in my books, but curse and throw hissy fits when ever "special rights" come up. Yet when the christians step into the picture... no one ever make the correlation that they are just another "special group" too.

**** being special.. you're not special, more moral, or superior. Everyonce in a while you'll eat some seafood..and yes afterwords.. you're s*** will stink.

I'm not saying the Constitution is Judeo-Christian. I'm saying it is US history and heritage. Who came to Plymouth rock? Puritans.

Nice that you brought that up! Why did they come here? Too free themselves from religious persecution. TO WORSHIP FREELY. That was the main goal to the foundation of the United States to begin with
 
Last edited:
Actually, the ACLU has made picking sympathetic judges an art form. They have a list of federal judges around the country that they can file their whacko legislation on behalf of whatever fringe group they are representing.

My opinion about the ACLU is that they're an organization without a purpose. They are running around the country stirring up s*** to keep themselves in business because there really isn't that much call for them anymore. I realize America isn't perfect, but if anything, we've gone too far. Rather than disregard someones race/sex/etc. the ACLU is now forcing us to give considerations to people based on race/sex/etc. which is BS.

Really? Lets take a look at the mission statements of the ACLU for second. Just on religion.
Religious Liberty
Americans enjoy a degree of religious freedom unknown in most of the rest of the world, and they take full advantage it: the United States is home to more than 1,500 different religious bodies and 360,000 churches, synagogues and mosques.

The right of each and every American to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Constitution's framers understood very well that religious liberty can flourish only if the government leaves religion alone. The free exercise clause of the First Amendment guarantees the right to practice one's religion free of government interference. The establishment clause requires the separation of church and state. Combined, they ensure religious liberty. Yet assaults on the freedom to believe continue, both in Washington and in state legislatures around the country.

The ACLU will continue working to ensure that religious liberty is protected by keeping the government out of the religion business. Use the resources on this page to learn more and take action to protect the rights guaranteed to all Americans by the Bill of Rights. Our latest news releases are listed to the left; actions you can take now are listed to the right, along with additional resources. The most recent religious liberty features are included directly below. www.aclu.com


Example 1: NAMBLA: (North American Man/Boy Love Assoc.) This is a group of Pedophiles that were smart enough to start a club so they could get quasi-protected status. I have no idea why the ACLU is going to bat for these sick ***** rights to bugger little boys but they are.


The ACLU protects people rights to free speech. They've stood up for blacks, women, the KKK, NAMBLA, people and organizations from all walks of life, from one extreme to the next, and everyone in the middle.

Do i think they're some saviour group? No. they do have many ordeals in wich they are nothing more than liberal extremists, but they are here to protect people, to protect our rights.

Its "special" people who wish to re-write our history to take that away from us.
 
Last edited:
and lastly.. just in case anyone forgot...

AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

A very wise approach with the attitude of equality and neutrility.

But the AL Judge??? He's fucken looney. You hear how he got it there? He got a crane to bring it in in the middle of the night without telling anyone beforehand. Oh, except for some loony fundamentalist group, which filmed it and made a documentary... they're selling it for his legal defense fund or something.

What's more, this is his ******' campaign strategy.... (he was elected, they do that in Alabama.) When he was a lesser judge he defied a court order to keep some wooden plaque of the commandments up in the courtroom, and ran for his current position as "the Ten Commandments judge."

i don't think God, christian or whatever religion, should leave our society, b/c there are people out there that put these ideals to good use.

I do think god should leave our government. Government is a power game, government is fueled on money and political power, God gets USED to sway people this way and that blindly b/c people start taking politicians views of God as if they were preachers (not even preachers know enough about religion to dictate god's will).. yet people will believe so.

The 10 commandments being at that place, a place I pay for, you pay for, and everyone else pays for (well.. AL citizens anyways and whatever federal money gets transfered there) If i'm buddhist and i have to go to court, and this guy doesn't like, and judges off a religion i don't beleive in, instead of by law that governs us all, I'm pretty much screwed b/c of a religious bias. Also its showing a favoritism by our government of one type of people over another.

If this guy supported gay rights and had a rainbow flag flying at his courthouse I'd be equally pissed, especially if i was a homophobe or stood opposed to the rainbow coalition.

Its not our government's place to show a particular religious morality down our throats. They can do this with the law and our country's symbolisms just fine.

Here's the harm from the 10 commandments:

1. First and foremost, it could mislead people into thinking those commandmants are part of our secular law. I mean, you walk into the official government halls of justice and see ten rules posted in huge stone letters. Might not a person believe they were actual laws they had to follow?

I mean, you may scoff like, "Everyone knows they are just the ten commandments from the Bible, not the law." But that is presumptuous. I mean, first of all it is amazing how many people in our society cannot name the vice president, or the capital of Texas, or understand how courts even work. Also, we have lots of immigrants with an even more rudimentary understanding of our legal system and, perhaps, limited understanding of English.

The point is not that every would be confused, but that some one might. Because you must admit that it COULD look like the government courthouse is saying, "Follow these rules." Who knows but that in certain third world countries, it is common for the government to inform the people of new laws by posting them in the local courthouse? We should not run the risk of confusing people about what the laws are. Frankly, for this reason I think it is misguided to have a government courthouse EVER post a list of rules that are really not the law. Even if it is a secular list, such as something taken from "Everything I Need to Know, I Learned in Kindergarten."

2. There is a harm in having a government institution sponsor or endorse any religion to the exclusion of others. I mean, I could easily see where a muslim coming into that courthouse might fear there is a bias against them because clearly the people within this building are christians and you are not. It might make you wonder if christians (or jews, for that matter) get preferential treatment in the court.

The problem with government sponsorship or endorsement of a religion is that it is psuedo-establishment of a state religion, not overtly but covertly. Because if you think that you will get better legal rights if you are christian than muslim, that is an incentive to switch to the religion favored by the government. That is exactly why the government cannot declare, "We are a christian nation, even though we are willing to let peopel believe otherwise." Because once the government declares itself to be a christian nation, all other religions become second-class and there is a fear (whether valid or not) that you must become christian or get second-rate treatment by the government.

The bottom line is, it harms society to ever have the government endorse one religion over others.

Now, this is a relatively minor infraction, so that you may scoff at the chance any of this will happen to any significant degree, but it is a sliding scale. Because if this judge can put the ten commandments in the lobby of a courthouse, does that mean a state can legislate that the ten commandments will be hung in every classroom? Does it mean the federal government can legislate having the ten commandments, a cross and a picture of Jesus in every government building of any sort?

I mean, I have no problem with this judge posting the ten commandments in his judicial chambers. He can decorate HIS area any way he wants. But the lobby of a courthouse DOES NOT BELONG TO THE JUDGE. It belongs to the people, owned by them indirectly through the government. The judge should not have the right to turn a public, government-owned place into endorsement of -- or, in fact, an advertisement for -- christianity. And it is hard to say that that is not what this amounts to.

I don't see the point of fundamentalists protesting the removal of the monument. If you need a monument to remind you the basic principles of morality, then you were never really a good Christian to begin with.

by the way... Having escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.
http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html
 
Last edited:
And one last post here ladies and gents....

Moore's Law
The immorality of the Ten Commandments.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2003, at 2:04 PM PT

The row over the boulder-sized version of the so-called "Ten Commandments," and as to whether they should be exhibited in such massive shape on public property, misses the opportunity to consider these top-10 divine ordinances and their relationship to original intent. Judge Roy Moore is clearly, as well as a fool and a publicity-hound, a man who identifies the Mount Sinai orders to Moses with a certain interpretation of Protestantism. But we may ask ourselves why any sect, however primitive, would want to base itself on such vague pre-Christian desert morality (assuming Moses to be pre-Christian).

The first four of the commandments have little to do with either law or morality, and the first three suggest a terrific insecurity on the part of the person supposedly issuing them. I am the lord thy god and thou shalt have no other ... no graven images ... no taking of my name in vain: surely these could have been compressed into a more general injunction to show respect. The ensuing order to set aside a holy day is scarcely a moral or ethical one, unless you assume that other days are somehow profane. (The Rev. Ian Paisley, I remember, used to refuse interviewers for Sunday newspapers even after it was pointed out to him that it's the Monday edition that is prepared on Sunday.) Whereas a day of rest, as prefigured in the opening passages of Genesis, is no more than organized labor might have demanded, perhaps during the arduous days of unpaid pyramid erection.

So the first four commandments have almost nothing to do with moral conduct and cannot in any case be enforced by law unless the state forbids certain sorts of art all week, including religious and iconographic artand all activity on the Sabbath (which the words of the fourth commandment do not actually require). The next instruction is to honor one's parents: a harmless enough idea, but again unenforceable in law and inapplicable to the many orphans that nature or god sees fit to create. That there should be no itemized utterance enjoining the protection of children seems odd, given that the commandments are addressed in the first instance to adults. But then, the same god frequently urged his followers to exterminate various forgotten enemy tribes down to the last infant, sparing only the virgins, so this may be a case where hand-tying or absolute prohibitions were best avoided.

There has never yet been any society, Confucian or Buddhist or Islamic, where the legal codes did not frown upon murder and theft. These offenses were certainly crimes in the Pharaonic Egypt from which the children of Israel had, if the story is to be believed, just escaped. So the middle-ranking commandments, of which the chief one has long been confusingly rendered "thou shalt not kill," leave us none the wiser as to whether the almighty considers warfare to be murder, or taxation and confiscation to be theft. Tautology hovers over the whole enterprise.

In much the same way, few if any courts in any recorded society have approved the idea of perjury, so the idea that witnesses should tell the truth can scarcely have required a divine spark in order to take root. To how many of its original audience, I mean to say, can this have come with the force of revelation? Then it's a swift wrap-up with a condemnation of adultery (from which humans actually can refrain) and a prohibition upon covetousness (from which they cannot). To insist that people not annex their neighbor's cattle or wife "or anything that is his" might be reasonable, even if it does place the wife in the same category as the cattle, and presumably to that extent diminishes the offense of adultery. But to demand "don't even think about it" is absurd and totalitarian, and furthermore inhibiting to the Protestant spirit of entrepreneurship and competition.

One is presuming (is one not?) that this is the same god who actually created the audience he was addressing. This leaves us with the insoluble mystery of why he would have molded ("in his own image," yet) a covetous, murderous, disrespectful, lying, and adulterous species. Create them sick, and then command them to be well? What a mad despot this is, and how fortunate we are that he exists only in the minds of his worshippers.

It's obviously too much to expect that a Bronze Age demagogue should have remembered to condemn drug abuse, drunken driving, or offenses against gender equality, or to demand prayer in the schools. Still, to have left rape and child abuse and genocide and slavery out of the account is to have been negligent to some degree, even by the lax standards of the time. I wonder what would happen if secularists were now to insist that the verses of the Bible that actually recommend enslavement, mutilation, stoning, and mass murder of civilians be incised on the walls of, say, public libraries? There are many more than 10 commandments in the Old Testament, and I live for the day when Americans are obliged to observe all of them, including the ox-goring and witch-burning ones. (Who is Judge Moore to pick and choose?) Too many editorialists have described the recent flap as a silly confrontation with exhibitionist fundamentalism, when the true problem is our failure to recognize that religion is not just incongruent with morality but in essential ways incompatible with it.

Anyone else have an arguement for me that i left out on the topic?

And for humorous purposes:

Top eleven uses for the bit of stone now it has gone:

11. Flip it over and use it as an altar upon which to perform sacrificial blood offerings to Satan!

10. Hollow it out and fill it with ice to create the world's holiest beer cooler.

9. Slowly lower it on top of that idiot preacher who suffocated 8-year old, autistic Milwaukee boy Terrance Cotrell to death last week by sitting on his chest during an impromptu "exorcism." The same horrific fate should befall any other member of that ridiculous Christian coven who was stupid enough to take part.

8. Cornerstone for a brand-spanking-new abortion clinic!

7. Put it in an overgrown field with an outhouse, a rusted out Cadilac, an abandoned refrigerator and voila! Redneck Stonehenge!

6. Paperweight for God's legal briefs in the upcoming post-Armageddon sentencing trials.

5. Use it as ballast on the converted cruise ship where Preznit Dubya will have to live in exile, becauseafter his removal from office and the subsequent investigations, trial, and horrific revelations of criminal conspiracy on a barely-imaginable scaleno other country on earth will be willing to take him.

4. Auction it off on e-bay and use the proceeds to help pay for upgrades to Alabama's crumbling and antiquated infrastructure.

3. Convert it into two tons worth of marble floor tiles for a gay homosexual bathhouse.

2. Use it as a tombstone for Charlton Heston once he finally kicks the bucket.

1. Take a sand-blaster and scour away the commandments, then replace them with the First Amendment, which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." That has a helluva lot more to do with the law of the land than whether or not you get along with your folks, work an extra shift on a Sunday, or say "Godamn!" when you stub your toe.
 
Okay, let's take a look at the ten commandments in question. I use here the King James, Exodus 20:1-17, version with UK-style spelling of these divine laws, instructions, working rules, commands:

1. I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

First, this is a direct statement to the "children of Israel," not to everyone, and certainly not to Christians, or to non-Semites. Second, it appears to me that this indicates that it's alright to have gods other than Jehovah,/Yahweh/G_d/JHVH/whatever, just so long as he/it is Number One. And this isn't a religiously- biased belief structure? This is a published, posted, instruction that those in the state of Alabama must believe in the version of the Judeo-Christian god that Moore does! It's carved in stone!

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

I'll not argue about the primitive and medieval geological and physical view of the world this expresses, but isn't the monument itself a "graven image"? I see there a distinctly graven monument that's not a natural formation and I also see, in churches all over the world, Baptist included crucifixes and other graven images. So everyone ignores this divine commandment? Note, too, that this deity we're afraid of here, is jealous and vindictive. He even reaches out to smite your children and grandchildren if you don't please him/it. He only "shews" any withholding of his wrath to those who read this notice, apparently. Is this any sort of document to publicly display before a family, much less offer it to them as a warning? As reader Joe Granski, from Virginia, observed:

Not only are we being told what we should worship, now we're being told, pretty explicitly, what we CAN"T worship, and what will happen if we don't follow this command, and what will happen to our children if we don't. Sounds like pretty cruel and unusual punishment to me (now... where have I heard that phrase before?). I guess Catholics, Hindus, and any other religion that uses statuary or images in their ceremonies are SOL.

Moving right along...

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

This prohibits free speech. AND it's saying that we will be judged accordingly for violating this fairly irrational commandment. Keep in mind that this is in the STATE JUDICIAL BUILDING!

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

To which Sabbath is this referring? From Friday dusk to Saturday dusk for Jews and Muslims? Or Midnight Saturday to midnight Sunday of Christians? Does this mean that government services will only get one day off a week? And which day? Is it now illegal to plow my field on the said Sabbath because god told my ox to take the day off? Notice also, that it directly references Genesis not only as fact, but as justification for this rule. Of course Genesis is the story of everybody's creation, so I guess it's non-denominational.

Of course, this whole don't-work-on-Sunday (or Saturday!) nonsense has been conveniently ignored by Christians and Jews (except for Orthodox Jews, and don't get me started on that, please!) and Muslims, because it's just not practical. It appears that we can conveniently ignore any of these commandments if they don't suit us, and maybe we don't believe the whole setup, anyway? In Toronto, there were "Sunday Blue Laws" enacted in 1976 that forbade us to go out to buy anything that wasn't absolutely necessary medicines, basic foods (but no fripperies such as candy bars!), crutches, Bibles, were exempted. Some of that is still in effect, indicating that Canada has a way to go to catch up with the rest of the world.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Here we have this blatant threat again: Do this or I'll kill you Gotta love the OT god... such a tantrum throwing little b****.

6. Thou shalt not kill

Sounds reasonable, if we ignore the firing squads, the electric chairs, the gallows, the lethal injections, that is. Another subject not to get me started on...

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery
Let's get real, folks. This text was written at a time when "adultery" meant sexual contact with a married woman, an engaged woman, or a virgin who was not the adulterer's wife. Sex with other females was not included, because establishing the paternity of any offspring was the motive; it was a civil matter, not a criminal one. As Mr. Granski points out, a deflowered virgin had a much lower "value" on the bridal market, and the punishment was payment equal to the loss of value. Life is complicated...

8. Thou shalt not steal.

Well, okay. But a little fudging on taxes, or including an old dent on the auto insurance claim, shouldn't lead to immersion in brimstone, I'd say. But I'm no authority on such matters.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Question: does this one include gossip? If so, Hell's going to be crowded. In civil law, there's already a set of rules in place, with serious penalties for slander, libel, perjury, etc., but I don't think we need any worse experience than going through the court system, thank you. I'll take brimstone.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Oh boy. Here we go. It seems that merely wanting to have something belonging to a neighbor, can bring on damnation. "Covet" shows up in Webster's as, "To desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others," but that's not getting what you want, it's just desiring it! The Oxford Dictionary gets a little more graphic, one meaning of "covet" stated as, "To desire with concupiscence or with fleshly appetite." That's more than I want to know.

But seriously, such a commandment posted in a government building dedicated to the law, simply tells the reader that, officially, he must not want anything that isn't already his! At this point, Moore is trying to dictate the thoughts of the citizenry. Thinking, wondering, fantasizing, imagining, are all part of being human. Moore wants thought control, which he'd see if he'd spend a few moments unblinded by the zeal that has dazzled him and led him to be such a self-righteous laughing-stock.

In the next chapter of Exodus, about which Moore apparently knows or chooses to know nothing, we find further rules which allow fathers to sell their daughters into slavery (21:7) and we're told that "whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death" (21:17). Those commandments are not included among the Ten Commandments that Moore placed under the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building. Why not? In his legal decisions, does Moore use this kind of selective thinking to make his rulings?

Moore has argued that his installing the monument was "a way to honor the biblical underpinning of America's laws." That's not valid. The Constitution doesn't claim to be "under God"; the Preamble simply alleges that inalienable rights come from a "creator." The commandments which prohibit worshipping other gods and require that one honor one's father and mother, aren't reflected in our U.S. laws, at all. And as pointed out above, some US laws are in direct opposition to the Ten Commandments, e.g. capital punishment.

As a nation currently struggling with its credibility and its image on the world stage, we certainly didn't need this ridiculous scene to be played out publicly. I'm personally embarrassed by Justice Moore's stance, his actions, and his ignorance of reality, since they reflect on my country. He committed what he knew was an improper act arguably an illegal act then openly and flagrantly violated a federal court order to reverse that action, and he has shown no remorse, nor discomfort. In fact, he's crowing and preening in the spotlight that he's brought to bear on his actions. The ethics complaint that was brought against him stated that he failed to "observe high standards of conduct" and to "respect and comply with the law." And this is the Chief Justice of the State of Alabama?

I must give ample credit to those who supplied much of what I've summarized here. Readers Jim Kutz and Joe Granski, among others, shared their thoughts with me. In fact, I'll let Joe close this discussion with his queries he asks about "God's Top 10 Ways to Stay Out of Hell":

http://randi.org/jr/090503.html


First of all, in what way does the state acknowledging God, not violate separation of church and state? Last I checked, believing in a god was the expressed domain of religion. Are atheists and agnostics recognized by the state only as godless savages, and therefore, not as deserving of unbiased legislation? Can the citizens of Alabama believe in anything they want to, so long as they believe in a god?


well our great leader has answered this one!!! And excuse me, what if the state represented Hispanics in a biased fashion when they are the majority in America? What if it the teachings of Buddha.. or (gasp!).. messages from the Koran? If the judge believed in it.. it should be ok right? Or how about if the judge believed in homosexual superiority? Maybe that would be more suitable to your liking. He is not supposed to be a judge of moral character and religious/philosophical beliefs. He has his own private time as a citizen to express those as he wishes, when hes on that bench, he represents America and the laws of this country.. Not god first, not Buddha or Krshna first, not the whites first, not men first. America first!

I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - George Bush

And this folks, is the Christian agenda. Its called.. get on the bandwagon.. or we dont give a **** about you. No matter if you fought and died for this country, no matter how much you pay in taxes.
 
Last edited:
LAST POST TIL SOMEONE REPLIES>.....

Very cool animation... FLASH WARNING..

http://www.bushflash.com/faith.html


If there's anyone who can refute ALL of the information i've posted.. go ahead, I did my homework and research to back my opinions. I'm not into this pittle pattle back and forth of bulls*** arguements. If you think you can shut me down, by all means, exercise your free speech and do so, but don't insult me with some little paragraph of your opinionated righteousness.
 
Last edited:
I don't know about anyone else but I'm impressed...

I guess I have let emotion into this where I shouldn't...

I see legal action groups promoting ideas that are in some cases outright hostile to America, and they're doing it through legal parity in our courts. Extremist groups that stir up hate serve no other purpose than to break up the citizens of America into small polarized groups who no longer see themselves as part of the whole. Both ends of the idealogical spectrum are guilty of this but I'm looking at the bigger picture.

It's fine for everyone to have their own beliefs and ideals, but when someone convinces you that you're so special that 1) the rules just don't apply or 2) you just don't fit, than you're no longer an American, you just live here because it's convenient. Our country that I've fought for is becoming a country of individuals who are much more concearned with their own status as a individuals than they are as parts of the bigger entity of America. This thinking will be detrimental to our country, either from an external threat that we will/can not meet, or an internal one that we embrace/don't recognize.

When I was still a trigger puller, me and the guys in my unit used to sit around and talk about what would happen to America. We foretold 9/11, although in truth we all thought it would be much worse.

The paradigm has shifted and 9/11 was our warning and we didn't learn the lesson well enough. The next one will be much worse...

Hopefully we'll get it right next time.

Digital Duality:

Thankyou for your excellently thought out post. As is often the case, when information is presented to me in such a manner it prompts me to research and reform my own biased opinions. I thank you for the education.

Please stay around, as there seems to be a need for such well thought out discourse around here...
 
It's fine for everyone to have their own beliefs and ideals, but when someone convinces you that you're so special that 1) the rules just don't apply or 2) you just don't fit, than you're no longer an American, you just live here because it's convenient. Our country that I've fought for is becoming a country of individuals who are much more concearned with their own status as a individuals than they are as parts of the bigger entity of America

I think you're dead on with this statement. People do care about themselves too much. I would love to see america get rid of groups united by race, religion, gender, preference, etc... And in the big scheme of things, i would like to see people one day consider themselves as as individual to humanity rather than succumbing to the egomania and propoganda control to the likes of nationalism and patriotism.

As much as i encourage people to be strong individuals, i don't really encourage the whole self serving selfish me me me attitude. Nice post too by the way. I know my view differ greatly from yours..
 
I think anyone who has read any of my posts already knows where I stand on this. I will say only a few simple things and that is all.

1. Judge Ray Moore was/is a good man. He lives his life as he thinks is best in the eyes of HIS God and my God. He didn't do this in defiance of anything. His religion is the main reason he got into this line of work. I can think of no'one better to make decisions in my community but someone who lives in my community and has the same values of 90% of the people in my community. I want someone in authority who would act the why I would. I think everyone wants that.

2. and I quote. "What's more, this is his ******' campaign strategy.... (he was elected, they do that in Alabama.) When he was a lesser judge he defied a court order to keep some wooden plaque of the commandments up in the courtroom, and ran for his current position as "the Ten Commandments judge." " We live in the Bible Belt. I love it here. Good people (for the most part) and good country life. Things are not the same here as they are in other parts of the country. Judge Moore didn't do anything other than decorate his office with something he was fond of. He in no way imposed these beliefs on anyone nor made people uphold them. He simply had it in the lobby decorating an open space. I personally have a picture of my wife on my desk. Does this mean my boss can come down and tell me how to decorate my office? Yes, but I would also fight it....Judge Moore did also.

3. Seperation of church and state, where to begin. Yes, I believe it should exsist. As a christian I'm told to do two things. Live by God's laws FIRST, and by man's (USA's) law second. I'm told to do what is right in God's eyes first and if it contridicts with man's law then I will have to face the consequences. I do this day in and day out. Works very well for me. God has blessed me and my family. I hope blesses all of yours as well.

I will not reply back to any posts even direct questions.
 
I will not reply back to any posts even direct questions.

The almighty wisdom of "i know it all and no one can prove me wrong" Oh look at me, i can state my opinion, then plug my ears like a 5yr old and go "la la la blah blah blah.. I"M NOT LISTENING!". how mature and strong willed of you.

You're entitled to your beliefs, but unless you wish to justify them, to have them questioned, ..you should be willing to debate, and to reflect on your values with introspection. Don't stand up for your beliefs, unless you can stand against scrutiny. Either stand up for what you belief in, or sit the **** down.


Does this mean my boss can come down and tell me how to decorate my office?

i don't give 2 s**** what he has in his office, i don't think this was ever a concern for anybody. Telling him that he can't have religious symbols in his private chambers alongside of personal items such as pictures of loved ones, over steps the bounds of the government on matters of religious freedom.

But maybe if you read my post(s).. 4 consecutively, you'd've known that.

And by the way. Judge Moore is not a good man, He's a fanatic. You should read some of the court cases he's held, he interjects his religious values through his power appointed to him by the state. He uses his religious views to play on people merely to gain political power. Frankly.. from the athiest and the christian point of view, the man and most of the crap that spurts from his mouth is the typical undereducated Alabama bile.

We live in the Bible Belt. I love it here. Good people (for the most part) and good country life.

You don't need a Bible to reinsure that its good people. And frankly, i know many a country people who are of various religions or no religion at all.. and they too are good people. Rural areas have more to them than Christian dogmas and religious law.

I know plenty of country "god fearing" men, that are pieces of s***. Your religion and geographic location, don't justify a damn thing.

By the way, Nice Christian avatar you got there. Nothing screams "i'm a good christian" than seeing a guy stab and slice people to death. Tell me.. are you a "good christian" in a holy crusade, Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, Old testment pissed off god who kills people for the smallest infraction of Biblical messages?
 
Last edited:
therizzzo
you said

ACLU=Thought Police..

ever think that the Christian agenda=Thought Police?

don't get me wrong, i hate political correctness, but people do need to be treated equally and with a sense of neutrility in our gov't.

I stand firmly against mediocrity and the like, but come on.. you seem intelligent enough to grasp this.


and Captain KRM P5

you were asking "how long til "god" vanishes from out money?"

well 2 things to point out. The faith in the american dollar bill, coupled with american excess (aka keeping up with the Jones') is a sign of greed. Does a religious slogan, from a religion that protests against greed, need to endorse it?

and #2, that phrase was implemented sometime during the McCarthy era i do believe (i know it was at least mid 1900s), its not a part of american history.

Tell me.. do you let facts about your patriotic heritage slip by you so quickly? DO you allow our country to re-write history ala Orwell's 1984, to convince you what "the past always has been".

Are you one of the chaps, that truly believe the Sadam was a player in 9/11 as a statistic reports that 30%+ of american's actually believe?

You people need to do your damn homework b4 bitching.

And if any of you argue back, please refer to those posts i made (on pages 3 and 4), i don't want to duplicate my replies.. i believe i supplied enough reading material.

I'm not out to go "oh look at me, i'm right your wrong". But i see alot of really emotional strong stanced posts with nothing to back them up and alot of fallacies and contradictions within them. I'm not attempting to start a flamewar here, but for those of you who stand so strongly on this issue, why not debate me? At least i'll give you a good arguement.. i didn't see any uber impressive "pro 1st amendment" people here at all, some ok attempts. So please.. anyone.. enlighten me.
 
Last edited:
and KYMP5

you stated
The latter believe that all cultures/views have equal validity which in a perfect/utopian world may be true, is in reality total BS. I'm well acquainted with moral relativism, as I've been attending a university for the last 5 years. It's total horseshit

so viewing the world completely black and white is better than a relative morality?? better than the Buddhists? Tell me.. ever hear of a Buddhist "crusade" to slaughter people? Kantian philosophy teaches of a consequentialist morality.... that to me seem to be higher and more thought out than the blatant blind following of black/white moralities. I'd love to know you're theory on this one.

the rebuttal was already handled nicely by one guy on the 2nd page... just thought i'd add my 2cents..

didnt he have to put his hand on a bible to be sworn in

i bet he did.. and that's the ultimate hypocrisy about this subject, that too should be banished.

brennan said:
This was takin from the old testament, alot of things in the old testament were abolished when christ came.

The 10 commandments were taken from the old testament too ya know. Why not look up the punishment to breaking the 10 commandments, believe me.. its not the same "he who is without sin" mentality in the NT.
 
"The latter believe that all cultures/views have equal validity which in a perfect/utopian world may be true, is in reality total BS. I'm well acquainted with moral relativism, as I've been attending a university for the last 5 years. It's total horseshit"

I actually wrote this. Again... I was making an example of an extremist idea run amoc.
 
Gonna have to pop my $.02 in here- digital- you have done a fantastic job in stating a lot of what my personal beliefs already are- and the bush site hits right on the mark- As I mentioned in a prior thread- coming from only my opinions as a buddhist, my religion nor your religion has any place governing this country- and not to flame here, but nothing on the level of the crusades has ever been done by any members of the many different buddhist faiths....
Lead by actions, not by words- and the actions that have been performed by many people in the name of several religions are abhorrent to their own creeds. Now it may be said that these people are not truly following their faith- but the proof is in the pudding.
This judge was not wrong for his beliefs, merely in the way he chose to express them in a public way, forcing anyone who came to his courtroom to see that he was of the christian right wing. If he believes that, keep it at home or in your church, not in a publicly funded building- If he wants all of his clients to see what he believes, he should go be a private lawyer, not a judge- not paid for by the taxpayers.
 
shinzen.. i think you misunderstood me... you post is a good summarizations of my feelings on the topic.

My references to crusades... was being sarcastic and simuntaneously pointing a finger back, i apologize for the misunderstanding..

and umm... I'll chill out when i want to.. i'm not hurting anyone or slinging around adhoms, what's you're deal? If you don't like what i have to say.. don't click on the link.

[harsh and inappropriate language edited by pdhaudio]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread is closed so we don't have everyone arguing about what is right an wrong. Some people need to stop 'defending' their rights (aka fighting for what THEY want)
 
Thread reopened due to user request, and the fact that "closing a thread because people are arguing" doesn't justify it, IMO. (Sorry, pdh).

While people are definitely arguing, they're doing it in a somewhat civil matter, and that's good enough for me. If it gets out of hand, I'll move this to the flamewars.
 
Back