quote: Only if you campaign for Kerry. And get yourself a "Vote For Hillary in 2008" sticker.
The only positive thing about Kerry winning the upcoming election is that it would knock Hillary out of contention in '08. Do you think Kerry is just the 'set up' reliever?
quote:ANYTHING that tries to forcibly tell you what's right and what's wrong is religion: I don't care what else it calls itself. This includes Atheism, Humanism, political correctness, etc.
Yes, but there is a big distinction here that, on previous threads (not this one) you are failing to grasp:
Non-mention of a religion is not an endorsement of another religion.
The fact that the Ten Commandments are removed from a courthouse should not be read as a victory for atheism. Erecting a monument that says "There is no God" would be a victory for atheism. And should such a monument be erected, I hope those on my side of this argument would have the intestinal fortitude and integrity to call it for what it is.
I'll live quite peacefully if no govt building ever again includes the 10 Commandments, but does anybody here think they won't be replaced by a different forcible definition of right and wrong?
Hate to tell you this, John, but we've always had something other than the ten commandments as "forcible definition of right and wrong" in the USA. They're called laws.
Erecting a monument that says "There is no God" would be a victory for atheism. And should such a monument be erected, I hope those on my side of this argument would have the intestinal fortitude and integrity to call it for what it is.
It's funny. I'm not a theist, but I'm less on your side of this argument than you are. I don't mind the monuments and I strongly oppose some of the efforts to remove religious symbolism from all aspects of government. (I hate the transformation of Christmas into nothing more than a snowman and reindeer festival.)
Regarding any government statement to the effect that "there is no God," I'd be up in arms (possibly literally, if necessary) against it in a heartbeat.
Like Long Gone, I too would be against litigated non-belief just as much as litigated belief.
Trefor,
Re: these societies who force non-belief on people, there has been/is a gross misrepresentation often believed by many people that atheism = (or is related to) communism. That is (as you can probably see) a fallacy. For one thing, some of the leaders in the Soviet Union were themselves members of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Also, the 'religion is an opiate of the people' argument put forth by Marx was simply incidental to the Communist doctrine, as Communism dealt with economics and the control of wealth, and not with whether or not there was a god; the concept of god being a non-issue to the ownership of wealth and property related to 'the workers of the world'.
Ie., atheism has a lot less to do with communism than many people might think, even if there are many communists who are atheists. It would be like saying because there are communists in England, that England is related to the communist cause.
And like the forced atheism has failed completely, so will any attempts (and yes Virginia, there are still various, yet disguised attempts) to force religion on people.
Long gone: There's a difference between laws and forcible right and wrong. Religions are laws of the heart whereas the laws you refer to are laws of practice.
For instance, I could be unscrupulous and law abiding at the same time. If I don't actually kill someone, I can't be arrested no matter how much I believed any individual really deserved to be killed.
For that matter, having the 10 commandments in a govt building isn't going to guarantee their being practiced any more than if they were in a church. They're just written words. I don't mind having them in a govt building as a symbol of the desire for justice even though I know perfect justice can't happen in an imperfect world.
So symbols don't matter anymore, eh? OK take off your wedding rings and send them to me so I can urinate on them and send them back to you. Whaaaaat? It's "just a symbol". Name a better symbol for justice and uprightness than the 10 commandments.
Raf: During Reagan's funeral days it was brought up that he believed that God put him in the presidency for a purpose. This HAD to affect decisions he made as President. Does this mean to you that his presidency was now flawed?
Just how do we separate a person from their governing values?
ANYTHING that tries to forcibly tell you what's right and what's wrong is religion: I don't care what else it calls itself. This includes Atheism, Humanism, political correctness, etc. I'll live quite peacefully if no govt building ever again includes the 10 Commandments, but does anybody here think they won't be replaced by a different forcible definition of right and wrong?
Well - hmmm! -- I have to agree with this, all the way. Not trying to propagate a "dooms-day" scenario here, but as "values, morals, or whatever" are diminishing daily, it seems that something else rises to take it's place. I am not saying that the pro -"whomever" will be erecting monuments in place of those they have forced to be removed, but it would not surprise me in the least, should that happen.
Our society is under attack. The moral code that we have lived by for so long is being castigated, the things we thought harmless, are now an issue because of semantics, and though I doubt it will happen --- I would not be surprised if some sort of statue, monument, or memorial would be set up in the spot forcibly vacated by a group about some monument, such as the 10 commandments.
Once you are on the road headed downward, it's pretty hard to stop. I am now in agreement that the 10 Commandments should not be placed on the City of Duluth, Minnesota's property -- but by the same token -- the "progressive group" that enacted it's removal, is not exempt from suspicion that they will try to erect a "politically correct" monument on the same spot.
The "bottom-feeders" are trying to move up. Given the sentiments of today's society, they just might make it. :(-->
Can you provide an example of what a "politically correct" monument might be?
Actually, no I cannot. I guess I am equating this situation to others I see happening, and am just figuring that this will end up like so many others. Let's just say I am speaking hypothetically, since the trend towards "change", inevitably spirals downward (imo).
Take the laws about porn. They get relaxed. Next thing you know, child porn is in there, and being touted as "just as right", as adult porn.
Take the laws about felons denied the right to vote, yet these days -- they are being defended by some as "their vote is being overlooked".
When "absolutes" are removed from our society, incongruous substitutes take their place. Sorry to say it, but it is true. It has happened time and again, over the course of the years, and recently -- has been manifested in the removal of the 10 Commandments monuments, perhaps not on the property in question, but certainly in the thought processes of those affected.
I do not know for a fact that some other monument will be erected in the place that the 10 Commandments used to occupy, but given the fact that the "downward spiral" of "political expediency" seems to usually have something to fill the void, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some sort of "politically correct" monument would be found to be placed on the grounds -- if for no other reason than to say --"We told you so, an now we are rubbing your nose in it."
My political views are (or should be), known by all who come to GreaseSpot, and I have no love for the liberal viewpoint. I will fight to the death to defend that right to express an opinion, but I don't have to agree with the opinion. Nor do I agree with those that are (these days) taking sledge hammers, and wielding them at the foundation of what I consider to be us -- ie. -- read U.S.
I do not see a "politically correct" monument erected where the 10 Commandments used to be, but given the crap we are being fed by the liberals, and their insatiable desire to have everything their way, and "damn the torpedoes" -- it would not surprise me one bit, if it came to pass.
How many other countries had "museums of atheism" often in former church buildings. How many other coutnries imprisoned and persecuted people simply for practicing their faith or for smuggling bibles in?
Marx saw it as incidental I have no doubt but others after him were more vehement. The fact that they might have been a "member" as a child has nothing to do with it - Stalin was even once a candidate for the Orthodox priesthood!
Religion and belief was seen as the enemy because it was antithetical to the pursuit of an earthly paradise (cough) and pointing to a higher power than the party and the leadership.
quote: Religion and belief was seen as the enemy because it was antithetical to the pursuit of an earthly paradise (cough) and pointing to a higher power than the party and the leadership.
How many non-communist leaders (dictators) have that same attitude regarding the antithesis of the earthly paradise (Hitler said that his 3rd Reich would last a thousand years), and the pointing to a higher power than their own party and leadership. Hell, there are those who would equally lay that charge to a good number of 'godly' ((COUGH)), 'anti-communist' American leaders, both Republican and Democrat.
(Besides, the pursuit of an earthly paradise and not believing in a higher power in and of itself (didn't want you to miss that), isn't something that automatically leads to communism, or any other brand of freedom-denying dictatorship. Carl Sagan is one such classic example an individual who had this similar point of view, yet I don't think that you would shut your brain off that much and make that 'commie' charge regarding him, hmmm?)
All of this isn't specific or particular to communism, my good man. Communist countries like Russia (Soviet Union) really went gangbusters on this (especially under Stalin), but to paint this as a communist = atheist tinge is to ignore the millions of atheists over the years who 'don't have one Marxist bone in their body' as it were.
Want a clear-cut example of this? I don't know what kind of political mindset atheists have in yours or other countries (altho' I would be willing to bet even money that it would be very similar to here in the States), but here in the U.S., atheists run the whole gamut, the whole range of political views, left to right wing. And while there is no one dominant political/economic view among them, the most popular view among atheists is Ayn Rand Objectivism/Libertarianism. I don't know how familiar you are with Libertarianism or Ayn Rand, but one thing for sure. I wouldn't lay the 'communist' charge at their feet at any Libertarian/Objectivist gathering. Not if you don't like near lynch mobs.
(I've gotten this information from actually talking to/reading directly about/getting to know actual atheists and like sources, instead of goosestepp-err simply following what the *Official Orthodox* Church says about atheists. Kinda like actually talking to/getting to know homosexuals themselves instead of listening to what Jerry Falwell says about them, hmmmm?)
There is a saying among atheists that "trying to organize atheists is like trying to heard cats", Yet Another example that these un-believers aren't so monolithically in lockstep with one (read communist/one world takeover-leaning) world view.
quote: So you think having the 10 commandments in a govt building is litigated belief? Not if it's not written in the laws.
Really? So-o-o, where does it say in the Constitution or in the laws that "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve", hmmm? Where in these 10 Commandment-based laws you keep referring to, is it (or should be) legislated that you should not set up idols to another god?
And as per the other laws that says that you shouldn't kill, steal, give false witness, etc., laws like that have been in place in many other countries long before Moses was a gleam in his daddy's eye. (Hammurabi's laws for example) And have no bearing on the Judeao-Christian faith.
But the 10 Commandments themselves are specific to the Judeao-Christian faith. The fact that the first 4 laws deal with worship and faithfulness to God seals that fact.
Come on man. You can do better than that, can't you? ;)-->
Garth, in you eagerness to make your valid point (the wide sweep of persuasions held by that non-monolithic group known as athiest) I fear you do damage to fact...that is that communism mandates non-theism, as Trefor points out. Not that it has worked out that way strictly, but it sure has in the majority sense. Cathilicism is tolerated in Cuba,f'rinstance, but China still actively persecutes their religionists.
I have a hard time b'leeving that the majority of athiests here are Ayn Rand style objectivists. (I was, for a time, a Christian Ayn Rand style objectivist myself...now there's a self-contradiction!).
johniam: "ANYTHING that tries to forcibly tell you what's right and what's wrong is religion"
________
Man, I don't get this at all. When did Jesus forcibly tell me what is right & wrong? He simply told me. Nothing forcible about it. I'm missing something, right.
Read what I said again. I didn't say the majority, I said most popular view. ... Which upon 2nd reading, admittedly should have been noted as 'largest' for better clarity perhaps.
Is it communism itself that mandates non-theism, or the specific dictatorships themselves that dictate this? Remember, we're talking about an economic system here, AND one that hasn't really been put into place by any of the so-called communist countries. Ie., they were largely dictatorships with the communist label attached, true communism never having been achieved (nor will it). You know, where all the workers owning all the means of production and all? That never happened nor a lot of other pipe dreams that Marx had.
But clearly what I said about the majority of atheists being of a non-communist mindset remains true, as being an atheist has nothing to do with one's economic or even political viewpoint.
As an aside, your point about China is an interesting one, and one that is often lost upon this current administration, particularly re: the business community doing business there. BUT, I'll leave that issue for the political section. ;)-->
quote: I do not see a "politically correct" monument erected where the 10 Commandments used to be, but given the crap we are being fed by the liberals, and their insatiable desire to have everything their way, and "damn the torpedoes" -- it would not surprise me one bit, if it came to pass.
Couple years or so ago I started a thread called 'the 10 platitudes'. This was independent of any prior or subsequent court rulings. What it was was...in the elementary school that 2 of my children attended at the time there were words in 3 foot tall letters all over the walls of the school. Can't even remember them exactly. Words like 'citizenship' 'responsibility', etc. All perfectly good concepts, but no power there.
Evan, to answer your comment, THOU SHALT NOT KILL is forcible; 'citizenship' is not. There's a God, a real live God behind THOU SHALT NOT KILL. Only a dictionary behind citizenship and those other words.
This is an attempt to replace (water down) the 10 commandments with political correctness. If the commandments should be out of govt buildings, then those hollow words that no elementary school student can even spell should be off those walls.
I have never heard of Ayn Rand. I have no problem with people being atheists or agnostics because everyone is entitled to their own views and beliefs or rather non-beliefs.
My problem was that Soviet communism at least did officially endorse atheism and spread that through their satellite countries - the only notable example where they failed to make headway being Catholic Poland.
Atheism or belief may well have an effect upon political viewpoints - there have been Christian Socialists for example, but whereas it is not automatic with Communism certainly the Soviet example of atheistic communism was widely followed and practiced.
I never implied that all atheists were communists by any means. The Russian Orthodox church was veriy heavily persecuted and other groupings even more so.
Would you all who support removal of the ten commandments from public display have a different opinion if they were on display with other sources of law? (such as the magna carta, constitution, scales (representing justice), etc...in other words, acknowledging a historical connection between the ten commandments, along with other precursors, in forming the modern body of law?
I'm just curious if the argument is with their excultation or even their presence in/ on a public builidng at all?
If displayed along with other sources of law as an illustration of the highpoints of law and government through history, then no, I wouldn't mind at all.
Let me show you a related illustration. When I was in high school, I took a 'Bible Literature' class, and it illustrated the Bible from a historical/literary viewpoint. Classes like that I had/have no problem with as they aren't perpetrating any particular religious dogma or are even trying to argue the case for God in general. Classes/activities that try to 'bring people back to God' or try to encourage/'inspire' people to acknowledge God, however, are different, and the government should not be involved with them, be they in the public school, or within the 'halls of government'. Roy Moore was clearly an example of a clear violation of this.
You get a clearer picture of where some of us are coming from?
Garth: All I said was that having the 10 commandments in a building doesn't endorse religion.
Not true. The first commandment names God. The second forbids the worship of graven images. The third forbids the taking of Yahweh's name in vain. The fourth establishes the holiness of the Sabbath. None of these commandments is remotely secular; posting them is an explicit acknowledgement of the God of Judaism (and, according to their creeds, Christianity and Islam). Government does not have the right to post these. We do. Is it in your living room yet?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
12
10
9
6
Popular Days
Oct 16
12
Oct 17
10
Oct 12
9
Oct 14
6
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 12 posts
GarthP2000 10 posts
johniam 9 posts
Trefor Heywood 6 posts
Popular Days
Oct 16 2004
12 posts
Oct 17 2004
10 posts
Oct 12 2004
9 posts
Oct 14 2004
6 posts
johniam
Garth:
quote: Only if you campaign for Kerry. And get yourself a "Vote For Hillary in 2008" sticker.
The only positive thing about Kerry winning the upcoming election is that it would knock Hillary out of contention in '08. Do you think Kerry is just the 'set up' reliever?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yes, but there is a big distinction here that, on previous threads (not this one) you are failing to grasp:
Non-mention of a religion is not an endorsement of another religion.
The fact that the Ten Commandments are removed from a courthouse should not be read as a victory for atheism. Erecting a monument that says "There is no God" would be a victory for atheism. And should such a monument be erected, I hope those on my side of this argument would have the intestinal fortitude and integrity to call it for what it is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Regarding any government statement to the effect that "there is no God," I'd be up in arms (possibly literally, if necessary) against it in a heartbeat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
There have been societies (mainly communist) who tried to force non belief upon people - it didn't work and forced atheism failed completely.
I don't think there is much danger of that kind of thing happening in the US. Politicians look for votes from religious folk!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Raf,
Like Long Gone, I too would be against litigated non-belief just as much as litigated belief.
Trefor,
Re: these societies who force non-belief on people, there has been/is a gross misrepresentation often believed by many people that atheism = (or is related to) communism. That is (as you can probably see) a fallacy. For one thing, some of the leaders in the Soviet Union were themselves members of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Also, the 'religion is an opiate of the people' argument put forth by Marx was simply incidental to the Communist doctrine, as Communism dealt with economics and the control of wealth, and not with whether or not there was a god; the concept of god being a non-issue to the ownership of wealth and property related to 'the workers of the world'.
Ie., atheism has a lot less to do with communism than many people might think, even if there are many communists who are atheists. It would be like saying because there are communists in England, that England is related to the communist cause.
And like the forced atheism has failed completely, so will any attempts (and yes Virginia, there are still various, yet disguised attempts) to force religion on people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Long gone: There's a difference between laws and forcible right and wrong. Religions are laws of the heart whereas the laws you refer to are laws of practice.
For instance, I could be unscrupulous and law abiding at the same time. If I don't actually kill someone, I can't be arrested no matter how much I believed any individual really deserved to be killed.
For that matter, having the 10 commandments in a govt building isn't going to guarantee their being practiced any more than if they were in a church. They're just written words. I don't mind having them in a govt building as a symbol of the desire for justice even though I know perfect justice can't happen in an imperfect world.
So symbols don't matter anymore, eh? OK take off your wedding rings and send them to me so I can urinate on them and send them back to you. Whaaaaat? It's "just a symbol". Name a better symbol for justice and uprightness than the 10 commandments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Garth:
quote: I too would be against litigated non-belief just as much as litigated belief.
So you think having the 10 commandments in a govt building is litigated belief? Not if it's not written in the laws.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Johniam,
You make it difficult to be tolerant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Raf: During Reagan's funeral days it was brought up that he believed that God put him in the presidency for a purpose. This HAD to affect decisions he made as President. Does this mean to you that his presidency was now flawed?
Just how do we separate a person from their governing values?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Well - hmmm! -- I have to agree with this, all the way. Not trying to propagate a "dooms-day" scenario here, but as "values, morals, or whatever" are diminishing daily, it seems that something else rises to take it's place. I am not saying that the pro -"whomever" will be erecting monuments in place of those they have forced to be removed, but it would not surprise me in the least, should that happen.
Our society is under attack. The moral code that we have lived by for so long is being castigated, the things we thought harmless, are now an issue because of semantics, and though I doubt it will happen --- I would not be surprised if some sort of statue, monument, or memorial would be set up in the spot forcibly vacated by a group about some monument, such as the 10 commandments.
Once you are on the road headed downward, it's pretty hard to stop. I am now in agreement that the 10 Commandments should not be placed on the City of Duluth, Minnesota's property -- but by the same token -- the "progressive group" that enacted it's removal, is not exempt from suspicion that they will try to erect a "politically correct" monument on the same spot.
The "bottom-feeders" are trying to move up. Given the sentiments of today's society, they just might make it.
:(-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
dmiller:
Can you provide an example of what a "politically correct" monument might be?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Actually, no I cannot. I guess I am equating this situation to others I see happening, and am just figuring that this will end up like so many others. Let's just say I am speaking hypothetically, since the trend towards "change", inevitably spirals downward (imo).
Take the laws about porn. They get relaxed. Next thing you know, child porn is in there, and being touted as "just as right", as adult porn.
Take the laws about felons denied the right to vote, yet these days -- they are being defended by some as "their vote is being overlooked".
When "absolutes" are removed from our society, incongruous substitutes take their place. Sorry to say it, but it is true. It has happened time and again, over the course of the years, and recently -- has been manifested in the removal of the 10 Commandments monuments, perhaps not on the property in question, but certainly in the thought processes of those affected.
I do not know for a fact that some other monument will be erected in the place that the 10 Commandments used to occupy, but given the fact that the "downward spiral" of "political expediency" seems to usually have something to fill the void, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some sort of "politically correct" monument would be found to be placed on the grounds -- if for no other reason than to say --"We told you so, an now we are rubbing your nose in it."
My political views are (or should be), known by all who come to GreaseSpot, and I have no love for the liberal viewpoint. I will fight to the death to defend that right to express an opinion, but I don't have to agree with the opinion. Nor do I agree with those that are (these days) taking sledge hammers, and wielding them at the foundation of what I consider to be us -- ie. -- read U.S.
I do not see a "politically correct" monument erected where the 10 Commandments used to be, but given the crap we are being fed by the liberals, and their insatiable desire to have everything their way, and "damn the torpedoes" -- it would not surprise me one bit, if it came to pass.
God Help America!!
:(-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Garth:
How many other countries had "museums of atheism" often in former church buildings. How many other coutnries imprisoned and persecuted people simply for practicing their faith or for smuggling bibles in?
Marx saw it as incidental I have no doubt but others after him were more vehement. The fact that they might have been a "member" as a child has nothing to do with it - Stalin was even once a candidate for the Orthodox priesthood!
Religion and belief was seen as the enemy because it was antithetical to the pursuit of an earthly paradise (cough) and pointing to a higher power than the party and the leadership.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Trefor,
How many non-communist leaders (dictators) have that same attitude regarding the antithesis of the earthly paradise (Hitler said that his 3rd Reich would last a thousand years), and the pointing to a higher power than their own party and leadership. Hell, there are those who would equally lay that charge to a good number of 'godly' ((COUGH)), 'anti-communist' American leaders, both Republican and Democrat.
(Besides, the pursuit of an earthly paradise and not believing in a higher power in and of itself (didn't want you to miss that), isn't something that automatically leads to communism, or any other brand of freedom-denying dictatorship. Carl Sagan is one such classic example an individual who had this similar point of view, yet I don't think that you would shut your brain off that much and make that 'commie' charge regarding him, hmmm?)
All of this isn't specific or particular to communism, my good man. Communist countries like Russia (Soviet Union) really went gangbusters on this (especially under Stalin), but to paint this as a communist = atheist tinge is to ignore the millions of atheists over the years who 'don't have one Marxist bone in their body' as it were.
Want a clear-cut example of this? I don't know what kind of political mindset atheists have in yours or other countries (altho' I would be willing to bet even money that it would be very similar to here in the States), but here in the U.S., atheists run the whole gamut, the whole range of political views, left to right wing. And while there is no one dominant political/economic view among them, the most popular view among atheists is Ayn Rand Objectivism/Libertarianism. I don't know how familiar you are with Libertarianism or Ayn Rand, but one thing for sure. I wouldn't lay the 'communist' charge at their feet at any Libertarian/Objectivist gathering. Not if you don't like near lynch mobs.
(I've gotten this information from actually talking to/reading directly about/getting to know actual atheists and like sources, instead of goosestepp-err simply following what the *Official Orthodox* Church says about atheists. Kinda like actually talking to/getting to know homosexuals themselves instead of listening to what Jerry Falwell says about them, hmmmm?)
There is a saying among atheists that "trying to organize atheists is like trying to heard cats", Yet Another example that these un-believers aren't so monolithically in lockstep with one (read communist/one world takeover-leaning) world view.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Johniam,
Really? So-o-o, where does it say in the Constitution or in the laws that "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve", hmmm? Where in these 10 Commandment-based laws you keep referring to, is it (or should be) legislated that you should not set up idols to another god?
And as per the other laws that says that you shouldn't kill, steal, give false witness, etc., laws like that have been in place in many other countries long before Moses was a gleam in his daddy's eye. (Hammurabi's laws for example) And have no bearing on the Judeao-Christian faith.
But the 10 Commandments themselves are specific to the Judeao-Christian faith. The fact that the first 4 laws deal with worship and faithfulness to God seals that fact.
Come on man. You can do better than that, can't you?
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Garth, in you eagerness to make your valid point (the wide sweep of persuasions held by that non-monolithic group known as athiest) I fear you do damage to fact...that is that communism mandates non-theism, as Trefor points out. Not that it has worked out that way strictly, but it sure has in the majority sense. Cathilicism is tolerated in Cuba,f'rinstance, but China still actively persecutes their religionists.
I have a hard time b'leeving that the majority of athiests here are Ayn Rand style objectivists. (I was, for a time, a Christian Ayn Rand style objectivist myself...now there's a self-contradiction!).
johniam: "ANYTHING that tries to forcibly tell you what's right and what's wrong is religion"
________
Man, I don't get this at all. When did Jesus forcibly tell me what is right & wrong? He simply told me. Nothing forcible about it. I'm missing something, right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Evan,
Read what I said again. I didn't say the majority, I said most popular view. ... Which upon 2nd reading, admittedly should have been noted as 'largest' for better clarity perhaps.
Is it communism itself that mandates non-theism, or the specific dictatorships themselves that dictate this? Remember, we're talking about an economic system here, AND one that hasn't really been put into place by any of the so-called communist countries. Ie., they were largely dictatorships with the communist label attached, true communism never having been achieved (nor will it). You know, where all the workers owning all the means of production and all? That never happened nor a lot of other pipe dreams that Marx had.
But clearly what I said about the majority of atheists being of a non-communist mindset remains true, as being an atheist has nothing to do with one's economic or even political viewpoint.
As an aside, your point about China is an interesting one, and one that is often lost upon this current administration, particularly re: the business community doing business there. BUT, I'll leave that issue for the political section.
;)-->
Anyway, back to the 10 Commandments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Garth: All I said was that having the 10 commandments in a building doesn't endorse religion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
D miller:
quote: I do not see a "politically correct" monument erected where the 10 Commandments used to be, but given the crap we are being fed by the liberals, and their insatiable desire to have everything their way, and "damn the torpedoes" -- it would not surprise me one bit, if it came to pass.
Couple years or so ago I started a thread called 'the 10 platitudes'. This was independent of any prior or subsequent court rulings. What it was was...in the elementary school that 2 of my children attended at the time there were words in 3 foot tall letters all over the walls of the school. Can't even remember them exactly. Words like 'citizenship' 'responsibility', etc. All perfectly good concepts, but no power there.
Evan, to answer your comment, THOU SHALT NOT KILL is forcible; 'citizenship' is not. There's a God, a real live God behind THOU SHALT NOT KILL. Only a dictionary behind citizenship and those other words.
This is an attempt to replace (water down) the 10 commandments with political correctness. If the commandments should be out of govt buildings, then those hollow words that no elementary school student can even spell should be off those walls.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Garth
I have never heard of Ayn Rand. I have no problem with people being atheists or agnostics because everyone is entitled to their own views and beliefs or rather non-beliefs.
My problem was that Soviet communism at least did officially endorse atheism and spread that through their satellite countries - the only notable example where they failed to make headway being Catholic Poland.
Atheism or belief may well have an effect upon political viewpoints - there have been Christian Socialists for example, but whereas it is not automatic with Communism certainly the Soviet example of atheistic communism was widely followed and practiced.
I never implied that all atheists were communists by any means. The Russian Orthodox church was veriy heavily persecuted and other groupings even more so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Would you all who support removal of the ten commandments from public display have a different opinion if they were on display with other sources of law? (such as the magna carta, constitution, scales (representing justice), etc...in other words, acknowledging a historical connection between the ten commandments, along with other precursors, in forming the modern body of law?
I'm just curious if the argument is with their excultation or even their presence in/ on a public builidng at all?
Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Mark,
If displayed along with other sources of law as an illustration of the highpoints of law and government through history, then no, I wouldn't mind at all.
Let me show you a related illustration. When I was in high school, I took a 'Bible Literature' class, and it illustrated the Bible from a historical/literary viewpoint. Classes like that I had/have no problem with as they aren't perpetrating any particular religious dogma or are even trying to argue the case for God in general. Classes/activities that try to 'bring people back to God' or try to encourage/'inspire' people to acknowledge God, however, are different, and the government should not be involved with them, be they in the public school, or within the 'halls of government'. Roy Moore was clearly an example of a clear violation of this.
You get a clearer picture of where some of us are coming from?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Not true. The first commandment names God. The second forbids the worship of graven images. The third forbids the taking of Yahweh's name in vain. The fourth establishes the holiness of the Sabbath. None of these commandments is remotely secular; posting them is an explicit acknowledgement of the God of Judaism (and, according to their creeds, Christianity and Islam). Government does not have the right to post these. We do. Is it in your living room yet?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.