NationStates Jolt Archive

I say we write up a petition and send it to President Kerry.

In order to uphold our religious rights, particularly that which states the government will not restrict or condone a particular religion, we must pass the following proposal:

The government must not add religious symbols (ie: crosses) to government buildings;

The government must remove any and all religious symbols currently existing on government property;

The government must cease its outward support for Christianity by removal of religious references in government ceremonies, such as swearing in the President on a Bible and swearing to tell the truth on a Bible;

The government must no longer hold prayer in congress, or any other government meeting;

The government must subsidize no religious charity, church, synagogue, mosque or temple;

There shall be no reference to religion in government anthems or pledges.

This is the only way to make things level. If we get enough people to join this, it will be passed and we will finally have a say. I think it's absurd how there has never been a president who wasn't a white male christian. :roll:

Seems like a dumb petition to me, but it doesn't seem like satire, which makes me sad.

There is no President Kerry

Seems like a troll to me, however...who is President Kerry????

Another point is:

The government must remove any and all religious symbols currently existing on government property;

So you would like to replace the religious markers in Arlington National Cemetary (and others) with what??

Division of church and state refers to not having a state mandated religion (i.e. everyone to be Buddist etc.) not that religion be removed from government.

So what if the presidents have all been white male christians? It's not illegal to run if you aren't. Removing religious symbols is mostlya waste of money. Why bother to pay to take em out when it's cheaper to just leave em there.

actually the constitution nor any of our founding documents say a damn thing about seperation of church and state. Its just something that politicians like the draft recently thought up along with social security also not in our founding documents. I see nothing wrong with the ten commandments teaching what they do on public property if we ban christian things we should ban all things such as goddesses of mythology and the like as well!

Cartese
Carturn
Both devoted athiests

hmmmm :?

Yes, but don't you mean "government" buildings?

Public buildings are like....offices, stores, etc. right? or am I mistaken?

I say we write up a petition and send it to President Kerry.

In order to uphold our religious rights, particularly that which states the government will not restrict or condone a particular religion, we must pass the following proposal:

The government must not add religious symbols (ie: crosses) to government buildings;

The government must remove any and all religious symbols currently existing on government property;

The government must cease its outward support for Christianity by removal of religious references in government ceremonies, such as swearing in the President on a Bible and swearing to tell the truth on a Bible;

The government must no longer hold prayer in congress, or any other government meeting;

The government must subsidize no religious charity, church, synagogue, mosque or temple;

There shall be no reference to religion in government anthems or pledges.

This is the only way to make things level. If we get enough people to join this, it will be passed and we will finally have a say. I think it's absurd how there has never been a president who wasn't a white male christian. :roll:The president doesn't have to be sworn in on a Bible, he could be sworn in on a Qo'ran or a copy of Sports Illustrated if he likes.

The government must not add religious symbols (ie: crosses) to government buildings;

The government must remove any and all religious symbols currently existing on government property;http://www.sirbooga.com/alwt/EUROPE/France_RTPics/American_Crosses.JPG
WHOOPS!
NOW what do we do? :roll:
Give it up, already.

Good point. We need an exemption for graves and memorials. I wonder what the graves of the athiest soldiers look like though...

This proposal will most likely not even make it to the queue. [sp?] The only people who are going to vote yes are going to be Atheists. If we did this we would remove almost everything from school regarding history, almost every war was somehow related to a religion, also to make it fair we would ahve to stop stuffing garbage down childrens' heads about evolution and the "Big Bang" since evolution really is a religion since it can't be proved and people believe in it more than know it's true. Almost every school stuffs it down student's throats saying it's truth and increasing separation of Church and State, though really a lot of schools I know [especially mine since it's in a small town] don't care about the Separation of Church and State, since almost everyone there is Christiam themselves, were not going to get in trouble for talking about God or Jesus. Yet they are still required to shove evolutiion down our throats, when barely anyone believes it anyways, I don't see why they even try to stuff it down our throats always talking about it. Heck our teachers and principal have Bibles in the classroom! Though were in Alaska and were a small school so no one really cares.

This proposal will most likely not even make it to the queue. [sp?] The only people who are going to vote yes are going to be Atheists. If we did this we would remove almost everything from school regarding history, almost every war was somehow related to a religion, also to make it fair we would ahve to stop stuffing garbage down childrens' heads about evolution and the "Big Bang" since evolution really is a religion since it can't be proved and people believe in it more than know it's true. Almost every school stuffs it down student's throats saying it's truth and increasing separation of Church and State, though really a lot of schools I know [especially mine since it's in a small town] don't care about the Separation of Church and State, since almost everyone there is Christiam themselves, were not going to get in trouble for talking about God or Jesus. Yet they are still required to shove evolutiion down our throats, when barely anyone believes it anyways, I don't see why they even try to stuff it down our throats always talking about it. Heck our teachers and principal have Bibles in the classroom! Though were in Alaska and were a small school so no one really cares.

Religous Wars - a war's a war. The kids gotta learn. Teaching about a war fought on religon is not the same as saying "Now kids, let us pray to God!"

Evolution/Big Bang: They're smart and careful thankfully. They teach them as "theories," rather than actual events.

It's Alaska's government duty to care.

Even if the thing passes, i dont see how it would improve anyone's life. Except that a few people would stop being offended. (although i think that another group would get offended and we would have to make special changes so they wouldnt be offended anymore) It would be so impractical to have to reprint all the money etc..

I say we write up a petition and send it to President Kerry.

[i]In order to uphold our religious rights, particularly that which states the government will not restrict or condone a particular religion, we must pass the following proposal:

The government must not add religious symbols (ie: crosses) to government buildings;
No, only Congress is prohibited from establishing a religion. A county is not prohibited from having a cross on its county seal and anyone who argues for it to be taken down is wasting everybody's time.

[never been a president who wasn't a white male christian. :roll:The president doesn't have to be sworn in on a Bible, he could be sworn in on a Qo'ran or a copy of Sports Illustrated if he likes.[/quote]
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Or the works of Machievelli.

If I were president, I'd want to be sworn in on a porno mag.

The government must not add religious symbols (ie: crosses) to government buildings;

The government must remove any and all religious symbols currently existing on government property;http://www.sirbooga.com/alwt/EUROPE/France_RTPics/American_Crosses.JPG
WHOOPS!
NOW what do we do? :roll:
Give it up, already.

LMFAO :lol: :D

Seperation of Church and State! :wink:

what bothers me is that in removing all religious symbols, the government then becomes atheist, which could be considered a faith in itself. Now is it fair for you to force your atheist beliefs on me, a Catholic? or upon a Jew? or an agnostic? or a muslim? or even a satan worshiper? I dont think so. Just leave well enough alone, I see no discrimination from the US Government upon any religion (though they are targeting muslims with investigations more...then again not many christians are crashing themselves into buildings...)

In my religion, bricks, stone, wood, doors, and windows are religious symbols. I guess these will have to be removed from government buildings.

In my religion, bricks, stone, wood, doors, and windows are religious symbols. I guess these will have to be removed from government buildings.

what if in your religion, you worship the human person. Like you see people as the epicenter and pinicale of the universe. Do we remove people from buildings as well? Make the president live outside of the white house?

In my religion, bricks, stone, wood, doors, and windows are religious symbols. I guess these will have to be removed from government buildings.

what if in your religion, you worship the human person. Like you see people as the epicenter and pinicale of the universe. Do we remove people from buildings as well? Make the president live outside of the white house?

yeah

what bothers me is that in removing all religious symbols, the government then becomes atheist, which could be considered a faith in itself. Now is it fair for you to force your atheist beliefs on me, a Catholic? or upon a Jew? or an agnostic? or a muslim? or even a satan worshiper? I dont think so. Just leave well enough alone, I see no discrimination from the US Government upon any religion (though they are targeting muslims with investigations more...then again not many christians are crashing themselves into buildings...)

I'm not a atheist. I belong to no organized religious faiths. What seperates me from Atheists are that i believe spiritual entities (ghosts) exist, they don't. I don't worship nor have attempted to communicate as of yet. I just believe that they exists from past experiences. I have my own theories.

And if i worship the us government as my religion, doesn't that mean all government signs have to be removed from government buildings.

I say we write up a petition and send it to President Kerry.

[i]In order to uphold our religious rights, particularly that which states the government will not restrict or condone a particular religion, we must pass the following proposal:



Why do you want to add confusion? Are you a lawyer and looking for ways to make more money?

Since you stated President, I presume government means the Federal Government. The Constitution of the United States already states that " CONGRESS [caps mine] shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...".

Since you didn't know that - you wouldn't know that only Congress can come up with laws and it would take a Constitutional amendment to legally do what you want. Fat chance of that.

President Kerry *as a cold chill runs up my back*. Eight years of Clinton was enough for me. Please God, don't let there be that many idiots in the US of A, again.

Uh... what's happening with the poll? Nobody here seems to be in favor of this proposal, but according to the poll, people love it. Why don't these people speak up about why they want to revoke freedom of religion to protect freedom of no religion? Carturn said PUBLIC buildings, not government buildings. Doesn't this mean that churches would be unable to make reference to religion?

I think this may be an attempt to drive religion underground, if not to outlaw it fully.

Cartese
Carturn
Both devoted athiests

hmmmm :?Who is Cartese, and when did he rip me off?

Yes, but don't you mean "government" buildings?

Public buildings are like....offices, stores, etc. right? or am I mistaken?

You are indeed mistaken. The ignorant masses refer to these places as "public", but they are wrong. Public buildings are any place that is funded with PUBLIC funds, ie gov't buildings.

An office or store is as "private" as your house, as they are all privately owned.

One: There is no President Kerry.
Two: There isn't going to be a President Kerry.
Three: Since the majority of the US population are Christians, how many people do you honestly believe will accept your proposal?
Four: How does forcing Athiesm on the public make things "equal?"

I am a Christian but I believe very strongly in the need for separation of church and state. However, I don't necessarily think we need to go as far as getting rid of everything religious in government. For instance, if a legislative body takes a vote on it and wants to start the session with a prayer (especially if such prayer is generic), I don't have a problem with that unless they are forcing people to their knees or something.

On the other hand, the courts are supposed to be blind to such things. So unless the court is going to have a monument to every religion represented in the US, as well as some sort of monument to atheism, they shouldn't have one that represents Christianity. The difference being that if a bunch of people vote that they want a prayer, this represents the people who are there. If the courts condone a particular religion, this suggests (whether it is there or not) a bias in justice and in government *itself*.

Likewise, I don't have a problem with swearing someone in on the Bible, but I don't think it should be the default. The default should be to swear on something secular, like maybe a copy of the US Constitution. But other things should be available accordingly so that someone who wants to swear on the Bible, or the Koran, or the Necronomicon because that document represents their particular beliefs, they should be able to.

it's only May, buddy. Kerry hasn't won yet.


What's wrong with having religious symbols in public buildings? It's foolish to ignore the fact that no matter what you do with icons, people will still believe what they choose to believe. Government actions won't change without religious symbols in government buildings, so why bother making a fuss about them?

if you have a problem with them, it's not like you can't ignore them, and it's also not like decorations in a government building should cause enough unrest to remove them.

what bothers me is that in removing all religious symbols, the government then becomes atheist, which could be considered a faith in itself. Now is it fair for you to force your atheist beliefs on me, a Catholic? or upon a Jew? or an agnostic? or a muslim? or even a satan worshiper? I dont think so. Just leave well enough alone, I see no discrimination from the US Government upon any religion (though they are targeting muslims with investigations more...then again not many christians are crashing themselves into buildings...)The government doesn't become atheist--atheism is as much a faith based belief as christianity is. What the government does is simply remove itself from the equation--it takes no stand on the matter of religion because it has no business doing so.

And for those of you who want government to get involved in religion, here's a cautionary tale. Just recently in Texas, the state comptroller's office tried to revoke the tax exemption enjoyed by the Unitarian Church because they said the church "does not have one system of belief." They just reversed themselves after a loud public outcry--the story is here (http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/auto/epaper/editions/tuesday/metro_state_042bfebf469b90b600ef.html) but it involves registration if you want to read it.

My larger point is this--what the hell is a government doing saying a church isn't a church based on their doctrine? Do you really want government to be able to say that your church isn't really a church because the loonies in power don't think it's strict enough, or because they think it's too strict, or because you happen to worship Jesus instead of Bippy the Magic Clam?

What people who disagree with the church/state separation inherent in the First Amendment fail to realize is that it's not there to protect government--it's there to protect the churches from state interference.

actually the constitution nor any of our founding documents say a damn thing about seperation of church and state. Its just something that politicians like the draft recently thought up along with social security also not in our founding documents. I see nothing wrong with the ten commandments teaching what they do on public property if we ban christian things we should ban all things such as goddesses of mythology and the like as well!

Soooooo, you've never actuallyv read the Constitution or the Federalist Papers then?

The Constitution of the United States, part of the First Admendment states that " CONGRESS [caps mine] shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...".

What an utter disrespect to culture! :x

What's wrong with having religious symbols in public buildings? It's foolish to ignore the fact that no matter what you do with icons, people will still believe what they choose to believe. Government actions won't change without religious symbols in government buildings, so why bother making a fuss about them?

Well, especially in a courhouse, they give the impression of government valuing one religion over the others. That impartiality, whether there or not, will cause distrust of the system that just doesn't need to be there. The problem isn't that the government will change people's beliefs, it is that the government will be giving the impression of impropriety.

What's wrong with having religious symbols in public buildings? It's foolish to ignore the fact that no matter what you do with icons, people will still believe what they choose to believe. Government actions won't change without religious symbols in government buildings, so why bother making a fuss about them?

Well, especially in a courhouse, they give the impression of government valuing one religion over the others. That impartiality, whether there or not, will cause distrust of the system that just doesn't need to be there. The problem isn't that the government will change people's beliefs, it is that the government will be giving the impression of impropriety.

About time too. Religion and government should not mix.

This proposal will most likely not even make it to the queue. [sp?] The only people who are going to vote yes are going to be Atheists. If we did this we would remove almost everything from school regarding history, almost every war was somehow related to a religion, also to make it fair we would ahve to stop stuffing garbage down childrens' heads about evolution and the "Big Bang" since evolution really is a religion since it can't be proved and people believe in it more than know it's true. Almost every school stuffs it down student's throats saying it's truth and increasing separation of Church and State, though really a lot of schools I know [especially mine since it's in a small town] don't care about the Separation of Church and State, since almost everyone there is Christiam themselves, were not going to get in trouble for talking about God or Jesus. Yet they are still required to shove evolutiion down our throats, when barely anyone believes it anyways, I don't see why they even try to stuff it down our throats always talking about it. Heck our teachers and principal have Bibles in the classroom! Though were in Alaska and were a small school so no one really cares.

Have you ever even tried to understand evolution or do you just shut your ears when someone tries to enlighten you and say "lalalala don't care its not in the bible"? Look, evolution is a theory but theory does not mean that its just an idea. I know this is off the subject but I cannot stand idly by while ignorant people like yourself denounce evolution. So, here is a quick idea to what a theory is and why you need to get your facts straight before you start posting things.

:idea: A fact is something that is incontrivertible, it is an observation of the universe, for instance the sun rises and sets everyday, or grass is green.

:idea: A theory (as used in science) is a testable method for explaining facts. It is based off of mountains of evidence. It does not mean it is in dispute or that most scientists do not believe it.

:idea: Evolution is a theory. It is backed up by huge amounts of data and if you would take your head out of your ass for a while you would realize that it is actually kind of intuitive. It is a way to explain the fact that species arise from other species. ( This is something we can observe on the molecular level using methods that you might have heard about but refused to learn about due to your ignorance)

:idea: How you can get off saying that evolution is a religion? Religion is faith it is not science and don't even start with anything about "scientific creationism" because that is not science. Evolution can be tested and it has. Religion is based on faith, which is perfectly fine.

:idea: Your school district should teach evolution and it should not teach religion on the same level because science and religion have nothing to do with one another.

:idea: One last idea, go read a book for (insert deity's) sake. Stephen Jay Gould wrote many books that can explain this far more eloquently than I can. Yes sir, there is more than one GOOD BOOK!


On the subject at hand I have said it before but religion has a place but that place is not the government. All religious symbols need not be removed but one religion should not be put above another. At times it seems like many in this country would have christianity be the state religion.

The government must not add religious symbols (ie: crosses) to government buildings;

The government must remove any and all religious symbols currently existing on government property;http://www.sirbooga.com/alwt/EUROPE/France_RTPics/American_Crosses.JPG
WHOOPS!
NOW what do we do? :roll:
Give it up, already.

LMFAO :lol: :D

WHOOPS!
That's the Flander's Field WWI Memorial Cemetery. IN BELGIUM!!! Dumbass...

The government must not add religious symbols (ie: crosses) to government buildings;

The government must remove any and all religious symbols currently existing on government property;http://www.sirbooga.com/alwt/EUROPE/France_RTPics/American_Crosses.JPG
WHOOPS!
NOW what do we do? :roll:
Give it up, already.

LMFAO :lol: :D

WHOOPS!
That's the Flander's Field WWI Memorial Cemetery. IN BELGIUM!!! Dumbass...

so, we use the same crosses

my favorite part of church vs. states was when the text book compaines were forced to change BC (before Christ) to BCE (before the common era) and everyone in my class read it as before Christ's era

The government must not add religious symbols (ie: crosses) to government buildings;

The government must remove any and all religious symbols currently existing on government property;http://www.sirbooga.com/alwt/EUROPE/France_RTPics/American_Crosses.JPG
WHOOPS!
NOW what do we do? :roll:
Give it up, already.

LMFAO :lol: :D

WHOOPS!
That's the Flander's Field WWI Memorial Cemetery. IN BELGIUM!!! Dumbass...

so, we use the same crosses

Where?

Here's my position on this issue in a nutshell.

People have stated before that the government would be adopting atheism, which is "a faith in and of itself." That's strange, since Atheism is the lack thereof. There is a difference between atheism and secularism. Atheism is a blatant denial of divine being. Secularism deals with issues on a human level. An atheist government would ban all religion completely. The very First Ammendment of our constitution is a firm establishment of secularism. It's sad to see how well we've upheld this value of equality and freedom.

so, we use the same crosses

Where?

arlington

and I belive all our other national cemitaries

Cartese
Carturn
Both devoted athiests

hmmmm :?Who is Cartese, and when did he rip me off?

He's a guy that got banned from a while ago. He'd flame people who disagreed with them and was basically a radical on everything he believed in.

im an atheist and in case you religous people dont notice... YOUR THE ONES SHOVING YOUR CRAP DOWN OUR THROATS!!! yes ladies and gentelmen, the relegous people are the ones, protesting gay marrige, put church and state together, and try to teach your crap in school! how sadistic is that! i have been kicked and punched by religous people just because i was a "heathen"! theres somthing to chew on!

im an atheist and in case you religous people dont notice... YOUR THE ONES SHOVING YOUR CRAP DOWN OUR THROATS!!! yes ladies and gentelmen, the relegous people are the ones, protesting gay marrige, put church and state together, and try to teach your crap in school! how sadistic is that! i have been kicked and punched by religous people just because i was a "heathen"! theres somthing to chew on!

In the immortal words of the Bette Midler song........

God is watching us....from a distance :!:

I voted no because it had the word thee in it.

Seriously, I thinkthe government can do whatever the hell it wants regarding religious symbols, it's not gonna offend me to see crosses, stars of david, stars and crescents or whatever that bhuddism thing is supposed to be (a wheel or somehting).

bravo Joehanesburg.

I will first state that I am not a die hard atheist. Being that at any given time if someone is able to provide a good reasoning that a higher being exist I will accept. Just that of now no one has been able to do that.

To the ignorant masses who insist on upholding that evolution is 'crap' and nonsense, it all boils down on them having a limited mentality of not being able to see past whatever their sunday schools and parents tell them. They would rather believe in *snap fingers* and voila, the world is created than believe that everything happened naturally.

Government meddle in religion? *shudders* bush is fool, period. His foreign policies have all hit rockbottom and he has on many instances tried to bolloxed the american people. Yet his die hard fans continue to support him. Yet the crux to this issue now he is trying implement religion into his governing with his repeated and repeated reference to God, we are the good side etc etc. As an atheist, it sounds like the leader is getting instructions from some make believe guy.

High time we separate the two, lets start with 'In god we trust' on the money =p like we did to the funny 10 commandment monument.

bravo Joehanesburg.

I will first state that I am not a die hard atheist. Being that at any given time if someone is able to provide a good reasoning that a higher being exist I will accept. Just that of now no one has been able to do that.

To the ignorant masses who insist on upholding that evolution is 'crap' and nonsense, it all boils down on them having a limited mentality of not being able to see past whatever their sunday schools and parents tell them. They would rather believe in *snap fingers* and voila, the world is created than believe that everything happened naturally.

Government meddle in religion? *shudders* bush is fool, period. His foreign policies have all hit rockbottom and he has on many instances tried to bolloxed the american people. Yet his die hard fans continue to support him. Yet the crux to this issue now he is trying implement religion into his governing with his repeated and repeated reference to God, we are the good side etc etc. As an atheist, it sounds like the leader is getting instructions from some make believe guy.

High time we separate the two, lets start with 'In god we trust' on the money =p like we did to the funny 10 commandment monument.


++++++++++++++

What you want would require a Constitutional amendment, that would modify the First Amendment.

So it is ok for you to have free speech, but not the President. Interesting. A few radicals on any side can mess up things for all.

The government must not add religious symbols (ie: crosses) to government buildings;

The government must remove any and all religious symbols currently existing on government property;http://www.sirbooga.com/alwt/EUROPE/France_RTPics/American_Crosses.JPG
WHOOPS!
NOW what do we do? :roll:
Give it up, already.

LMFAO :lol: :D

WHOOPS!
That's the Flander's Field WWI Memorial Cemetery. IN BELGIUM!!! Dumbass...Okay, mistake...
Here's Lorraine American Military Cemetery:
http://www.grostenquin.org/photos/support/pgt-102.jpg
For more pictures, search "american military cemetery" (in quotes) in Google images. Over 100 matches.

That seemed to have silenced the PC extremists.

I'm against banning them. Athiesm is still technically a religion. I'm sorry, but in order to believe in macro evolution and the Big Bang, you must have faith. Why? Because neither has been completely proven yet. That's what faith is; believing in something that doesn't have enough proof to exist. As for things like "In God we trust" and such, the founding fathers of the United States were diest; as such, they believed in a higher power. I'd like to note that the currency does not say "In Jesus we trust" or "In Buddha we trust."

However, the problem with this is, where does it end? There must be a line between "that's allowed" and "that's not allowed." A prime example of this is the contriversy that was over the ten commandments being placed in the court of law. Is that allowed or is it not? And if so, then where do we draw the line; do we allow the obscene "memorial" Phelps wishes to construct? (http://uk.gay.com/headlines/5751)

However, the problem with this is, where does it end? There must be a line between "that's allowed" and "that's not allowed." A prime example of this is the contriversy that was over the ten commandments being placed in the court of law. Is that allowed or is it not? And if so, then where do we draw the line; do we allow the obscene "memorial" Phelps wishes to construct? (http://uk.gay.com/headlines/5751)

There is no problem if people would just understand the Constitution of the United States of America. Congress shall make no laws... State and local governments can do whatever they want. They are closer to the people and should do the will of the people.

Basically the Federal government cannot get into the religious business but at the State and local levels - unless they have a law against it - are not barred from backing a religion.

Four: How does forcing Athiesm on the public make things "equal?"

I've seen nothing here to suggest that anyone wants to force atheism on people. Nobody has suggested that you remove "In God We Trust" from your money and replace it with "God is Like Santa for Adults". They are merely suggesting that it be removed in order to prevent people from being marginalized by their own government.

--P.

Good point. We need an exemption for graves and memorials. I wonder what the graves of the athiest soldiers look like though...

It's got a stylized atom symbol on it. I can't find a picture, but it is one of about two dozen approved gravestones that the US Government will pay for.

--P.

Good point. We need an exemption for graves and memorials. I wonder what the graves of the athiest soldiers look like though...

It's got a stylized atom symbol on it. I can't find a picture, but it is one of about two dozen approved gravestones that the US Government will pay for.

--P.

It should just be a sign that reads "DEAD".

Good point. We need an exemption for graves and memorials. I wonder what the graves of the athiest soldiers look like though...

It's got a stylized atom symbol on it. I can't find a picture, but it is one of about two dozen approved gravestones that the US Government will pay for.

--P.

It should just be a sign that reads "DEAD".

Or "All dressed up and nowhere to go".

--P.

Good point. We need an exemption for graves and memorials. I wonder what the graves of the athiest soldiers look like though...

It's got a stylized atom symbol on it. I can't find a picture, but it is one of about two dozen approved gravestones that the US Government will pay for.

--P.

It should just be a sign that reads "DEAD".

Or "All dressed up and nowhere to go".


+++++

Oh yeah, that's better than mine. Good show!

--P.

I say we write up a petition and send it to President Kerry.

In order to uphold our religious rights, particularly that which states the government will not restrict or condone a particular religion, we must pass the following proposal:

The government must not add religious symbols (ie: crosses) to government buildings;

The government must remove any and all religious symbols currently existing on government property;

The government must cease its outward support for Christianity by removal of religious references in government ceremonies, such as swearing in the President on a Bible and swearing to tell the truth on a Bible;

The government must no longer hold prayer in congress, or any other government meeting;

The government must subsidize no religious charity, church, synagogue, mosque or temple;

There shall be no reference to religion in government anthems or pledges.

This is the only way to make things level. If we get enough people to join this, it will be passed and we will finally have a say. I think it's absurd how there has never been a president who wasn't a white male christian. :roll:
Is he President of the Sad Bitter Man's Club?

Kerry, will be a member of that club... soon... real soon.

So you would like to replace the religious markers in Arlington National Cemetary (and others) with what??

Arlington does not have religious symbols, the crosses are in a similar graveyard in normady. Arlington has white poles

[IMG="http://www.powerpointart.com/powerpoint-backgrounds-samples/2002-05-background-samples/arlington-mtl.jpg"]

EDIT: dammit, this is why I shouldn't multitask, posted in the wrong window. Disregard this.

why? Aren't we all about tolerance?

No, I mean, I put the wrong post in the wrong window. I multitask like CRAZY. At least 5 windows open at all times :p

Anyways, I actually forget how the graves in Arlington look. I've been there, but it was over a year ago. I'd love to go again though, it was beautiful

So you would like to replace the religious markers in Arlington National Cemetary (and others) with what??

Arlington does not have religious symbols, the crosses are in a similar graveyard in normady. Arlington has white poles

[IMG="http://www.powerpointart.com/powerpoint-backgrounds-samples/2002-05-background-samples/arlington-mtl.jpg"]

I take it you have never seen the markers at Arlington Cemetary up close.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/images03.htm

All buildings except churches and such.

I say we write up a petition and send it to President Kerry.

In order to uphold our religious rights, particularly that which states the government will not restrict or condone a particular religion, we must pass the following proposal:

The government must not add religious symbols (ie: crosses) to government buildings;

The government must remove any and all religious symbols currently existing on government property;

The government must cease its outward support for Christianity by removal of religious references in government ceremonies, such as swearing in the President on a Bible and swearing to tell the truth on a Bible;

The government must no longer hold prayer in congress, or any other government meeting;

The government must subsidize no religious charity, church, synagogue, mosque or temple;

There shall be no reference to religion in government anthems or pledges.

This is the only way to make things level. If we get enough people to join this, it will be passed and we will finally have a say. I think it's absurd how there has never been a president who wasn't a white male christian. :roll:
Is he President of the Sad Bitter Man's Club?

Some people do not know the history of the USA. It was Godly people that started this great nation and came up with a Constitution that allows all OPINIONS to be voiced. Though my OPINION is that Carturn is loony.

why? Aren't we all about tolerance?

why? Aren't we all about tolerance?

++++++++++

Tolerance is a tool that a lot of Liberals use to advance their secular agenda.

CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW...

Bleh. Why do people associate an attempt to seperate the government from their religion as trying to suppress said religion? First, no one's suggesting that in his private time, Bush can't pray all he wants. He can dress in goat skins and dance around a bonfire for all we care, during his private time. But when he, like Moore, starts using his public office and the powers granted therein to advance his particular religion, that's when problems start rising. Again, private is AOK, but when you assume public office, you assume the responsibilities inherent in that office, which of course means, you can't endorse a religion.

As to it spelling out Congress being forbidden from establishing a state religion, that just means that Congress has never passed a law stating that Moore can spend state funds to erect a monument to his god in my state judicial building. He spent millions in legal fees and to get the monument erected at the same time he suspended jury trials because the state couldn't afford to pay them.

Also, as to Congress having no authority over state or local government bodies, check out the Supremacy clause. Congress is the legislative assembly, and the supremacy clause stretches the seperation clause down to the states. That means your state legislature can not endorse a state religion. That means your county council can't endorse a religion. That means government should keep their hands out of religion.

Now then, we know that a state legislature can't endorse a religion. Since all money comes from the legislature (ie, the budget), that means Moore violated the seperation clause when he took money that was mandated to him by the legislative branch and spent said money endorsing a religion. Moreover, Moore recieved his authority to decorate the judicial building from the legislative branch. Once more, he can't then turn around and use that to endorse his religion.

What I've never understood is why some christians are so concerned about these idols of their worship, when they are clearly warned in their religious doctrine to beware idolatry.

Oh, and one last note, the part about all christians supporting this? Not true. The Methodists have actually denounced Moore's attempts to wed the government with his religion, saying (rightly so) that if government becomes involved in religion, then religions lose a lot of their rights and freedom.

Bleh. Why do people associate an attempt to seperate the government from their religion as trying to suppress said religion? First, no one's suggesting that in his private time, Bush can't pray all he wants. He can dress in goat skins and dance around a bonfire for all we care, during his private time. But when he, like Moore, starts using his public office and the powers granted therein to advance his particular religion, that's when problems start rising. Again, private is AOK, but when you assume public office, you assume the responsibilities inherent in that office, which of course means, you can't endorse a religion.

I didn't see anything in the Constitution about the President and religion. So, above must be your opinion or you are paroting.


As to it spelling out Congress being forbidden from establishing a state religion, that just means that Congress has never passed a law stating that Moore can spend state funds to erect a monument to his god in my state judicial building. He spent millions in legal fees and to get the monument erected at the same time he suspended jury trials because the state couldn't afford to pay them.

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW..." Which part of 'Article the First', don't you understand. What millions are you writting about - name source.


Also, as to Congress having no authority over state or local government bodies, check out the Supremacy clause. Congress is the legislative assembly, and the supremacy clause stretches the seperation clause down to the states. That means your state legislature can not endorse a state religion. That means your county council can't endorse a religion. That means government should keep their hands out of religion.

Funny, I can't find the "Supremacy clause" in the Constitution. Could you give me the Article number?


Now then, we know that a state legislature can't endorse a religion. Since all money comes from the legislature (ie, the budget), that means Moore violated the seperation clause when he took money that was mandated to him by the legislative branch and spent said money endorsing a religion. Moreover, Moore recieved his authority to decorate the judicial building from the legislative branch. Once more, he can't then turn around and use that to endorse his religion.

Now there is a "seperation clause" - could you point out where that clause is too - I can't seem to find it either.


What I've never understood is why some christians are so concerned about these idols of their worship, when they are clearly warned in their religious doctrine to beware idolatry.

I am not a christian.


Oh, and one last note, the part about all christians supporting this? Not true. The Methodists have actually denounced Moore's attempts to wed the government with his religion, saying (rightly so) that if government becomes involved in religion, then religions lose a lot of their rights and freedom.

Who said all christians support it? Can't seem to find that line either. I await your factual answer and sources. Forgive me if I don't hold my breathe.

I say we write up a petition and send it to President Kerry.

In order to uphold our religious rights, particularly that which states the government will not restrict or condone a particular religion, we must pass the following proposal:

The government must not add religious symbols (ie: crosses) to government buildings;

The government must remove any and all religious symbols currently existing on government property;

The government must cease its outward support for Christianity by removal of religious references in government ceremonies, such as swearing in the President on a Bible and swearing to tell the truth on a Bible;

The government must no longer hold prayer in congress, or any other government meeting;

The government must subsidize no religious charity, church, synagogue, mosque or temple;

There shall be no reference to religion in government anthems or pledges.

This is the only way to make things level. If we get enough people to join this, it will be passed and we will finally have a say. I think it's absurd how there has never been a president who wasn't a white male christian. :roll:



While I wholeheartedly agree with about half of the sentiment, the wording is clearly flawed. Although the majority of church/state bias in the Western world (I presume that the General Forum location and the proposal to take the results to Mr. Kerry means we are strictly talking irl) has been pro-Christian, and as a result the majority of chruch/state violations in the U.S.A. result in a pro-Christian bias, the specific references to Christian and other Theist practices as (the sole) examples of practices to be forbidden under this proposition, a true mind to pure equity and respect for the ever unknowable future, it seems to me, dictate that such principles be worded so as to provide protection and restriction that works evenly across the board for all parties.

But this is only in its references to Christianity, the Bible, prayer, etc. To craft public policy that is truly meaningful and fair to all, it will be neccesary to redifine religion, religious beliefs, etc., or to adopt new language, to reflect the social equity of such dogmas as Atheism Agnosticism and Anitgnosticism. Whether or not we, or their adherents, regard them as being "faith-based" (the former and latter are, even if only as faith in their versions of "reason") or not, they must be regarded under the law as equal in all ways with any and all supernaturally oriented belief systems.

As I see it, under the Constitution of the U.S.A. and without regard to its (usually weak) history of enforcement, the official government position on "religious" questions... God or gods, afterlife, souls, etc. ...is supposed to be Silent Agnosticism. I differentiate Agnosticism from what I call Antignosticism in that a true Agnostic does not purport to know whether knowledge itself is ever possible to have (or at least spiritual knowledge). Antignosticism then is the affirmative belief that such questions cannot be answered, at least not in the human lifetime as we know it.

Under Constitutional law the U.S. government is not supposed to take any position, pro or con, on such questions. But further I call it Silent Agnosticism because even for the government to state Agnosticism as an official position would violate the legal boundries of Constitutional principles.

So no churches * temples * mosques * synogogues * TM meetings * happy new age healing seminars * atheist pot luck dinners etc. etc. etc., by whatever wording it takes, either

1) paid for by tax moneys or other forms of government capital.

2) mandatory for those participating in any government program, optional or compulsory, or for any government employee.

3) taking place in and during the location and operating times of any government program, optional or compulsory, unless entirely comprising the actions of governmental non- employees.

4) participated in by any government employee who is "on the clock" unless done privately during official break times.

5) led by any uniformed government employee in uniform

6) this includes not only buildings and social groups but books and readings from books regarded as sacred &/or containing materials purporting to be spiritual or to use reason in application to things purporting to be spiritual; artworks that revere such beliefs including statuary, plaques and engraved quotations; and religious, spiritual or any other rituals such as inspirational readings, prayer, meditation, chanting, et al.



Students in a public school want to get together for a Bible study session? Well, if an extraciricular club of any other nature would be allowed to use an empty schoolroom to meet, they can too, and teachers can join them if they are not supposed to be doing something job-related at the time. But teachers leading prayers, even optional, even "times of silent whatever-you-wish", during class time, or even after hours if there is anyone in the room who is required to be there, such as a student "staying after", is just right out. Even senators who come early can pull their chairs together to pray, to God or to Jesus or to Bephomet if they like, but once the gavel sounds they are to act as agents of the state, and are thus to make no reference to position as to the existance, absence, or nature of God or of any other supernatural entity or principle.

Government anthems and pledges... all that I know of seem to be pledges, and my own beliefs forbid me to give any form of obescence to a piece of cloth, regardless of what it represents or how much sanctity however many others place in it. Pledges or prayers... one ends with a bequest that God shed His grace on America. Then there is the Star Spangled Banner ...I like this one, as it stops short of imparting holiness sanctity or worthiness of allegience to the flag, and makes no religious references.

As much as our current coupe leader has lived down to my expectations of him, I must say that his poorly-named "Faith Based Initiative" is, at least in principle, sound in its basis. If a secular charity that does practical work can receive government matching funds, to deny them to a faith-based charity that also does practical work, so long as it does not require religious participation in its benificiaries (like the Salvation Army does), should get the same treatment, or else they and their beneficiaries are being descriminated against on religious grounds. If a secular charity spends $10M a year running homeless shelters, and gets $x.xx, then a religious charity that spends $9M a year running homeless shelters and $1M a year stocking them with Bibles, optional for the homeless, and funding Bible study classes, then they should get 90% of $x.xx . Otherwise the secular, practical arm of their work, and those who benefit from it, are being descriminated against.

...but I haven't read the mechanics of the plan... please tell me Ol' Dubyah hasn't screwed it up too badly. :cry:



Why Waste Another Vote on that Old Coke-or-Pepsi Party?
Waste Your Vote On Me

Rev. A.J. Harris

First, the Supremacy Clause can be found in Article VI of the Constitution. I'll go ahead and quote it here, but you can look it up yourself for verification.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;

What millions are you writting about - name source.

Having troubles finding an article online that details where the money came from to erect the monument. It was built by donations from the Christian Coalition, but Moore's defense was paid for by the citizens of Alabama. Still, while I hunt for an online source (I got this from my local newspaper, so little use here I'm afraid) you can go ahead and read this. This confirms the $5,000 fine each day the Ten Commandments monument stayed in the Judicial building past the deadline, and the fact that Moore allowed the Monument to remain ten days after the deadline, throwing away $50,000 that could have paid someone's salary, like a teacher say, or a few more juries.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/21/ten.commandments/index.html

Now there is a "seperation clause"

The Seperation Clause is the same clause that you've been quoting. Congress shall endorse no religion, etc, etc.

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW..." Which part of 'Article the First', don't you understand

First, I've demonstrated that the rule of the Federal Constitution supercedes all state constitutions and laws, due to the Supremacy Clause. Secondly, I've demonstrated that Moore's endorsement of Christianity cost the state money, money that had to come from the Alabama legislature, the Congress if you will. Which of course leads to an indirect, legislative endorsement of religion. Which of course violates the Seperation Clause of the US Constitution.

I am not a christian.

Never said you were. This was more of an oblique reference to some of the insane people who travelled hundreds or thousands of miles to worship this stone idol. People who screamed and wailed in anguish when it was removed. I just thought I'd point out that a lot of the supporters seem to be a little confused as to their own religious instruction.

One of the most important points that always gets overlooked where Moore is concerned though is not just the Ten Commandments monument, but what it represents. Moore not only erected a stone monument endorsing his own god, he tried to enforce that god's old testament edicts on the people of Alabama. In one court ruling, involving a custody dispute between a lesbian mother and her ex husband, Moore wrote in his judicial opinion that "Gays and Lesbians are an inherent evil" and that society has every right to protect itself from this evil, even with recourse to "the sword." Moore made several more crackpot rulings in his time, from when he was a circuit court judge of Etowah County (refusing to grant a divorce and threatening to imprison the people for contempt if they dared file for divorce again) to when he was elected Supreme Court Chief Justice of Alabama. Moore represented one of the gravest threats to an impartial trial for non christians that Alabama's ever seen. And I can honestly I am ecstatic he's been removed from said office, I just kind of wish it could have been over more substantial matters than his showboating. I also wish he hadn't gotten some of his cronies elected to the Supreme Court in this last primary.

You can find some details to the lesbian story here, or you can google it. Several Gay Rights activists were understandably alarmed by this, so there should still be a few webpages up.

http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=1008

Who said all christians support it?

I believe the sentiment was expressed earlier in the thread. If not, ah well, the point is still valid. :wink:

I await your factual answer and sources

Given, and have a nice day.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I say we write up a petition and send it to President Kerry.

In order to uphold our religious rights, particularly that which states the government will not restrict or condone a particular religion, we must pass the following proposal:

The government must not add religious symbols (ie: crosses) to government buildings;

The government must remove any and all religious symbols currently existing on government property;

The government must cease its outward support for Christianity by removal of religious references in government ceremonies, such as swearing in the President on a Bible and swearing to tell the truth on a Bible;

The government must no longer hold prayer in congress, or any other government meeting;

The government must subsidize no religious charity, church, synagogue, mosque or temple;

There shall be no reference to religion in government anthems or pledges.

This is the only way to make things level. If we get enough people to join this, it will be passed and we will finally have a say. I think it's absurd how there has never been a president who wasn't a white male christian. :roll:

So you finally remove "On God We Trust" on the US currency as well? :P

First, the Supremacy Clause can be found in Article VI of the Constitution. I'll go ahead and quote it here, but you can look it up yourself for verification.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;
++++++++++++
Ah, missed it, do to wording. Unfortunately for you it proves my point, not yours. There is nothing in the Constitution about a State making law(s) for or against a religion - it only has "Congress shall make no law...". As long as Congress makes no law, public buildings can have a cross, star of david, or nothing - to name the ones I remember. So there is no SUPREME LAW to break.



What millions are you writting about - name source.

Having troubles finding an article online that details where the money came from to erect the monument. It was built by donations from the Christian Coalition, but Moore's defense was paid for by the citizens of Alabama. Still, while I hunt for an online source (I got this from my local newspaper, so little use here I'm afraid) you can go ahead and read this. This confirms the $5,000 fine each day the Ten Commandments monument stayed in the Judicial building past the deadline, and the fact that Moore allowed the Monument to remain ten days after the deadline, throwing away $50,000 that could have paid someone's salary, like a teacher say, or a few more juries.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/21/ten.commandments/index.html
+++++++++++++++
That fine was to be paid by the Judge. He was upholding the Constitution.



Now there is a "seperation clause"

The Seperation Clause is the same clause that you've been quoting. Congress shall endorse no religion, etc, etc.

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW..." Which part of 'Article the First', don't you understand

First, I've demonstrated that the rule of the Federal Constitution supercedes all state constitutions and laws, due to the Supremacy Clause. Secondly, I've demonstrated that Moore's endorsement of Christianity cost the state money, money that had to come from the Alabama legislature, the Congress if you will. Which of course leads to an indirect, legislative endorsement of religion. Which of course violates the Seperation Clause of the US Constitution.
++++++++++++++
That is not a "seperation clause", it is nonendorsement clause. The Ten Commandments are part of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faith, hence not one religion.


I am not a christian.

Never said you were. This was more of an oblique reference to some of the insane people who travelled hundreds or thousands of miles to worship this stone idol. People who screamed and wailed in anguish when it was removed. I just thought I'd point out that a lot of the supporters seem to be a little confused as to their own religious instruction.
++++++++++++
People do do the strangest things.


One of the most important points that always gets overlooked where Moore is concerned though is not just the Ten Commandments monument, but what it represents. Moore not only erected a stone monument endorsing his own god, he tried to enforce that god's old testament edicts on the people of Alabama. In one court ruling, involving a custody dispute between a lesbian mother and her ex husband, Moore wrote in his judicial opinion that "Gays and Lesbians are an inherent evil" and that society has every right to protect itself from this evil, even with recourse to "the sword." Moore made several more crackpot rulings in his time, from when he was a circuit court judge of Etowah County (refusing to grant a divorce and threatening to imprison the people for contempt if they dared file for divorce again) to when he was elected Supreme Court Chief Justice of Alabama. Moore represented one of the gravest threats to an impartial trial for non christians that Alabama's ever seen. And I can honestly I am ecstatic he's been removed from said office, I just kind of wish it could have been over more substantial matters than his showboating. I also wish he hadn't gotten some of his cronies elected to the Supreme Court in this last primary.

You can find some details to the lesbian story here, or you can google it. Several Gay Rights activists were understandably alarmed by this, so there should still be a few webpages up.

http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=1008

Who said all christians support it?

I believe the sentiment was expressed earlier in the thread. If not, ah well, the point is still valid. :wink:
++++++++++++++

I do not care for any Judge that legislates from the bench. They are suppose to interpet laws, not make them. Which is why some judges should be impeached.


I await your factual answer and sources

Given, and have a nice day.
++++++++++++++
Thanks for the quick reply with sources and opinions. As I have stated before and will do so till someone proves it otherwise - there is no seperation of state and religion in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution understood the english language very well and wrote in a precise and clear way. People have a way of trying to twist words and punctuation to fit thier views not the real intent of the writer(s).

The ten commandments STILL indorses a religion. In this case, it indorses three.

The United States is NOT a religious nation. Read the Treaty of Tripoli. George Washingto outright stated that the US is not based on Judeo-Christianity.

Furthermore, if you knew anything about the Framers, you'd know that the vast majority of them were Diests, not Christians or Puritans. That's why everything says "One nation under God," and not "One natoin under Jesus" or "One nation under Buddha"

it only has "Congress shall make no law...". As long as Congress makes no law, public buildings can have a cross, star of david, or nothing - to name the ones I remember. So there is no SUPREME LAW to break.

On the contrary, you seem to think that Congress needs to pass a law to forbid the posting of such religious icons, when in fact Congress has to authorize such icons in one form or another, be it with monetary funds (if the state purchases said icon) or by authorizing the parties involved to place those icons there. There is not a blanket right for a citizen to decorate a public, government building in any way he sees fit. He can perform whatever personal religious service he deems appropriate, such as praying, but he can not paint a cross or a star of david upon the walls without approval from a legislative body or their appointed representative. (In this case, Judge Roy Moore, who was given the ability to dictate the State Judicial building's decorations, as well as the money to maintain the facility by the State Legislature.) So, the legislature is violating the US Constitution, which due to the Supremacy Clause, takes precedence over any law or constitutional article the state of Alabama may possess. Thus, the indirect endorsement of religion. It should also be noted, that had Judge Moore allowed the ACLU and other religious parties to erect monuments of their own, beside the Ten Commandments Monument, the entire display would have been perfectly constitutional. He used his authority, granted by the legislative branch (and alas, the voters of Alabama) to place his monument there to the exclusion of anything else.

That fine was to be paid by the Judge

Actually the fine was directed against the State of Alabama itself. So the State was in danger of having to pay it. I direct you in specific to this passage from the CNN article I linked you earlier.

Alabama's senior associate justice, Gorman Houston, said last week the justices would take "whatever steps are necessary" to avoid a threatened $5,000-a-day contempt fine if the monument remained in place

Obviously Justice Houston was most likely unconcerned with Moore's own financial straits, especially due to the fact that the two are now political enemies (as are all of the Associate Justices who voted for the monument's removal). If you still wish to contend this fact, I can look for additional sources, but I assure you, the state was the entity fined, not Judge Moore.

The Ten Commandments are part of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faith, hence not one religion

While technically true, Christianity and the Jews have claimed more ownership of the Ten Commandments than have Muslims. Moreover all three religions have common origins, and thus in some ways can be viewed just the same as variant branches of an uber religion, much like Orthodox Christians versus Catholics, or Protestants. This still leaves budhists, atheists, hindus, and many other religious sects in the dark. And when some of these religious sects expressed interest in erecting monuments of their own, they were denied, due to their religion.

I do not care for any Judge that legislates from the bench. They are suppose to interpet laws, not make them.

While this point of view certainly has its place, it should be noted that judicial intervention has been known since the very beginning, when Madison ruled a law unconstitutional in Marbury v Madison. This established the precedent for judicial review of laws, and has provided a much needed balance to the legislative branch of the government, and a necessary aid in preventing mob rule from oppressing a minority. Granted, it hasn't always worked, and sometimes it's worked slower than it should have, yet who can now argue when the Courts struck down the segregation laws?

Thanks for the quick reply with sources and opinions

No problem at all. If you need more sources, just let me know and I'll do my best to procure them for you. :)

People have a way of trying to twist words and punctuation to fit thier views not the real intent of the writer(s).

Intent is very important. And it was Jefferson who first started talking about the Wall of Seperation between the government and religion. This was in a letter written to the Danbury baptists. While Jefferson was doubtless referring to protecting a religion, specifically the baptists from persecution, the best way to do this, he wrote, was to keep the government free of religion. He attended religious services in the House of Representatives, however the services were non denominational and were not compulsory, thus did not violate his Seperation clause. While some have argued that since Jefferson's letter is in reference to protecting religion from government, and not protecting government from religion, they fail to take into account that Jefferson's measures were to prevent any religion from gaining the power to use the government to oppress another, rival religion. Thus, the seperation clause, even though it seems to work against mainly christians, it also protects Hindus and Budhists, who otherwise might feel compelled to abandon their religion to enjoy equal rights with the christian majority.

You know, I saw a similar poll with results like this poll. And no it's not the national poll on Bush or Kerry, but something even more hilarious...

Do you think that President Bush is uniting the country?
Yes ******* 50%
No ******* 50%

Hmmm... anyone else see this poll? F***-in hilarious huh? :lol:

it only has "Congress shall make no law...". As long as Congress makes no law, public buildings can have a cross, star of david, or nothing - to name the ones I remember. So there is no SUPREME LAW to break.

On the contrary, you seem to think that Congress needs to pass a law to forbid the posting of such religious icons, when in fact Congress has to authorize such icons in one form or another, be it with monetary funds (if the state purchases said icon) or by authorizing the parties involved to place those icons there. There is not a blanket right for a citizen to decorate a public, government building in any way he sees fit. He can perform whatever personal religious service he deems appropriate, such as praying, but he can not paint a cross or a star of david upon the walls without approval from a legislative body or their appointed representative. (In this case, Judge Roy Moore, who was given the ability to dictate the State Judicial building's decorations, as well as the money to maintain the facility by the State Legislature.) So, the legislature is violating the US Constitution, which due to the Supremacy Clause, takes precedence over any law or constitutional article the state of Alabama may possess. Thus, the indirect endorsement of religion. It should also be noted, that had Judge Moore allowed the ACLU and other religious parties to erect monuments of their own, beside the Ten Commandments Monument, the entire display would have been perfectly constitutional. He used his authority, granted by the legislative branch (and alas, the voters of Alabama) to place his monument there to the exclusion of anything else.
+++++++++++
No I wrote that the Constitution forbids CONGRESS from making any law that establish a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, that the Constitution does NOT prohibit individual States from making laws concerning religion, and since there can be no Federal law then the "supremacy clause" does not come into play. Judge Moore was a State Judge, not a Federal Judge. It is a State building not a Federal building.

I read nothing that stated that Judge Moore would not allow other religions from installing their religious symbols.

Rights start at the individual then state and finally federal. Many Federal Judges have ruled unconstitutionally against individuals exercising there right to exercise their religion while in Federal and State buildings ie. praying in school.


That fine was to be paid by the Judge

Actually the fine was directed against the State of Alabama itself. So the State was in danger of having to pay it. I direct you in specific to this passage from the CNN article I linked you earlier.

Alabama's senior associate justice, Gorman Houston, said last week the justices would take "whatever steps are necessary" to avoid a threatened $5,000-a-day contempt fine if the monument remained in place

Obviously Justice Houston was most likely unconcerned with Moore's own financial straits, especially due to the fact that the two are now political enemies (as are all of the Associate Justices who voted for the monument's removal). If you still wish to contend this fact, I can look for additional sources, but I assure you, the state was the entity fined, not Judge Moore.
+++++++++++++
I stand corrected.



The Ten Commandments are part of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faith, hence not one religion

While technically true, Christianity and the Jews have claimed more ownership of the Ten Commandments than have Muslims. Moreover all three religions have common origins, and thus in some ways can be viewed just the same as variant branches of an uber religion, much like Orthodox Christians versus Catholics, or Protestants. This still leaves budhists, atheists, hindus, and many other religious sects in the dark. And when some of these religious sects expressed interest in erecting monuments of their own, they were denied, due to their religion.
++++++++++++
Again, this is a State building. Funds for the TC were raised by individuals not Federal monies - no religion was denied putting up there own religious symbol in the court house.

The framers of the Constitution were for the most part, believed in God and did want the Federal government to be secular.


I do not care for any Judge that legislates from the bench. They are suppose to interpet laws, not make them.

While this point of view certainly has its place, it should be noted that judicial intervention has been known since the very beginning, when Madison ruled a law unconstitutional in Marbury v Madison. This established the precedent for judicial review of laws, and has provided a much needed balance to the legislative branch of the government, and a necessary aid in preventing mob rule from oppressing a minority. Granted, it hasn't always worked, and sometimes it's worked slower than it should have, yet who can now argue when the Courts struck down the segregation laws?
++++++++++++
The Federal Judicial system was setup to insure that Congress did not make UNCONSTITIONAL laws and to judicate individual/groups/corporations on federal laws.

In God we trust. The Federal and State government and Judges we do not.

I read nothing that stated that Judge Moore would not allow other religions from installing their religious symbols

Look on page 12, but I'll go ahead and quote it for you.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religion/glsrthmre111802opn.pdf

Others have requested that the Chief Justice add additional items to the rotunda, requests that the Chief Justice has denied because the proposed items did not comport with the moral foundation of law theme.

Specifics follow this quote. In summary, they were a monument of Dr. King's "I have a Dream" speech and an Atheist wanting to display a monument of an atom.

No I wrote that the Constitution forbids CONGRESS from making any law that establish a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, that the Constitution does NOT prohibit individual States from making laws concerning religion, and since there can be no Federal law then the "supremacy clause" does not come into play.

First, the word Congress refers to the legislative branch of government. While you could make the argument that it is specifically intended to be applied only to the Federal Legislative Government, such arguments aimed at the Bill of Rights have already been overturned. Before these rights were extended to the state level, the federal government often used state agents to illegally break into homes and wiretap phones, gather evidence, etc. Without the Bill of Rights applied to the State level, they're pretty much worthless. Hence, the word Congress in all aspects of the Constitution applies through all levels of government, down to your county electorate.

Secondly, the Supremacy clause applies not only to specific laws, but to the Constitution itself, asserting that where a state's constitution (or laws) may conflict with the Federal Constitution, the latter takes precedence. And I've already demonstrated that laws were passed that supported Moore's erection of the monument as well as defiance of the federal courts in maintaining this monument.

Many Federal Judges have ruled unconstitutionally against individuals exercising there right to exercise their religion while in Federal and State buildings

Not necessarily true. First, you, as a citizen can pray all you want in a public building. If you're a student and you want to pray before a test, go right ahead. But if you're trying to coerce or compel others to follow you, don't expect the courts to turn a blind eye. If you're in court, feel free to drop to your knees and pray all you want. So long as you don't disrupt a trial by your behavior, all should be fine and dandy. If Moore had wanted to place his monument in private, had wanted to worship his god in private, that would have been fine and dandy too. He chose not to do that though, he chose to force everyone to bow to the ultimate sovereignty of his god.

in other words, this injunction does not reach areas maintained, in good faith, as private in the judicial building, such as a justice's chambers.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religion/glsrthmre80503jdgmt.pdf

You can find the above quote on page 5.

I also apparently was wrong about the state having to pay Moore's legal fees. According to the court documents, his fees were paid for by Coral Ministries. My apologies for my error, apparently I failed to remember a local news article correctly.

Funds for the TC were raised by individuals not Federal monies - no religion was denied putting up there own religious symbol in the court house

If this were true, if the atheists had been allowed to put their monument side by side with the Ten Commandments, I'd agree with you. There would be no standing to remove the monument. But as you can see from the court documents, Moore used his official capacity to deny other religions and organizations from erecting monuments of their own. As such, he has clearly endorsed one religion, his, over all others, and in his official capacity as Chief Justice of Alabama. Once more, there's absolutely no legal reason he can't say in private, as a citizen that he believes his god to be the right god. But when he's acting as Chief Justice, he's acting as a representative of the State, and he is forbidden from allowing his religious views to sway his judgements or to endorse his religion as the true religion, and use his powers to aid in such an endorsement.

In God we trust. The Federal and State government and Judges we do not.

In god you trust. There are others in this country that don't trust your god however. Moreover, the judges, striking down unconstitutional laws, are the one protection that Americans have against mob rule. Gays can now legally enjoy sexual intercourse, one of the most basic, assumed rights any person can enjoy, thanks only to the Supreme Court striking down sodomy laws. Heck, forget the gays, heterosexuals can now enjoy more...unconventional...forms of sexual expression now thanks to the elimination of this law. Just as the courts are there to help strike down other ridiculous laws, like a proposed ban on hip huggers. Do they always act quickly enough? Unfortunately, no they don't. Do they sometimes go overboard? Occassionaly, yes. But in the end, they do strike a good balance between individual rights versus state or federal rights. And in this case, the State of Alabama, and its representative (ie, Moore) did not have the right to endorse a religion to the exclusion of all others.

On a side note, I apologize for the tardiness of this reply. A few days' off, and suddenly this topic gets absolutely buried. Man these forums are active. :p

*Streaks through thread*

Meht, I tip my hat to you, sir!

*streaks on home*

I support this proposal because the US of A are clearly entrenched with the Christian religion to the degree that they cannot imagine having a nation that is not "in bed" with Christianity, could be possible. The statement "separation of state and church" is clearly not being adhered to in the US of A. If everything was equal, everything would be left in its "natural" state, meaning removal of religious symbols where they do not belong. The ceremony of burial is clearly a christian ceremony, thus why graveyards have crosses on them. If christianity had circles as the religious symbol, we'd see circles as marks for graves.

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men... But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret..." (Matthew 6: 5-6)

that's from the big JC himself. so why exactly are Christians trying to push school prayer and public displays of their faith again...?

Oh.. so a lot of gays are close to god when they're "in the closet"? ;)
After all, thats where god is supposed ot be,no?

I read nothing that stated that Judge Moore would not allow other religions from installing their religious symbols

Look on page 12, but I'll go ahead and quote it for you.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religion/glsrthmre111802opn.pdf

Others have requested that the Chief Justice add additional items to the rotunda, requests that the Chief Justice has denied because the proposed items did not comport with the moral foundation of law theme.

Specifics follow this quote. In summary, they were a monument of Dr. King's "I have a Dream" speech and an Atheist wanting to display a monument of an atom.

+++++++++++
Those two requests were not religion related, besides I still say States are not restricted by the First Amendment.


No I wrote that the Constitution forbids CONGRESS from making any law that establish a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, that the Constitution does NOT prohibit individual States from making laws concerning religion, and since there can be no Federal law then the "supremacy clause" does not come into play.

First, the word Congress refers to the legislative branch of government. While you could make the argument that it is specifically intended to be applied only to the Federal Legislative Government, such arguments aimed at the Bill of Rights have already been overturned. Before these rights were extended to the state level, the federal government often used state agents to illegally break into homes and wiretap phones, gather evidence, etc. Without the Bill of Rights applied to the State level, they're pretty much worthless. Hence, the word Congress in all aspects of the Constitution applies through all levels of government, down to your county electorate.

Secondly, the Supremacy clause applies not only to specific laws, but to the Constitution itself, asserting that where a state's constitution (or laws) may conflict with the Federal Constitution, the latter takes precedence. And I've already demonstrated that laws were passed that supported Moore's erection of the monument as well as defiance of the federal courts in maintaining this monument.

+++++++++++
The Constitution clearly defines Congress as consisting of the Senate and House. So, the First Amendment does not pertain to States, because it would have been worded that 'No law shall...' if States were to be included. The Fourth Amendment states personal rights on unreasonable searches etc. so, the a State agency would be covered, which makes your Federal gov getting State agents to do searches as being legal is bogus.

"Secondly" part is bogus too because the Constitution or it's Amendments does not forbid States from making laws on religion - see above.


Many Federal Judges have ruled unconstitutionally against individuals exercising there right to exercise their religion while in Federal and State buildings

Not necessarily true. First, you, as a citizen can pray all you want in a public building. If you're a student and you want to pray before a test, go right ahead. But if you're trying to coerce or compel others to follow you, don't expect the courts to turn a blind eye. If you're in court, feel free to drop to your knees and pray all you want. So long as you don't disrupt a trial by your behavior, all should be fine and dandy. If Moore had wanted to place his monument in private, had wanted to worship his god in private, that would have been fine and dandy too. He chose not to do that though, he chose to force everyone to bow to the ultimate sovereignty of his god.

in other words, this injunction does not reach areas maintained, in good faith, as private in the judicial building, such as a justice's chambers.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religion/glsrthmre80503jdgmt.pdf

You can find the above quote on page 5.

++++++++++
Judges have violated expression of religion in public places. I thought I put a source in an earlier post.


If this were true, if the atheists had been allowed to put their monument side by side with the Ten Commandments, I'd agree with you. There would be no standing to remove the monument. But as you can see from the court documents, Moore used his official capacity to deny other religions and organizations from erecting monuments of their own. As such, he has clearly endorsed one religion, his, over all others, and in his official capacity as Chief Justice of Alabama. Once more, there's absolutely no legal reason he can't say in private, as a citizen that he believes his god to be the right god. But when he's acting as Chief Justice, he's acting as a representative of the State, and he is forbidden from allowing his religious views to sway his judgements or to endorse his religion as the true religion, and use his powers to aid in such an endorsement.

+++++++++++
By definition a atheism is not a religion.


On a side note, I apologize for the tardiness of this reply. A few days' off, and suddenly this topic gets absolutely buried. Man these forums are active. :p

++++++++++++
I am rather tardy on a reply also - work has kept me to busy to do any posts in this forum. I hope this thread continues for a bit longer.

Good point. We need an exemption for graves and memorials. I wonder what the graves of the athiest soldiers look like though...

It's a white post like the others, but with a circle with a line through it on top.

(\)
.|_