posted by M. | 10:13 AM
Wonder what the size of the congregation was to justify this big structure?
The congregations of all the city's old churches were undoubtedly quite large at one time. East Liverpool has many beautiful churches, and I'd be thrilled to see their congregations expand to overflowing again. I'll never understand these evangelicals who prefer office buildings and suburban malls for their McChurches. Part of going to church is experiencing a beautiful sacred place. I guess all that has been lost.
Here's one for you athiests out there including Matt and little tongue tied friend BuckeyeELO:Teacher fights to post Declaration of Independence Principal claims 'endowed by their Creator' is too Judeo-Christian for schoolA math teacher sued his school district after the principal told him the words "In God We Trust" and "All Men Are Created Equal, They Are Endowed By Their Creator" must be removed from his homeroom wall because they convey a Judeo-Christian viewpoint.In January, Principal Dawn Kastner told Westview High School math teacher Bradley Johnson that a banner he had posted in his classroom for 25 years, and another that was posted for 17 years, needed to come down.The older banner, measuring 7 feet by 2 feet, contained the words "In God We Trust," "One Nation Under God," "God Bless Ameirica" and "God Shed His Grace On Thee." The second banner quoted the Declaration of Independence by including the phrase, "All Men Are Created Equal, They Are Endowed By Their Creator."Even though 4,000 students have passed through Johnson's classroom without a single complaint in 25 years, the principal told Johnson the banners were now impermissible because of their religious content.The Thomas More Law Center, a not-for-profit law firm dedicated to the defense of religious freedoms, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Johnson against the Poway Unified School District of San Diego, Calif., which includes Westview High School, claiming the order to remove the banners violated Johnson's First Amendment freedom of speech, particularly since the district permits other teachers to hang Buddhist, Islamic, and Tibetan prayer messages on their classroom walls.Richard Thompson, president of the Law Center, commented, "Many public schools exhibit a knee-jerk hostility towards Christianity and seek to cleanse our nation's classrooms of our religious heritage while promoting atheism or other religions under the guise of cultural diversity."The school district, in turn, filed to have the lawsuit dismissed. But last week, Federal District Judge Robert T. Benitez denied the request, stating, "Johnson has made out a clear claim for relief for an ongoing violation of his First Amendment free speech rights," and calling the principal's order "an unequivocal case of government hostility" toward the Judeo-Christian viewpoint."Judge Benitez's strongly worded opinion sends a clear message to school districts across the country that hostility toward our Nation's religious heritage is contrary to our Constitution," said Rober Muise, the Thomas More Law Center lawyer handling the case.According to court documents, the school district argued for dismissal, saying that Johnson's banners do not enjoy First Amendment protections "because Johnson is speaking as an educator, not a citizen" and "because Johnson was a teacher, he had no First Amendment protections in his classroom."Judge Benitez sharply disagreed, claiming the district's argument amounted to saying that Johnson has no free speech rights at all because he is a government employee.Benitez quoted the 1969 Supreme Court decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which stated, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years."The judge then added, "In the 40 years since, the Supreme Court has neither diminished the force of Tinker for teachers nor in any other way cabined the First Amendment speech of public school teachers."Benitez then presented a strong rebuttal to the charge that the Declaration of Independence and phrases like "In God We Trust" represent unconstitutional religious establishment."The Court does not understand Johnson's banners as communicating a religious Judeo-Christian viewpoint," Benitez wrote in his decision. "Rather, the banners communicated fundamental political messages and celebrate important American shared historical experiences."Benitez further wrote, "That God places prominently in our nation's history does not create an Establishment Clause problem requiring curettage and disinfectant of Johnson's classroom walls. It is a matter of historical fact that our institutions and government actors have in past and present times given place to a supreme God."Benitez then quoted a 1952 Supreme Court ruling, Zorach v. Clauson: "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."The judge concluded his decision with the remarks, "By squelching only Johnson's patriotic expression, the school district does a disservice to the students of Westview High School, and the federal and state constitutions do not permit such one-sided censorship."
Its all about excitement, entertainment,and money. I can't believe how many calls I receive from people who call in where I work thinking that money will get them to heaven just because some hyped up tv evangelist says that it will.
High Five--The real question is why do you feel the need to shove your religious beliefs down everyone's throat? Why do you insist that our state schools should preach your religion? It is utterly false and absurd for you or anyone else to say that public schools "teach" atheism. What you and your friends really mean to say is that they do not teach Christianity.The answer to your problem is simple: Don't send your kids to public schools. Instead, send them to private Christian academies where you can keep them from being exposed to people unlike yourself.
Matt,I consider myself a Christian, and by many standards I would be considered evangelical, but I do not believe for one moment that prayer in school should be mandatory.However, the Declaration is a key document to the founding of this country. Are the words so offensive that they can't be displayed? One major reason schools have failed in the last 50 years is because we have not taught students accurate events of History. Removing the Declaration from the process would be one more step backwards.
Matt, the teacher wasn't teaching christianity he had posters in the room which all come from historical American documents. Everytime I read something of yours lately you find a way to blast Christians and our beliefs. I liked this web site up until recently when you got started on this anti-God campaign. I know you will tell me, like you've told others to move on and don't read your blog. Good discussion is one thing but when the moderator is so biased it borders on hatred is another thing all together. Good luck with this endeavor and maybe if I check back in the future it will be an open forum for honest discussion without all the hatred.
My comment was a response to High Five in the context of his/her recent comments here, not so much the specific issue at hand.To attempt to eliminate religion from history is to eliminate history. Anyone who teaches or studies history had better expect to understand religion. Anyone who wants to remove religion from history is a fool. Again, the specific issue in High Five's cut/paste interests me less than his/her previous attempts to deny the relevance of the Constitution. I am not anti-Christian. I was raised in a Christian home and continue to share most of the values that Christians lay claim to. I have read the Bible many times and continue to study it, along with many other ancient texts.I go after evangelicals when they insist on forcing their religion into politics and state institutions. It took thousands of years to separate the two, and it was America that finally managed to get it done. Unfortunately, Ronald Reagan found it useful to bring religion back into politics to win his first election, and people continue to think that's ok. Well it isn't. (By the way, Reagan dropped the evangelicals once he no longer needed them to stay in power.)The Constitution guarantees me that God does not run this country, no matter what his name. I take this very seriously. We should all take this seriously because it protects us all, even Christians.
Isn't being a Christian about treating people equally? If this is the true Christians beliefs then by showing God's love to everyone will prove their true faith. Freedom of religion means the right to express oneself in all religous beliefs. The constitution,however is being changed to exclude Christians from practicing their religion while the others are free to express theirs by taking away our rights!!!Where is the justice in this?
Where is the Justice--I don't think your claim is accurate. The government (or government schools) cannot prefer one religion over another. See the First Amendment. I think you'd have a hard time justifying your claim that the Constitution has been changed to "exclude Christians from practicing their religion while the others are free to express theirs."No one is stopping anyone from practicing religion, and most certainly the Constitution hasn't been changed. The First Amendment is what it is, whether you like it or not.
I have a question about this separation of church and state thing. How come the framers of the Constitution patterned the laws of this nation after Judeo-Christian principles and now all of a sudden things have changed to try to exclude Christianity in any public places? Is the reason for this as simple as it sounds: There are fewer Christians in this country and the atheists have taken over? Needing an answer.
To Need an AnswerThe answer is YES!
High Five said... Here's one for you atheists out there including Matt and little tongue tied friend BuckeyeELO:[end quote]Gee guy. I see you and actual facts aren't on speaking terms. This may come as a big surprise to you BUT I'm not a atheist. FACT: Most people who support church state separation have not been and are not atheists.Most law suits that have made it to the USSC were not brought into the court system by Atheists. [qote] Teacher fights to post Declaration of Independence Principal claims 'endowed by their Creator' is too Judeo-Christian for school[end quote]Judeo-Christian doesn't exist. There is no such religion. [quote] A math teacher sued his school district after the principal told him the words "In God We Trust" and "All Men Are Created Equal, They Are Endowed By Their Creator" must be removed from his homeroom wall because they convey a Judeo-Christian viewpoint.[end quote]Why should those banners be in a public school class room anyway? BTW, most if not all of the reports of this "story" that I have found so far have not been in the regular media but rather religious and Radical Religious Right sources. Oh I know, you will claim conspiracyBy the way the law firm bring suit is "The Thomas More Law Center is a conservative Christian, not-for-profit law center based in Ann Arbor, Michigan and active throughout the United States. Its stated goals are defending the religious freedom of Christians, restoring "time honored values" and protecting the sanctity of human life. Its motto is "The Sword and the Shield for People of Faith." The center characterizes itself as "Christianity's answer to the ACLU".Though it is active in many controversial social issues and cases, the center is most widely known for its instigation, litigation and loss of the Dover, Pennsylvania intelligent design case, and its strong pro-life litigation."As I recall it was chastised by the court in Penna from bring the suit in the first place. Bringing such a suit cost the school district and the taxpayers a tidy sum. It is also interesting that it is "defending the religious freedom of Christians" not religious freedom in general and surely not the religious freedom of those of those Christians who are suing to protect the Constitutional Principle of church state separation. I wouldn't make too much of this story, let it run it's course and see where it ends up. Most of these are quite different than the law firm's propaganda says and the end result is usually not favorable for them.It could take a long while to reach any final ending I will give you some information about the back door approach to get around the Establishment Clause by using free speech approach. For awhile the RRR won some court cases in that manner but that trend didn't last long. So all who have an interest will have to wait and see Have you bothered to read Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District ? You might want to I suggest you don't take the Law firms explanations of it or even necessarily the District court's opinion.The US District court is the bottom level of Federal Courts BTW I haven't been able to find that opinion on line anywhere yet. I didn't spend a lot of time looking for it Have you found it and read it? I wouldn't put a lot of stock in newspaper reports of what the discussion said if I were you.[quote] Benitez then presented a strong rebuttal to the charge that the Declaration of Independence and phrases like "In God We Trust" represent unconstitutional religious establishment.[end quote]Ahhh, really, a Federal judge who is in conflict with USSC rulings , Another Judge Hand from Alabama, huh? well he got shot down when the case finally reached the USSC in the 80s [quote] Benitez then quoted a 1952 Supreme Court ruling, Zorach v. Clauson: "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."[end quote]Dicta not law
EL Alum said... However, the Declaration is a key document to the founding of this country. Are the words so offensive that they can't be displayed?[end quote]Key, perhaps. Funny it wasn't considered all that important in its own time. However, that is another topic for another time. There is nothing wrong with the entire document. Frequently it isn't the entire document but rather highly selective phrases from that document that are used or are stressed by certain teachers. In that case there can be a legal problem. [quote] One major reason schools have failed in the last 50 years is because we have not taught students accurate events of History. [end quote]Most Americans are historically challenged but that didn't begin in 1958.Most Americans are highly historically challenged about why and wherefores of church state separation.[quote]Removing the Declaration from the process would be one more step backwards.[end quote]Most Americans are historically challenged about the background, history and facts concerning the DOL
Where is the justice? said... Isn't being a Christian about treating people equally? If this is the true Christians beliefs then by showing God's love to everyone will prove their true faith. Freedom of religion means the right to express oneself in all religous beliefs. The constitution,however is being changed to exclude Christians from practicing their religion while the others are free to express theirs by taking away our rights!!!Where is the justice in this?[end quote]The above is incorrect, It is the product of RRR propaganda. Consider the following:The President of the US and as far as I know most Presidents of the US professed to be at the very least a Christian of some form or fashion. Not all were what some might consider the be "orthodox" Christian to be sure, but religious and some connection to some form of Christianity.Judges, justices, also as above. Same for the vast majority of those in Congress, those in the various offices of the various agencies of the Federal Government, State Governments and local governments. The vast majority of Americans claim to be religious and claim to be Christian. Who are these others? Where can you find them? What positions do they hold?
Need an Answer said... I have a question about this separation of church and state thing. How come the framers of the Constitution patterned the laws of this nation after Judeo-Christian principles [end quote]They didn't do that.[quote]and now all of a sudden things have changed to try to exclude Christianity in any public places?[end quote]Have you ever read the following: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.Excerpt Article VI U S Constitution [quote] Is the reason for this as simple as it sounds: There are fewer Christians in this country and the atheists have taken over? Needing an answer.[end quote]Here is your answer:http://pewresearch.org/pubs/743/united-states-religionPew Forum on Religion & Public LifeThe U.S. Religious Landscape Survey Reveals a Fluid and Diverse Pattern of FaithFebruary 25, 2008
No the answer is not that there are more aitheists in our country ,but there are more christians who are too complasant to stand up for what they believe in!!!It is why so many people are so willing to allow the minority of us to go and vote and decide for them who will govern our cities,our states ,and our federal government.What a shame that so many complain but don't have the guts to show up on election day!!America will only be great as long as people stand up for it but unfortunatley the minority rules because most stay home when what they think really counts.
I knew if I asked an athiest a question I'd get an athiest answer. Thanks BuckeyeELO.My thanks to everyone else for their comments.
Our nation's founders sought to separate church and state. Contemporary Christians consistently demean the Constitution and the efforts of the founders by insisting on putting religion back into the state, yet they want everyone to see them as patriots. The truth is they can't stand it that the founders set up a secular country. They prefer to live in a medieval state ruled by priests and kings who claim to rule by divine right. Thankfully, they haven't been successful in changing the Constitution and our way of life. The United State is, was, and hopefully always will be a secular republic, not a religious monarchy or dictatorship. The Constitution protects religious people's right to worship. We are free to worship any god we like in church. But the Constitution also protects the state from the excesses of religion. That's why our country is different from the Islamic theocracies of the world, where religious leaders are in charge of the state. Thank God we have a Constitution that protects us from religious zealots.
I think BuckeyeELO can speak for himself Matt although not very well.I noticed in your diatribe you thanked God for the Constitution. We are all impressed.
High Five--Buckeye always speaks well for himself. I don't know how my comment was a "diatribe." It seems to me like a plain statement of fact. The Constitution protects us all from religious zealots taking over the government. It's a very plain and simple thing.
Need An Answer said... I knew if I asked an athiest a question I'd get an athiest answer. Thanks BuckeyeELO.Since you included my nick in your reply I guess you are speaking to me. However, your comments go to show that you and facts aren't on speaking terms If I were an atheist I would have no problem stating that, not that is has any bearing on anything. However, I am not a atheist.Your insistence on trying to make me one only goes to show were you're coming from and how actual facts are totally irrelevant to you. No surprise there.
High Five said... I think BuckeyeELO can speak for himself Matt although not very well.[end quote]Well enough to expose your ignorance of the topic.
Follow upThe historical marker on the street at the corner of 5th and Market in front of the LeRoys fills in some details about the ChurchIt states that in 1907 the first floor of the former church was occupied by retail businessesThe second floor was turned into a theater originally called the Bijou but later named the Diamond TheaterBy 1920 the theater had ceased being used.An interestign question for those who have acurious mind with regards to local history is:Is any of the buildings next to LeRoys part of the original church buildingLeRoys isn't because the new Dairyland was in that structure. the structure being built new after The original Dairyland had burnt down. The original dairyland probably was in a portion of the original church building. It is quite possible that the building next to LeRoys utilizes some of the original church building.
BuckeyeELO,You speak of the Constitution as it is being interpreted by a corrupt judicial system. Up till recently no one objected to there being the ten commandments on the walls of courthouses. In fact, the ten commandments are etched on the walls of congress. Someone here said our laws weren't patterned after Judao-Christian principles. If that's the case why is God's name so many places in the Constitution and on the walls of our government buildings? You athiests are amusing.
The only place it counts is in the First Amendment. Many of our laws are based upon Judeo-Christian principles, but neither the Jews nor the Christians invented them out of thin air. They borrowed from other cultures that preceded them--ancient Greece and Babylonia, for example--both pagan cultures.One of the great principles that Americans contributed was the codified separation of church and state. Why is it that so many contemporary Christians refuse to accept this simple fact? The answer is that they want the nation to be a theocracy. Like it or not, the Constitution protects us against religious zealots who would subvert the law to achieve their own religious agendas.Pray in your home, your church, and even on the street corner. The First Amendment also guarantees you that right. But don't expect the state to sponsor a religion--yours or anyone else's. It doesn't matter whether you are a Muslim, a Christian, or a Hindu. It's the law of the land. That you don't like it doesn't mean a thing.
m,We aren't talking about taking over the country, you've got to know better than that and I think you do. We're talking about being able to have a nativity display in a public place. We're talking about having the Ten Commandments on the walls of our public buildings like they have for hundreds of years now. Yes, there are protections in the Constitution for government making and established religion, but doing these things doesn't establish a religion at all. Having a nativity scene in the town square is not establishing a religion. When government socialist leftist took over the schools and out of the hand of their rightful owners, the people, they started with this no prayer in school. Look at where this has got us. We have some of the worst schools in the world. Most are disgusting places.Do you propose we take down the walls of congress because some minority is offended? Your diversity programs are terrible examples of how not to do things. Look at the programs in your own school. Didn't you have to pass a diversity test to get hired? If they didn't need an white male you'd still be on the streets.It's been just since the politically correct movement that much of this nonsense has come to the surface. I really don't think you want to live in a Godless society.
Personally, I couldn't care less about nativity scenes or the Ten Commandments, or anything else being displayed anywhere. But I can't figure out why it's important to so many Christians to have these things displayed on government property. Why can't you just display your religious icons at your church or private property? If you're not trying to insist that the state is Christian (as you claim), why is this even an issue?I wonder how you would feel if Muslims, Hindus, or even Satanists wanted to put up displays on the city hall lawn. Would you be comfortable with that? Even if you were, it shouldn't matter because "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Once again I don't think a nativity scene is establishing religion.We the people means we own the government.
I wish it did mean we own the government. Maybe in theory we do, but either way, "we" doesn't mean Christians only, does it?What about the question I asked about the other religions? What if someone wanted to erect a statue of Muhammad or even Satan at city hall during Christmas or any other time of the year? Would that be ok with you? If not, why not?
If someone wanted to erect a satan statue in the town square they'd have to have the local government consent. If the majority of people in the town were satanist I suppose it'd be approved and everyone should be happy. So what's the problem with that?
Government is suppose to exist at for the people and by the people. We built it we can tear it down. I think it needs cleaned out. Too many professional politicians.
Here's an interesting scenario, Matt: Schools (at least in my experience around here) don't allow kids to wear t-shirts with, say, Marilyn Manson on them. I believe I read about a kid kicked out for wearing such a shirt (possibly not in this county, tho).Are they allowed to wear shirts with Jesus or Christian symbols on them?I have been a Christian all my life and have no problem with Nativities being banned from government buildings because I believe that's what our laws dictate.Personally, I don't see why we need to flaunt our religion all over the place. As far as my relationship with God, I like that to be between Him and me.I don't need no steenking public display to show God I believe in and love Him.But, if we are going to allow Nativities at city hall then we better allow a Black Mass altar, too.That's called freedom.
Matt,Are you looking to erect a satan statue on the diamond?
Actually, if everyone would follow the 10 commandments, Christian or not, this world would be a much nicer place in which to live.What's wrong with respecting your parents, not stealing or killing, not being envious of your neighbors, not committing adultery or lying or cursing the name of God? Only three of the commandments have anything to do with God; not having idols, having no other God above one and not taking the name of God in vain. The other seven -- even if you don't want to believe in God -- are some pretty good life rules to live by.
Post--No. Unlike most people, I see no reason to erect statues of fictional characters on public property.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT:About nativity scenes:A question was once asked:Why do Christians need PUBLIC property for their religious displays?What, exactly, is it about displaying Christian symbols on PUBLIC property that is so important to those who consider themselves to be Christians.The answer given was: POWER!!!!!! [EMPHASIS ADDED]] . . . Wherever one stands with respect to belief in God, it can hardly give comfort or satisfaction to have the Deity subjected to empty, nonreligious uses "of a patriotic or ceremonial character." The bland amalgamation of God and the state, while it may meet the test of the Establishment Clause, leads at best to a kind of cant that all of us may find embarrassing. In the same class, though perhaps more debatably, I'd put the improvement on the Pledge of Allegiance fashioned by Congress in 1954. That was a year, it will be recalled, when Senator Joseph McCarthy was still exploring how low we might be sunk in his ersatz but grimly destructive crusade against "subversives." It was also a year McCarthy's colleagues found it meet to insert the words "under God" after the reference to this "one nation" in the pledge. The House Report on the bill that became this law said that "it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual."17 Some very brief remarks on the floor reaffirmed that inserting the words "under God" would "strengthen the national resistance to communism."18 The only cerebration manifested on the subject of the bill> had to do with the number and placement of commas in the revised pledge -i.e., whether it should be simply "one nation under God" or "one Nation, under God," as the legislative judgment finally determined. The short debate on this subject was suitably placid. There was no debate at all on the merits of the revision and no vote against it. Who, after all, would be caught in the open excluding God? The uses of God as a "ceremonial and patriotic" implement go forward steadily in more obtrusive and questionable forms. The insistent demand to have creches and menorahs in public sites continues to present tough questions leading to the varieties of intricate and disputed answers mentioned in Chapter i. The legal issues are tricky enough to promise a continued supply of test cases. To oversimplify a lot, the hardest cases -where private groups want to put their creches or menorahs in the public park or on City Hall plaza-pit the First Amendment free-speech rights of those groups against the claim of the objectors that this placement of the symbols indicates government endorsement of the religion symbolized. Without questioning the difficulty of these cases, it is fair to conjure> with the question why they keep happening. The answer lies, I think, in the very nature of hostile and competitive patriotism out of which one might wish that God could have been kept. The creche on the public square--to "put Christ back into Christmas," as its sponsors say--plants the religious flag of the angry nativists winning theirs back from the alien, infidel intruders. (Who do they think they are?) The menorah sponsors are a kindred but more pathetic story. (If the goyim can do it, so can we.) Both are joined together as enemies of the mutual forbearance that is at the heart of religious freedom in a pluralist society. The gist of the demand is that THE MUSCLE OF YOUR RELIGION be displayed in the public space. THE SUBJECT as is usual with facile shows of patriotism, IS POWER. It is put, to be sure, as a matter of free expression by the creche and menorah advocates, but that is largely fraud or self-delusion.. There are ample private spaces in every community, amply visible, for displaying religious icons. The insistence on the public space, the space that belongs to all of us, is to show those others, the nonadherents. The distinction is readily, if not always malevolently, blurred. . . Whatever misunderstandings may beset a recent refugee from Soviet atheism, there is no ground for similar confusion, and probably no similar confusion, among most people who want their religious symbols standing on public property. The symbols make a statement-not of religious faith. They are not needed for that. They assert simply and starkly, as I've said, POWER OVER the nonbelievers. This was underscored fot me in a fleeting moment of a case that ended 4-4 in the Supreme Court, the equal division (Justice Powell was ill and absent) resulting in a defeat for the village of Scarsdale (with me as unsuccessful counsel) when it sought to deny a place for a creche in a public circle.20 In the course of that proceeding, one of the sponsors of the creche was asked about his interest in viewing> it while it stood on Scarsdale's Boniface Circle during the Christmas season. To my surprise as the questioner, it turned out that he never bothered to go look at the creche at all, let alone to admire or draw inspiration from it. But on reflection that should not have been so surprising. The creche was not there for him to see or appreciate for its intrinsic spiritual value in his religious universe. It was there for others, who professed other religions or none, so that the clout of his religious group should be made manifest-above all to any in the sharply divided village who would have preferred that it not be there: This is the low road., followed by at least a good number of those who seek for. their religion and its symbols the imprimatur of government. If it is religious at all, this stance betokens a weak and self-doubting species of faith. SOURCE: Excerpts from FAITH AND FREEDOM, religious libeerty in America, Marvin E. Frankel (retired U S Federal District Court judge) Hill and Wang, N Y (1994) pp. 55-64
Why not? said... Actually, if everyone would follow the 10 commandments, Christian or not, this world would be a much nicer place in which to live.Have you ever read the "Ten Commandments" Not the 10 "soundbites" that people pass off as the 10 Commandments but the so called actual Ten Commandments? There are several problems with them.The first would which, which version shall be used. There is a Jewish version, a Protestant version and a Catholic Version and they differ.The next problem is, they would be unconstitutional. Another problem is they condone slavery Another problem would be that is followed they would destroy the economy. Consumerism rests on keeping up with the neighbors. Wanting what they have, etc. The Ten Commandments: Exodus 20:1-17from the Complete Jewish Bible, Translation by David H. Stern 1. Then God said all these words: 2. "I am ADONAI your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the abode of slavery. 3. "You are to have no other gods before me. 4. "You are not to make for yourselves a carved image or any kind of representation of anything in heaven above, on the earth beneath or in the water below the shoreline. 5. "You are not to bow down to them or serve them; for I, ADONAI your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sins of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6. "but displaying grace to the thousandth generation of those who love me and obey my mitzvot. 7. "You are not to use lightly the name of ADONAI your God, because ADONAI will not leave unpunished someone who uses his name lightly. 8. "Remember the day Shabbat, to set it apart for God. 9. "You have six days to labor and do all your work, 10. "but the seventh day is a Shabbat for ADONAI your God. On it, you are not to do any kind of work-not you, your son or your daughter, not your male or female slave, not your livestock, and not the foreigner staying with you inside the gates to your property. 11. "For in six days, ADONAI made heaven and earth, the sea and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. This is why ADONAI blessed the day, Shabbat, and separated it for himself. 12. "Honor your father and mother, so that you may live long in the land which ADONAI your God is giving you. 13. "Do not murder. 14. "Do not commit adultery. 15. "Do not steal. 16. "Do not give false evidence against your neighbor. 17. "Do not covet your neighbor's house; do not covet your neighbor's wife, his male or female slave, his ox, his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor".All this noise about posting the 10 Commandments in schools, court rooms, on public property but nary a peep about posting say the 10 Amendments.Why is that?
Amazing Grace said... BuckeyeELO,[quote] You speak of the Constitution as it is being interpreted by a corrupt judicial system. Your unsubstantiated claim is noted with regards to corrupt judicial system. [quote]Up till recently no one objected to there being the ten commandments on the walls of courthouses. [end quote]How many years passed before people began to object to slavery?How many years passed before people began to object to women being denied opportunity for meaningful employment, the vote, etc?How many years passed before people began to object to Jim Crow laws and blacks being denied equal rights?Did you know that courts in the 1800s were ruling that mandatory prayer and Bible reading in public schools was unconstitutional? I add that to show church state separation is a ongoing process and a process in it's various aspects that isn't something recent. recognizing and correcting errors can be a slow process [quote]In fact, the ten commandments are etched on the walls of congress.[end quote]Are you sure about that? Can you explain where they are "etched" on the walls of congress, along with when that came about, if in fact they are there. Did the founders, you know, those men who framed the Constitution, ratified it, framed the BORs, ratified them have anything to do with it? [quote Someone here said our laws weren't patterned after Judao-Christian principles.[end quote]Ahhh, that be me. No such principles exist. The two religions are quite different, even at odds in some areas. The Protestant interpretation of the Old Testament is quite different than the Jewish views and interpretations of it. The ancient Jewish (Hebrew) religion was a theocracy. The Constitution is a secular document creating a secular government. Can you quote where in the Constitution those alleged principles can be found? [quote] If that's the case why is God's name so many places in the Constitution and on the walls of our government buildings?[end quote]God's name isn't in the Constitution. Walls of government buildings are irrelevant legally speaking. [quote] You athiests are amusing.[end quote]I wonder who you are talking about now?
BuckeyeELO,You are a vile and hateful person. I'm sure there is a special place in hell for people like you.
Church Goer said... BuckeyeELO, You are a vile and hateful person. I'm sure there is a special place in hell for people like you.[end quote]Why thank you. LOLWould you mind explaining what brought you make the above comment.I assume based on that comment you are hoping that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and the others from their time to the present who worked to create and maintain religious freedom for all via church state separation are also vile and hateful and you are hoping they are in "hell" too.
“When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” Sinclair Lewis
I believe that everyone should have the right to worship as they please!!!That being said however, I also believe that the majority should rulein this case. Most Americans are Christian and if a person or village wishes to put a nativity sceneon the lawn of its buildings I see nothing wrong in that. I don't think our forefathers ment that the seperation was to be total seperation from church and state only not to have one church rule over all. The minority is taking away are rights as Christians to worship as we see fit and to express ourselves look up the new bill that is in fron of Congress on the Equality air time which if passed would take away Christians rights to express their views on social issues without having a counter view.Our freedoms are being taken away and we must all fight it for more information on this bill watch the inspiration network.
Majority Rule,That's the way it's been for hundreds of years. Then all of a sudden the non-believers, who I'll call for the lack of a better term, The Damned, came along and judicially changed things.
Quote of the Day,You mean Jerimiah Wright don't you?
No, Sinclair Lewis.
There are alot of people who go to church. There is no way they are all christians. How do you know the majority of Americans are christians? I don't remember that question from the last census.
Church Goer--Fortunately, the Constitution protects us from those who seek to abolish religious freedom in America. The very argument you theocrats are making here underscores the genius of the founders, who understood all too well the threat religion poses to a free people.
Majority rule said... I believe that everyone should have the right to worship as they please!!![end quote]They already have that right provided it doesn't break the law.You have a right to worship as you want, however you don't have the right to sacrifice virgins even though that might be called for in your religion. You have a right to worship as you want, however you don't have a right to marry five women even though that might have been a tenet of your religion. [quote]That being said however, I also believe that the majority should rulein this case.[end quote]Majority rule exists in democracy, however, the founders of this nation didn't found a democracy. They feared and mistrusted democracies. Ever hear of the Bill Of Rights? One of the main functions of the BORS is to protect the rights of the minority against the majority.Generally speaking it isn't the majority that needs protected. The mere fact they are the majority offers protection in and of itself. It is the unpopular, the little guy who needs the protection. A good many, perhaps the majority of cases brought to American courts in the area of religion, were brought by the by the little guy. They were brought by a member of members of some majority religion.[quote] Most Americans are Christian and if a person or village wishes to put a nativity sceneon the lawn of its buildings I see nothing wrong in that. [end quote]That is irrelevant as harsh as that may sound. You're not a member of the US Supreme Court and the only opinion that really matters in these cases are their. Justices of the US Supreme Court or judges of lower courts if that ruling isn't appealed all the way to the U S Supreme Court. Their job is to interrupt the law based on the U S Constitution, previous precedents in case law. Your thinking, beliefs and opinions like my thinking, beliefs and opinions are irrelevant. [quote]I don't think our forefathers ment that the seperation was to be total seperation from church and state only not to have one church rule over all. [end quote]Explain this: ---------------------------------------------------JUNE 3, 1811"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have other wise discharged my duty on theoccasion which presented itself"(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811. Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth President Of The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order Of Congress, Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865) pp 511-512)-----------------------------------------------------------MARCH 2, 1819"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State."(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excert of a letter to Robert Walsh from James Madison. MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott & Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty, Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83) ----------------------------------------------------------1817-1833"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished in their short history" (SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda. This document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.--------------------------------------------------------------------JULY 10, 1822"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Edward Livingston from James Madison, July 10, 1822. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott & Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276. James Madison on Religious Liberty, Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)--------------------------------------------------------------SEPTEMBER 1833"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others". (SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard Hunt, [not sure what the volume number is but have enough information presented here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )*********************************************************************[quote]The minority is taking away are rights as Christians to worship as we see fit and to express ourselves look up the new bill that is in fron of Congress on the Equality air time which if passed would take away Christians rights to express their views on social issues without having a counter view.Our freedoms are being taken away and we must all fight it for more information on this bill watch the inspiration network.[end quote]The problem is there has been a "de facto" establishment of a "generic" Protestant form of Christianity since the early 1800s in this country. Slowly but surely, beginning in the mid to late 1800s courts have began to apply the separation of church state clauses of their own state constitutions and later in the mid 1900s the separation clauses of the US Constitution to this problem.The result has been that the minority religious sects, denominations, as well as the non religion have been officially granted the very status that the state and national constitution had promised from their inceptions.Certain Protestant denominations, groups, etc have felt threatened seeing their domination in this area being whittled away. The only "rights" you are losing is the "right" to prevent others from the same rights you are jealousy trying to keep exclusively for yourself
Church Goer said... Majority Rule, That's the way it's been for hundreds of years. Then all of a sudden the non-believers, who I'll call for the lack of a better term, The Damned, came along and judicially changed things.[end quote]You don't know your history very well. Because you don't know your history you have been suckered in by the propaganda of the Radical Religious Right.Beginning in the mid 1800s some state courts, Ohio included, began handing down rulings based on their own state constitutions that began ending mandatory Bible daily Bible reading and prayer in public schools, in short they began applying the church separation wording of their own state constitutions.By the mid 1900s only a handful of states still required such practices in public schools, most other states had voided or removed such laws from the books.In the 1940s the US Supreme court applied both the Free Exercise and non establishment clauses of the BORS to the states. Elements of the BORS had been being applied to the states since the very late 1890s. The USSC only did what most of the states had already been doing. They finished the job that had begun with the states almost 100 years earlier.I can provide you with cites to these various cases, and facts. I doubt that you really want them though.Can you name a single judge or justice that belongs to the "damned" as you call them? Can you name a single judge or Justice was was or is a non believer?No you can't because there were/are none. Every single one of those judges. Justices professed to be religious, Protestant Christians, or Catholic or a handful of Jewish.Not a single non believer among them. See what not knowing your history gets you?
Majority rule said... I believe that everyone should have the right to worship as they please!!!That being said however, I also believe that the majority should rulein this case. [end quote]Dangers and Comments"We the People;" Factions, Including Religious Sects, & Denominations; Local & State Governments; Majority v. Minority; Common Law and Other Things of ImportanceSelections from James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Congressional Debates and other sources.http://members.tripod.com/~candst/dangers.htm
I regret exceedingly that the disputes between the protestants and Roman Catholics should be carried to the serious alarming height mentioned in your letters. Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause; and I was not without hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy of the present age would have put an effectual stop to contentions of this kind.SOURCE: Excerpt of letter from George Washington to Sir Edward Newenham Philadelphia, June 22, 1792.
BuckeyeELO,Don't talk down to me you self righteous atheist. I know my history all too well. You, on the other hand, don't know how the country works.
Church Goer said... BuckeyeELO, Don't talk down to me you self righteous atheist. [end quote]LOL. I'm not an atheist and no matter how many times you claim I am, it's not going to make it so.But it does say a lot about you and where you are coming from.[quote]I know my history all too well. [quote] I only have your posts to go by and from what you have posted I say you don't know it all that well in this area at the very least.[quote]You, on the other hand, don't know how the country works.[end quote]In the area of what I post on, the historical and legal side of the topic of religious freedom, church state separation, etc I am well versed. It's history legally and historically speaking and it's present. I know how it works I noticed you didn't comment on this:Can you name a single judge or justice that belongs to the "damned" as you call them? Can you name a single judge or Justice who was or is a non believer?No you can't because there were/are none. Every single one of those judges, justices professed to be religious, Protestant Christians, or Catholic or a handful of Jewish.Not a single non believer among them.You have made claims that when challenged you can't support with any real evidence, so you switch to the insult and name calling mode.
Buck,You wouldn't know a believer from a dog turd.By the way, I'm not really a church goer.
Post a Comment