White House Plugs 10 Commandments Displays

[zimv20]

link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=1&u=/ap/20041209/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_ten_commandments)


WASHINGTON - The Bush administration on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to allow Ten Commandments displays on government property, adding a federal view on a major church-state case that justices will deal with early next year.

The government has weighed in before in religion cases at the high court, including one earlier this year that challenged the words "under God" in the classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

The government supported a California school district in that case. Now, it is backing two Kentucky counties that had framed copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses.

The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) sued McCreary and Pulaski counties, claiming the displays were an unconstitutional promotion of religion. The group won.

Justices will hear arguments, probably in February, in the counties' appeal and in a second case involving a Texas homeless man who wants a 6-foot granite monument removed from the state Capitol grounds.

The administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, Paul Clement, told justices in Wednesday's filing that Ten Commandments displays are common around the nation — and in the court's own building, the Capitol and national monuments.

"Reproductions and representations of the Ten Commandments have been commonly employed across the country to symbolize both the rule of law itself, as well as the role of religion in the development of American law," Clement wrote.

Clement said the displays are important in educating people "about the nation's history and celebrating its heritage."

The Supreme Court banned the posting of Ten Commandments in public schools in 1980.

(more)

[skunk]

Clement said the displays are important in educating people "about the nation's history and celebrating its heritage."

Many Native Americans might disagree.

[pseudobrit]

Many Native Americans might disagree.

That's why we used genocide.

[Thomas Veil]

Heard something interesting on the radio today.

I was listening in the car, and when I turned it on, it was tuned in to one of those religious stations my wife likes. The host was talking about how, throughout history, governments have established state religions to "protect themselves" from the tyranny of non-believers...and how the church-state separation we enjoy in the U.S. was an "attack" on that "tradition".

I damn near drove off the road.

[skunk]

Get a CD player. ;)

[IJ Reilly]

Or a divorce. :eek:

[skunk]

Or a divorce. :eek:
Steady as she goes, IJ! Dangerous territory... :cool:

[mactastic]

Completely OT, but I feel like such a Toole now, having finally realized where IJ gets his screen name from. It has been a LONG time since I read that book, but I knew I knew that reference. It's been bugging me for a long time now. :cool:

[blackfox]

For the Irony inspectors:

Have not these commandments been broken by the Administration?

- Thou shall not kill (I know the Church has made an exception for War death [however dubious]. I am not aware of their stance on Capital Punishment [which Bush loved in Texas].)

- Thou shall not steal

- Thou shall not bear false witness

- Thou shalt not cover your neigbors' goods

- Thou shall not worship graven images (ie Nationalism [flag etc] Capitalism [dollars].)

Perhaps we are planning to add an eleventh: "Do as I say, not as I do."

Carry on...

[IJ Reilly]

Completely OT, but I feel like such a Toole now, having finally realized where IJ gets his screen name from. It has been a LONG time since I read that book, but I knew I knew that reference. It's been bugging me for a long time now. :cool:

Welcome to the confederacy! (Anyone else dying to know need only follow my homepage link.)

[IJ Reilly]

Steady as she goes, IJ! Dangerous territory... :cool:

I am a man who laughs in the face of danger (and at other inappropriate moments).

[Thomas Veil]

Or a divorce. :eek:
Nah. She has a stronger faith than I do, so she listens to more of that stuff. But she has a good b.s. detector too. Usually her views are just as liberal as mine. That's one of many reasons I love her so much.

[skunk]

Aaaahh! Bless! :D

[IJ Reilly]

Nah. She has a stronger faith than I do, so she listens to more of that stuff. But she has a good b.s. detector too. Usually her views are just as liberal as mine. That's one of many reasons I love her so much.

Glad to hear it, but it must make listening to those radio stations pretty hard to take. I mean, every time I hear one, it's pretty much nonstop right wing political blather mixed in with quasi-religion.

[Chip NoVaMac]

link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=1&u=/ap/20041209/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_ten_commandments)

The Founding Fathers must be twirling in their graves over Bush and his fellow evangelical Republicans.

I can't help but to feel that if the could put African-Americans to the "back of the bus" they would.

[themadchemist]

Many Native Americans might disagree.

As might Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Many Native Americans might disagree.

And what about our "darker side" of our history? The use of Chinese "slave labor" to build our railroads, the interment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, the fact of the immigration of many religions in to the US over our history?

Much of the news of late makes me think the RNC to be racist and bigoted (along with those in the DNC that support the RNC and their agenda). Unless you are rich and white (or at least rich - they are willing to look past race if you have the money IMO), you need not apply to "their" AmeriKa (spelling intentional).

[kuyu]

I'm not too far from Pulaski county. The thing everyone doesn't understand about these places is that, as you drive through the county, 9/10 houses have the ten commandments in their front yard.

I'm not advocating that the commandments be posted on government buildings, but the citizens of these towns feel violated by this. Imagine, you live in a small Kentucky town. Everyone you know goes to one of 3 churches. Everyone goes to church. You know everyone. A lawyer from New York who's never been to your town, knows nobody in your town, and could care less about your town sues your town for pushing your religion on people. What are these people supposed to think? That they don't have the right to make their own decisions?

I know there is separation of church and state, but isn't it weird that the people in the county are all for the postings, yet they are told what they may or may not do by an ACLU lawyer who lives 1000 miles away? What about their civil liberty to freedom of speech? Has any ruling handed down by said court been swayed by a document hanging on a wall in the foyer?

How about this: If the ten commandments offend you, look the other way! If nudity/vulgarity offend you, don't watch/listen to it! If the nativity offends you, look the other way! If the star of David offends you, look the other way! If a prayer rug..... The ACLU has become the Anit-Christian Lawyers Union. I'm not a christian, by the way.

[IJ Reilly]

First of all, it isn't an ACLU lawyer who sues. They sue on behalf of someone locally who's got standing in the case. Second, the Constitution and Bill of Rights apply equally to everyone everywhere in the country. Local governments don't get to set it aside whenever they like just because a majority of their constituents don't support one of its provisions. What kind of Constitution would it be if that were allowed? Finally, it isn't about "offense," it's about the rule of law. Either we've got it or we don't. But didn't I hear that line at least once a day during the Clinton impeachment?

[pseudobrit]

I'm not advocating that the commandments be posted on government buildings, but the citizens of these towns feel violated by this.

Too bad. It's not our fault they don't understand the importance of and Constitutional mandate for separation of Church and State.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I'm not too far from Pulaski county. The thing everyone doesn't understand about these places is that, as you drive through the county, 9/10 houses have the ten commandments in their front yard.

I'm not advocating that the commandments be posted on government buildings, but the citizens of these towns feel violated by this. Imagine, you live in a small Kentucky town. Everyone you know goes to one of 3 churches. Everyone goes to church. You know everyone. A lawyer from New York who's never been to your town, knows nobody in your town, and could care less about your town sues your town for pushing your religion on people. What are these people supposed to think? That they don't have the right to make their own decisions?

I know there is separation of church and state, but isn't it weird that the people in the county are all for the postings, yet they are told what they may or may not do by an ACLU lawyer who lives 1000 miles away? What about their civil liberty to freedom of speech? Has any ruling handed down by said court been swayed by a document hanging on a wall in the foyer?

How about this: If the ten commandments offend you, look the other way! If nudity/vulgarity offend you, don't watch/listen to it! If the nativity offends you, look the other way! If the star of David offends you, look the other way! If a prayer rug..... The ACLU has become the Anit-Christian Lawyers Union. I'm not a christian, by the way.

It truly becomes a matter of religious freedom verses the freedom from religion. I accept that we are a nation "based" on Christian values. Though the Deist's.

As we have as a nation welcomed those that believe different from the rest of us, should we not be tolerant of different views?

I am seeing more and more that if you are not a WASP, then you need not apply in the US.

[themadchemist]

I'm not too far from Pulaski county. The thing everyone doesn't understand about these places is that, as you drive through the county, 9/10 houses have the ten commandments in their front yard.

I'm not advocating that the commandments be posted on government buildings, but the citizens of these towns feel violated by this. Imagine, you live in a small Kentucky town. Everyone you know goes to one of 3 churches. Everyone goes to church. You know everyone. A lawyer from New York who's never been to your town, knows nobody in your town, and could care less about your town sues your town for pushing your religion on people. What are these people supposed to think? That they don't have the right to make their own decisions?

I know there is separation of church and state, but isn't it weird that the people in the county are all for the postings, yet they are told what they may or may not do by an ACLU lawyer who lives 1000 miles away? What about their civil liberty to freedom of speech? Has any ruling handed down by said court been swayed by a document hanging on a wall in the foyer?

How about this: If the ten commandments offend you, look the other way! If nudity/vulgarity offend you, don't watch/listen to it! If the nativity offends you, look the other way! If the star of David offends you, look the other way! If a prayer rug..... The ACLU has become the Anit-Christian Lawyers Union. I'm not a christian, by the way.

The government should not be the purveyor of that which violates a person's rights. If anywhere in the country the government endorses a religion, it is preferential treatment that violates the rights of those who do not ascribe to that religion.

One of the purposes of the law is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The argument that most people or almost all people like something does not, then, justify the violation of the rights of a few people or almost none.

[chanoc]

Nuff said:

http://www.heresyhouse.com/desktops/madison1-800x600.jpg

[kuyu]

I had a long discussion with my brother on this issue last night. He disagrees with me on this, but I did come up with a good piece of logic.

The separation of church and state is founded in the idea that the state may not give it's endorsement of one particular religion over anyother. Thus, a public school or courthouse cannot, as a representative body of the government as a whole, post the documents of one religion while prohibiting the display of other religious documents. This would be, in effect, a government endorsement of one religion. However, based on this premise, the ten commandments being displayed on a public building does not violate the separation principle so long as another religious groups' documents are allowed to be displayed.

So, if a courthouse or school allows the ten commandments but refuses to allow any other religious items, then there is a problem. I'm not fully abreast in the specific cases in which the ten commandments where stricken from public view, but I can't remember hearing that the case was caused by an official's refusal to allow any other religious symbols to be posted in public view.

The separation principle is check against mandatory religion imposed by a governing body. However, simply having one religious symbol in public view is not mandatory religious impostion until another religion is denied this same privilege.

I admit that this raises the issue of which religions shall be recognized. I could, in my example, post profane words all over a school and call it religion. Therefore, where is line drawn between religion and graffiti? I don't know the answer to this question. However, under the guise of the separation principle, couldn't one make a case for all greek or roman depictions of mythological scenes to be torn down at all government sites?

[Chip NoVaMac]

I had a long discussion with my brother on this issue last night. He disagrees with me on this, but I did come up with a good piece of logic.

The separation of church and state is founded in the idea that the state may not give it's endorsement of one particular religion over anyother. Thus, a public school or courthouse cannot, as a representative body of the government as a whole, post the documents of one religion while prohibiting the display of other religious documents. This would be, in effect, a government endorsement of one religion. However, based on this premise, the ten commandments being displayed on a public building does not violate the separation principle so long as another religious groups' documents are allowed to be displayed.

So, if a courthouse or school allows the ten commandments but refuses to allow any other religious items, then there is a problem. I'm not fully abreast in the specific cases in which the ten commandments where stricken from public view, but I can't remember hearing that the case was caused by an official's refusal to allow any other religious symbols to be posted in public view.

The separation principle is check against mandatory religion imposed by a governing body. However, simply having one religious symbol in public view is not mandatory religious impostion until another religion is denied this same privilege.

I admit that this raises the issue of which religions shall be recognized. I could, in my example, post profane words all over a school and call it religion. Therefore, where is line drawn between religion and graffiti? I don't know the answer to this question. However, under the guise of the separation principle, couldn't one make a case for all greek or roman depictions of mythological scenes to be torn down at all government sites?

the issue today is one of how do we define "religious principles". IMO I see Bush and others trying to define the "debate" according to their "Christian" values. By doing so they are trying to establish a "national" religion.

We as a nation have moved past the stage of of "Christianity", but a nation of many "beliefs". This does open the debate on the values of one verses the other. For who is to judge precepts that allow multiple wives or sacrifice of animals (humans are a whole another topic IMO).

Remember that "under God" was added during the Cold War to our pledge of allegiance. This was during a time in our history that we did not have the diversity of cultures.

[IJ Reilly]

Thus, a public school or courthouse cannot, as a representative body of the government as a whole, post the documents of one religion while prohibiting the display of other religious documents.

Certainly not, but this isn't really the issue. The courts have long allowed religious displays on public property, provided they are privately initiated and financed. It apparently helps if they are temporary in nature, so that maintenance issues don't come into play.

[skunk]

However, based on this premise, the ten commandments being displayed on a public building does not violate the separation principle so long as another religious groups' documents are allowed to be displayed.
Has anybody actually read the Ten Commandments lately? If I remember correctly, rule number one is:
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me". There's problem number one, too. Rather exclusive, wouldn't you agree? Not much room for compromise there, I feel.

[mactastic]

The separation of church and state is founded in the idea that the state may not give it's endorsement of one particular religion over anyother. Thus, a public school or courthouse cannot, as a representative body of the government as a whole, post the documents of one religion while prohibiting the display of other religious documents. This would be, in effect, a government endorsement of one religion. However, based on this premise, the ten commandments being displayed on a public building does not violate the separation principle so long as another religious groups' documents are allowed to be displayed.

Not quite. It's fair only if you post EVERYONE else's religious documents. It's an all or nothing kind of thing, which to me means nothing is far easier than all of them.

So, if a courthouse or school allows the ten commandments but refuses to allow any other religious items, then there is a problem. I'm not fully abreast in the specific cases in which the ten commandments where stricken from public view, but I can't remember hearing that the case was caused by an official's refusal to allow any other religious symbols to be posted in public view.

If they allow the ten commandments but refuse to allow the Satanists version there is a constitutional problem. I don't want to see the Satanists religious documents, so I assume they don't really want to see mine. Easiest way is to not have any of them. Then no government value judgement has to be made on religion.

The separation principle is check against mandatory religion imposed by a governing body. However, simply having one religious symbol in public view is not mandatory religious impostion until another religion is denied this same privilege.

I admit that this raises the issue of which religions shall be recognized. I could, in my example, post profane words all over a school and call it religion. Therefore, where is line drawn between religion and graffiti? I don't know the answer to this question. However, under the guise of the separation principle, couldn't one make a case for all greek or roman depictions of mythological scenes to be torn down at all government sites?

Historical depictions of laws and lawgivers don't bother me. The commandments on a wall do. I'll worry about Greek and Roman religious iconography when I sense them trying to gain large amounts of political power.

And you raised the issue of which religions should be allowed. I submit that the government should refrain from making that decision at all. Put the commandments on church grounds, or any piece of private property the owner will allow you to. But don't put them on public buildings.

[pseudobrit]

Not quite. It's fair only if you post EVERYONE else's religious documents. It's an all or nothing kind of thing, which to me means nothing is far easier than all of them.

Right, and that means each religious display must recieve equal time, space and funding as any Judeo-Christian display. Good luck with that one, holy rollers.

[kuyu]

Yeah, it's probably easier to prohibit all religious symbols in schools or courthouses.

Still, you guys have to admit that these people who make it their life goal to keep these things up/tear them down need to get a life.

From talking to a christian guy I know (best one alive, IMO), I gathered this much: It's not so much that the commandments are taken down. But rather, it's the fact that the individual(s) who demand it are not motivated by fairness.

[mactastic]

Yeah, it's probably easier to prohibit all religious symbols in schools or courthouses.

Indeed. It just opens a can of worms I think is best left out of the state's purview.

Still, you guys have to admit that these people who make it their life goal to keep these things up/tear them down need to get a life.

Certainly. If people could be a little less insensitive on both sides there would be far less tension surrounding the issue.

From talking to a christian guy I know (best one alive, IMO), I gathered this much: It's not so much that the commandments are taken down. But rather, it's the fact that the individual(s) who demand it are not motivated by fairness.

I thought I was being fair about it. Or maybe pragmatic is a better word. But certainly not acting out of animosity towards religion.

[kuyu]

I thought I was being fair about it. Or maybe pragmatic is a better word. But certainly not out of animosity towards religion.

Oh no, not you guys. He was refering to the actual people that file lawsuits over it. Opposition is to be expected. Those who take it to the next level and sue are certainly not motivated to do so under the guise of fairness. Animosity is closer to their M.O. than equality. That's the average Christian's problem with the whole thing. They aren't being asked to remove commandments by people who respect their beliefs. They are being ordered to remove the commandments on the behalf of people who can't stand Christians.

Example: If this forum were to be asked by one individual to post PC rumors, that wouldn't be a big deal. However, if we suspected that the individual was motivated by an extreme prejudice for all things mac, we wouldn't be as cooperative. Especially if that individual single handly catalyzed a forced censorship of public macrumors under the guise of fairness.

It's not a good example, I know, but it's close enough to the current topic to form a decent parallel regarding the mindset of each side.

[zimv20]

on the behalf of people who can't stand Christians.

is that honestly your assessment of the people bringing the lawsuits? why can't they be viewed as people who believe in the separation of church and state as strongly as some believe in putting the ten commandments on public property?

[IJ Reilly]

Oh no, not you guys. He was refering to the actual people that file lawsuits over it. Opposition is to be expected. Those who take it to the next level and sue are certainly not motivated to do so under the guise of fairness. Animosity is closer to their M.O. than equality. That's the average Christian's problem with the whole thing. They aren't being asked to remove commandments by people who respect their beliefs. They are being ordered to remove the commandments on the behalf of people who can't stand Christians.

I'm sorry, that's totally ludicrous. Some people actually care about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and care enough to actively defend them, which is no small commitment. If some Christians choose to actively put themselves at odds with theses documents, then it isn't anyone else's fault if they're shown some amount of "animosity."

[pseudobrit]

Why do you think the ACLU has brought lawsuits demanding that schoolchildren be allowed to wear religious symbols? You think it's their hatred for nonreligious people?


--
This is silly.

What good does it do to be opposed to something and let it continue after simply expressing your dislike of a breach of constitutional law?

Those who are truly opposed DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. And if it takes a federal lawsuit, if you really care, you'll bring one.

What you're arguing, kuyu, is that anyone who opposes something cannot do anything about it without having hate in their hearts. I suppose this does not apply to things Christians sue for, though.

[kuyu]

Wow! Didn't expect all that...

I'm just relating the POV of the average Christian here (not one, btw).

Don't shoot the messenger. My post clearly stated that this was an opinion given to me by a Christian I know. I also clearly stated that it's probably easier to prohibit all religious symbols.

I'm only trying to promote a two sided discussion here. My views are in line with yours on this issue. This is a discussion forum, however. As such, I think it prudent to impart my first-hand experience of the other side's sentiments. I'm sorry if they seem silly or ludacris.

Wait a minute... A conservative sticking up for the minority! Never!! :eek:

[blackfox]

It has always been my understanding that the US was founded (and influenced) by Pagan morality more than Judeo-Christian morality. The Founding Fathers were certainly more interested in the Roman, Greek and Spartan examples of morality and of the contributions of those like Kant, who dealt in moral universalism (As in our unalienable rights). People like machaivelli and hobbes were looked at as examples of how best to acheive those noble ends.

The pagan values are nor Christian, but they are moral nonetheless. They are in part the values of the ancient polis, Periclean and aristotelian values; values that secure a stable political community. This is often reflected in the concept of (pagan) Virtue, written about by many Romans. It is often taken to variously mean "valor", "ability", "ingenuity", "determination", "energy" and "prowess". Virtue presupposes ambition, but not merely for personal advancement, but often for the public good. It is difficult to look at America and not see these values reflected.

The fact that these pagan values foster stability and cohesion among the populace and the government is proof, in part, of their moral nature, and more importantly of their public nature, dealing with the whole, rather than the individual, to foster the apparati for the guarantee of personal freedoms.

The Founding Fathers were also influenced heavily by Oliver Cromwell and his Roundheads, in that they feared the possibility of government being reduced to religious (or otherwise) passions, and tyranny. This potential for extremism is what led the FF to uphold the tradition of the Seperation of Church and state, as it was a moral decision, however imperfect, to foster the stability and cohesion of our society.

It should also be noted, importantly, that this pagan, public morality has often advanced private Judeo-Christian morality, both in constructing the neccessary order to give rise to freedom, and in the advancement of human-rights and equality, which are also JC ethics.

I do not understand the insistence of many Christians of a public sanctioning of their God, as it undermines the very structure of America, which gave rise to their freedoms to complain in the first place. JC morality should be a private affair, and no-one is impinging upon that, in fact, as I have noted, the public morality often advances their morality as well. It all seems to be rooted in an insecurity of sorts, or of an absolutism that is precisely the reason that it was not included in governance in the first place.

meh. FWIW.

[skunk]

Nice exposition. But the plural of apparatus is apparatus. ;)

[mactastic]

Wait a minute... A conservative sticking up for the minority! Never!! :eek:


Surely you aren't arguing that Christians, or conservatives, are in the minority?

[solvs]

Still, you guys have to admit that these people who make it their life goal to keep these things up/tear them down need to get a life.
Don't put it up, we won't have to fight to take it down.

Here's a good guideline. If you're a judge, put the 10 Commandments in your house, your car, anywhere you want... except your court. That's public property. That's where you make decisions based on the law. You can let morality help you judge, but ethics and the law rule here. If you hang the 10 Commandments, you are using your position of legal power to push your beliefs, and can (whether you mean it to or not) infringe on the beliefs of others. And that is not right no matter what your religion. Teachers, same principle.

Imagine if the Koran were on display. I don't think "Praise Allah" would go over there. As I said in another thread, "there but for the grace of God..." I don't particularly want to live in a theocracy. That whole, "how would you like it?"

And I say that as a somewhat religious person who is getting tired of the "false prophets" perverting a solid, moral, belief system (and leading astray other "true believers") to further their own agendas of hate and exclusion and, worst of all, power. True Christians (and true Republicans) should be sick at what the moral majority and the right-wing fanatics are doing to this country, and what should be the land of the freedom for all, even if your beliefs are slightly different.

[kuyu]

Conservatives seem to be in short supply here. ;)

Good thread. I'm unsubscribing, as I'm taking a much needed vacation for a couple of weeks. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all. :)

[Chip NoVaMac]

Don't put it up, we won't have to fight to take it down.

Here's a good guideline. If you're a judge, put the 10 Commandments in your house, your car, anywhere you want... except your court. That's public property. That's where you make decisions based on the law. You can let morality help you judge, but ethics and the law rule here. If you hang the 10 Commandments, you are using your position of legal power to push your beliefs, and can (whether you mean it to or not) infringe on the beliefs of others. And that is not right no matter what your religion. Teachers, same principle.

Imagine if the Koran were on display. I don't think "Praise Allah" would go over there. As I said in another thread, "there but for the grace of God..." I don't particularly want to live in a theocracy. That whole, "how would you like it?"

And I say that as a somewhat religious person who is getting tired of the "false prophets" perverting a solid, moral, belief system (and leading astray other "true believers") to further their own agendas of hate and exclusion and, worst of all, power. True Christians (and true Republicans) should be sick at what the moral majority and the right-wing fanatics are doing to this country, and what should be the land of the freedom for all, even if your beliefs are slightly different.

Well said, as well as the words from Blackfox.

What I find funny is the reversal of Republican ranks on many topics now that the elections are over. And since it seems that the American public has the attention span that of the life of a fly, they know they can say and do things one day, and swing the other the next.

[IJ Reilly]

This probably belongs in the "Christmas under attack" thread, but it applies equally here. Kuyu is essentially correct: At least some Christians thrive on feelings of persecution, as seen in this article about the movement to keep Christ in retailing:

This Season, Greetings Are at Issue

A Southern church presses store workers to say 'Merry Christmas,' not 'Happy Holidays.'

RALEIGH, N.C. — This year, as Christmas season swung into gear, Pastor Patrick Wooden's followers fanned out to shopping malls across Raleigh to deliver a muscular message of holiday cheer: As Christian shoppers, they would like to be greeted with the phrase "Merry Christmas" — not a bland "Happy Holidays" — and stores that failed to do so would risk losing their business.

...

Conservative Americans feel ready to push back against "the secularists or the humanists or the elitists" who dominate popular culture, said the Rev. Mark Creech of the Christian Action League of North Carolina, which is based in Raleigh.

"It's a cultural war. We are in the thick of it," Creech said. "It's not so much an attack on us. It's an attack on Christ."

...

Wooden, 43, considers the campaign such a success that he has already set aside money in the church budget — full-page ads cost about $7,600 — to buy a similar advertisement next year. Fresh off the fierce debate over same-sex marriage, which he opposes, he says condemnation from the left does not trouble him. On the contrary, he said: "It seems to me the greater the persecution, the stronger the church."

As far as complaints from people of other religions go, Wooden looks at it this way: An ice-cream vendor doesn't have to like every flavor he sells.

"There's one group of people who get bullied all the time, and that's Christians," he said. "I know what it is like to be bullied. It is apartheid in reverse — the majority is being bullied by the minority."

...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-season18dec18,0,6041171.story

You see, it's not enough for them to have a President who is one of their own, or a Congress deeply sympathetic to their issues and wiling to carry out much of their evangelical agenda. No, they are still persecuted -- and not a persecuted minority, mind you, but a persecuted majority! And we have to know that these feelings of persecution will be sustained for as long as "non-believers" are present anywhere in American society.

Go ahead, connect the dots.

[themadchemist]

Much has already been said, but a brief comment on the inclusion of all religions in this hypothetical display...The problem lies in principle as well as practicality.

Such a display, while it would not endorse any particular religion, would endorse religion [i]in general[i] over the alternative, atheism. This would patently infringe on the rights of atheists, a group often ignored in discussions of the establishment clause.

We must do what the Constitution intended and keep the government's nose out of religion entirely.

[Chip NoVaMac]

This probably belongs in the "Christmas under attack" thread, but it applies equally here. Kuyu is essentially correct: At least some Christians thrive on feelings of persecution, as seen in this article about the movement to keep Christ in retailing:



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-season18dec18,0,6041171.story

You see, it's not enough for them to have a President who is one of their own, or a Congress deeply sympathetic to their issues and wiling to carry out much of their evangelical agenda. No, they are still persecuted -- and not a persecuted minority, mind you, but a persecuted majority! And we have to know that these feelings of persecution will be sustained for as long as "non-believers" are present anywhere in American society.

Go ahead, connect the dots.

You know it gets to me that these "christians" don't like where the holiday has gone. But they still want to spend till they are near bankruptcy, instead of celebrating the birth of Jesus in more positive ways. Like spending all the money they would have spent on presents on feeding and clothing the poor. Or fighting for inclusion of different thoughts, than being exclusionary. For Jesus sough to include people, not exclude them out right. To spend money to prevent our troops from going overseas, rather than to remember them later. For was not Jesus for peace?

In fact in thinking about the link, and even my own words - there will be changes next year (I have already done the limited shopping that I planned on). Next year everyone on my list will get a notice of donation the ACLU, ACS, and AHA in their names. Along with a card that will say "Peace on Earth, and Goodwill Towards All Men".

[IJ Reilly]

I suppose you've noticed that this church in North Carolina is prepared to spend nearly $8,000.00 on a full-page advertisement instead of... well, what would Jesus do with that money? Instead, the question is, WWJB?

[zimv20]

Instead, the question is, WWJB?
i say $200 for some noise-cancelling headphones.

[pseudobrit]

i say $200 for some noise-cancelling headphones.

I thought maybe he'd try to buy his name back.

[skunk]

A Cuban cigar?

[pseudobrit]

A Cuban cigar?

Funny you should mention this; I'll be having a fine Cohiba tonight. I'll think of Jesus.

[patrick0brien]

I'm just relating the POV of the average Christian here (not one, btw).

-kuyu

In case you haven't unsubscribed, from the perspective of one Christian, the only thing I find disturbing about this thread it the equation of the Ten Commandments to Christianity - which is not at all accurate.

The relationship between Christianity and the commandments is not a direct one. The Ten Commandments came to Moses and the Jews. It is a part of the Christian Bible by extension only.

Blackfox dropped a good hint a few posts ago with the 'Judeo-Christian' comment.

And all don't forget, that it has been said the Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have a common thread in Abraham.

But then, this is all religion, and not known for cold factual accuracy :D

[solvs]

the only thing I find disturbing about this thread it the equation of the Ten Commandments to Christianity - which is not at all accurate.
Christians seem to be the only ones trying to force it on people. To be fair, I'm sure if another religion tried to do it, the ACLU would be trying to fight for them on behalf of freedom of religion, saying they are being persecuted.

(see, I think both sides can go too far) :p

[patrick0brien]

Christians seem to be the only ones trying to force it on people. To be fair, I'm sure if another religion tried to do it, the ACLU would be trying to fight for them on behalf of freedom of religion, saying they are being persecuted.

(see, I think both sides can go too far) :p

-solvs

Yeah, I think you're right.

But you know what? I think the core of this and even other related issues (like Osama) are symptoms of a problem that is quite different, yet is the very problem itself:

A bunch of jerkos, that are using religion as both a motivation, and shield to do bad and distasteful things. Unfortunately, it seems an age-old human story.

Gotta go, before my battery dies...

[IJ Reilly]

Christians seem to be the only ones trying to force it on people. To be fair, I'm sure if another religion tried to do it, the ACLU would be trying to fight for them on behalf of freedom of religion, saying they are being persecuted.

Why are you so sure? What evidence do you have to support this claim?

[solvs]

Why are you so sure? What evidence do you have to support this claim?
Sorry, :o I was just trying to be funny. I just think both sides go a little crazy over this. That why I posted here and the Christmas thread. To be fairer, I appreciate the ACLU, even if they can take it to far sometimes, I'd rather they bring up the issue in the first place and be there for those who feel they are treated unfairly. My feelings:

Celebrating your beliefs and attempting to include others while accepting and not infringing upon their beliefs - good.
Forcing your beliefs on others when you are in a postion of power, especially government, or not allowing others to have their beliefs - bad.

Some would call me a flip-flopper, others would say nuanced. I think it's pretty much common sense.

[solvs]

But you know what? I think the core of this and even other related issues (like Osama) are symptoms of a problem that is quite different, yet is the very problem itself:

A bunch of jerkos, that are using religion as both a motivation, and shield to do bad and distasteful things. Unfortunately, it seems an age-old human story.
Therein lies the rub. It's not the system, it's not religion itself, it's those who would pervert it to further their own agendas. And alas, we fall for it everytime.