WOW WOW WOW! GOOD thoughts here! I really hate to see this topic die. I thought we were going to have a RUMBLE...a polite rumble BUT A RUMBLE ALL THE SAME!

decadence-excellent, excellent post!

SigmaChiGuy-There is already enough politics in politics. Religion (church) just adds more politics to it. Thats a lot of politics.
Simply stated, but so true.

How ironic...
 

I dunno how I feel regarding what is happining in Alabama. I can see both sides of the equation...

But if one were to look into the archeological and the biblical history of the actual 10 Commandments given down by God to Moses (the 2nd ones), The Commandments were to be place in the "ark of the covenant" surrounded by several shrouds, called the "holy of the holies". Only the "pure in heart" are allowed to go to were the ark is...

Only one group of people claim to contain the "ark of the covenant" and the guardsmen do not allow anyone to enter into the temple where the "ark" lies... That group is the Ethiopians...

Well, for those in Alabama paying hommage to seeing The 10 Commandments to stay, how many of them really would be capable to entering the "holy of holies" and actually gazing upon the "ark of the covenant"?

I dunno, I found irony in that... Maybe its just my twisted sense of Spirituality... You know sometime God has a sense of humor...

Besides, Christians are told to believe in only ONE commandment given to them by Jesus Christ after the Ressurection... That is Love God with all your heart and love one another as I have loved you, so you must love one another... That point to me is that the commandments are supposed to be written on you heart (Isaiah and Jeramiah say that)... That is the final covenant between God and man that was made in the OT... The NT adds to that covenant thru the Ressurection...

Is there any temple that can truly pay hommage to God on Earth that He created?

everyone has made good remarks on this......i, like so many others, see both sides. my thing is this: if someone wants to have the 10 commandments up, fine. if someone wants to put up chinese proverbs or anything else that basically advises ppl how to live moral lives, fine. ppl always gotta take Christianity so harshly....can't ya just look at something and think, "yeah, that seems fair" and not "whoa, that came from the Bible, so therefore that's a bunch of bull so get it outta my face".....it's not like Alabama had a big ol' picture of the KKK creed up there or something. the 10 commandments are just a set of basic principles to try and live by that just so happened to be set forth by God and all that. they are nothing bad.....just something out of the Bible.....and i honest to goodness think that's the only reason why ppl have an issue with it. b/c as mentioned b/4, if any other religion's set of "rules" or whatnot was placed up there, it wouldn't be this big of a deal.

thank you and carry on. :)

I do not agree w/ it being displayed. Sure I'll agree to the statement that our country was founded on the principles of the Judeo-Christian tradition. It's a fact. Some of the Founding Fathers were Deists, but the point is is that they believed in "God". Now...they were smart guys. They designated that there be a separation of church (religion) and state to avoid the same hassles that the English Puritans had. The state can neither condemn nor condemn the individual practice of religion. That's well established and has been upheld in many cases. But when an elected official decides to thrust his own religious convictions upon the masses, that's when this clause of "separation of church and state" comes into effect. A colleague of mine said today, not realizing that she was dissing me, stated, "Well this country was founded on the Bible and if someone doesn't like that then they don't have to move here." :eek: As she left I said under my breath "Gee, too bad some of us were BORN here." :rolleyes: I think it should be removed to an area such as a church or other religiously oriented location. Of course I believe in the 10 Commandments, but I do not feel as if they should be displayed in a tax-payer funded building. I think once he tried to say that displaying the Commandments made people "act right" or something to that effect. The original recipients of the Commandments (read your Bible!) made a golden cow for crying out loud! His arguments are weak and uncorroborated. He's yet another Alabamian making me feel shame for the location of my birth. :(

I think it's very sad that it was removed.

Wow, as stated, great points! It's wonderful to see this discussed so intelligently, passionately, and respectfully.

I thought I'd just throw this in, more about freedom of speech, but also action and association, maybe not as higher thought as some other posts, but here we go:

I am, as many of us are, associated with an organization, whether local, national, or international. These organizations put some guidlines/rules/restrictions on us as members and therefore representatives. Drinking in our letters, insulting other members and groups, illegal activity, yelling our cheers in a quiet restaurant as a group: These activities are frowned upon, and perhaps punishable, because they reflect poorly on our sorority/fraternity. While I have the freedom to say whatever I want, and in my own home do (almost) whatever I want, I still have a responsibility to my sorority to uphold their values and standards, which I agreed upon when pledged and initiated, and everytime I wear my letters and pay dues.

Public officials, judges, the president all hold such positions as well. They have taken on an office to serve their country, and represent us, all of us. What they do or think as a person is their business (to, obviously, a certain extent - illegal activity is not an issue here for me, as monuments and religious artifacts are not illegal), but when they begin to associate it with their position of authority/organization/business/county/state in such a direct way, that takes on new meaning. If a judge sentenced someone for getting a divorce, just because his religion says it's wrong, and there is no government law to uphold this, then it is wrong.

Government sponsored art exhibits, etc. are different than those pieces placed in a court of law, plus the exhibits funded are most often (or should be) in places where you must chose to see them, and are not forced to as in a public space. As well, there are a variety of them, all representing and depicting different views, not one particular one.

The fact is, that monument represented something highly and commonly connected with a religion. They may be, when interpreted, standard moral codes, but they are still religious. Just because "The Last Supper" could be seen as just a bunch of hairy guys eating dinner doesn't mean it's not religious in its connections and meaning.

Plus, Christianity is not the only religion with these ideas, so why have it be the only one represented.

Unfortunately, yes, Chrstians get the blunt end of things. I totally agree, if it was a Aboriginal, Chinese or Japanese religious sculture or hanging, it wouldn't have raised such a fuss. But, the the history of Christianity makes it payable to this, the domination and suppression of other religions in the past means we have to be more sensitive to it now. And principally, no matter the religion, the issue should still have the same meaning and controversy.

Has to rewritting our history, we're not removing every trace of Christianity, just keeping it where it belongs, in churches, art, writing, museums, not government buildings.

K, this is such a hard topic to write a post that clearly portrays my opinions, so hopefully you got the gist of what I meant. Maybe swissmiss04 elaborated on some of my points better :D Sorry it's so long!

Question:

I've noted on this thread and others that some will justify or excuse censorship of Christians and Christianity by saying, "Oh, well, they suppressed others, so it isn't so bad."

Here's a brain teaser and slight hijak: was it the big bad Christianity actually oppressing people? Or was it the big bad rulers of the day using Christianity as a tool to further their own agendas?

As someone who has been studying this for a lot of years, I can assure you the answer is not as easy or as obvious as you might think.

Cont'd discuss.

Adrienne

Great point adduncan! But it doesn't change the facts for me - that it happened. But, very thought provoking - bravo, bravo

Federal Judge Dismisses Suit by Monument Supporters
Wednesday August 27, 2003 1:26pm

___ ABC 33/40 Interact ___

Mobile (AP) - A federal judge in Mobile has dismissed a lawsuit filed by supporters of the Ten Commandments monument in Montgomery. The suit sought to keep the Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of the state Judicial Building, despite a federal court order to move it.

U-S District Judge William Steele dismissed the suit shortly after the monument was moved this morning. Steele says the law does not allow the monument's supporters to pursue an appeal in his court after another federal judge has already ordered the monument moved. He also said venue is not proper in the federal court in Mobile because none of the events surrounding the Ten Commandments monument happened in that area.

I just thought that last remark was funny. Here's some more articles:

http://beta.abc3340.com/news/stories/0803/99680.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in529770.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in568707.shtml

It doesn't matter. Those people were faithful and claimed to be furthering their faith, and a lot of them were serioius about it.

There was never a Tibetan Inquisition.

I've read multiple posts about how this country is anti-Christian.

I really *don't* see all the anti-Christianity in this country. After living a significant amount of time with those of Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist faith, I've come to the opinion that Christianity has got it pretty easy out here. Nobody beats you to death because you're a Christian. [Please don't bring up past grievances as a counter, that's not what I'm referring to, and I think the Jews still have ya beat!!] You aren't detained as a suspected terrorist because you're a Christian.

What I do see is Christianity very comfortable with being the defacto standard, and not enjoying it when the standard is changing. Accept it or not, Christianity is still the defined norm in this country. Christmas is a federal holiday -- in most of this country you're assumed to be Christian unless you state otherwise. But this country is made up of more than one religion, and as the minority religions grow larger, more situations like this will occur.

Thus, people in this country are not bound to Christian ideals, as it was founded on the freedom to worship. Having the 10 commandments displayed in a courthouse gives conflicting signals -- what is the society trying to uphold? The secular law or the Christian ideal?

Personally, I'm glad they're out of there. I don't want to walk into a courtroom knowing that some judge believes that I should be upheld to Christian ideals -- I want to walk into a courtroom believing that I will be judged on the American laws. Freedom of religion means I should not have to hold myself to another religion's standards, and I feel that displaying the commandments in a place of judgment counters that notion.

For what it's worth, I don't think God should be on the cash, but it's not nearly as conflicting as the courtroom setting. There is no notion of loyalty, judgment or ideals associated with dropping a $5 for a beer. And while we're at it, I'd take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance -- it wasn't in the original pledge to begin with. I find that to be as problematic as the courtroom.

Question for those that support the removal of the 10 commandments:

Would you feel the same if this building WAS NOT a courthouse, but some other type of state or federal building (I dunno, let's say the DMV :D or Arlington National cemetary)?

And going forward, how do we reconcile this and where do you draw the line? If I am not comfortable going to a courthouse where the greek god of knowledge is displayed shouldn't that be removed as well? After all isn't that a violation of church (pagan religion) and state?

Just asking some questions............

Sometimes a picture says a thousand words:




http://www.abmc.gov/so5.jpg

Yes.

JAM wrote: "Our system stemmed from Christian beliefs."

While I agree that the "founders" of our country had Christian beliefs, I think that those beliefs are the reason that they were so careful about the separation of Church and State.

The reason that the Pilgrims left England was to escape religious persecution -- in other words, to be allowed to practice whatever religion they wanted, however they wanted.

Thus, the reason that the decendents of these fair minded people chose to separate religion and government was so that neither they, nor anyone else, would have to worry about the government interceding or interfering in the freedom to practice (or not practice for that matter) any religion.

In other words, The Constitution is not meant to penalize Christianity, but to allow for equality under the law between Christians and practioners of other religions. To ensure the fairness that was not practiced in England. To "Do unto others...etc."

I believe that the Alabama Chief Justice had the monument placed in the courthouse out of strong and commendable Christian beliefs. In doing so, however, consciously or unconsciously, he was attempting to force his personal religious beliefs on anyone who came in contact with the court.

To me, that is a clear violation of the intent of our American forefathers when the framed the Constitution.

Which is a very long way of saying that I believe it is right that the monument was moved. It should never have been put there in the first place.

Thomas Jefferson cut the bible to shreds.