posted
Breaking out an argument beginning in the "Backlash on Conservatives" thread...
In a discussion turning towards the persecution of religion in America, CStroman said, "You currently have a "10 commandments" issue before the supreme court as we speak (being argued in a room with a mural of Moses and the 10 commandments facing the judges themselves no less)."
I responded with an extensive description of all the historical lawgivers depicted in the halls of the Supreme Court in an attempt to show that Moses was there in context with some of the many other sources of our present legal system.
The last post from CStroman was:
quote:And the pledge, motto, etc. are not thus no problem.
"God" is an ambiguous term. It could be Allah, Jehovah, Yourself if you are Atheist, Krishna, whatever you consider to be the "supreme being" of your life, that's "God".
And all you proved was that Religious Iconography in the context of "Historical Representation" is acceptable.
So are you fighting to have the small "Cross" put back on the California State Flag?
Somehow I doubt it.
Didn't want to distract that thread since I don't consider this a specifically "conservative" issue, and because this way people tired of this argument can skip it more easily.
So...
Yes, I am very bothered by both the motto and the Pledge of Allegiance. I feel they were both changed during a period of hysteria in America when our leaders felt we needed to prove we weren't like the godless commies.
Our first motto, declared in 1776, was "E Pluribus Unum," which means "Out of many, one." This fits our country perfectly, I think. It doesn't pretend that different opinions don't exist in the United States, but it does capture the unity we feel (or try to feel.) In 1956 we adopted "In God We Trust" as an additional motto, although it's the one most Americans would say if asked. And yep, I disagree with it. I do not trust in God. I don't expect those around me to do so. Claiming "god" is a generic term denies the atmosphere that surrounded the motto's adoption and the vehemence with which Christians defend it.
The Pledge of Allegiance lasted 62 years without a reference to God of any sort. "Under God" was added in 1954. I disagree with this one as well. Before the change, every American could say the Pledge without omission and mean it. After 1954, if you did not believe in God you had to stay silent or leave words out of the Pledge, and I don't think that's right, just, or fair.
I have no plans to go through government and excise every religious mention. I would fight tirelessly to prevent any changes to the wording of the Declaration of Independence, for example, because I venerate the historical document too much to quibble. Nonbelievers can choose to affirm rather than swear in court, and that's fine.
I would not even fight to change the motto or Pledge, because I think at this point the legal battle would cause more damage to our society on several levels than if we just left them there. I'd like to think that someday they'll be removed by calm, slightly amused, slightly embarrassed voters but I'm not holding my breath.
But the motto and the Pledge were once equally applicable to all Americans, and then they were changed to exclude nonbelievers. My plea is not to remove God from them but to restore them to their previous all-inclusive status.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For discussion also here is the "cross" on the Seal of Los Angeles that appears on the flag as well. I'd be interested in knowing if after reading the descriptions non-religious people have objections to it being on there. It's in the same box as the Hollywood Bowl amplitheater, and two stars symbolizing the movie community.
posted
Yeah, I'm not troubled by that cross. I am troubled by the Pledge and the national motto, for the reasons outlined, and think Chad's argument that they're actually "non-religious" is highly spurious.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you are saying that because "God" means something definable to "Christians/Jews" and did to those who put it in, it should be removed?
Should we use historical context to decide what the definition of say the Ammendment that the court has defined as "Church/State separation" to be wrong because when the Ammendment was added, some religious intermixing/mingling with constitutionally acceptable.
Should those intermixing still be acceptable because historically they were?
Also, the term "God" is ambiguous as best. What it means to me will be different from what it means to a Jew as it will be different from what it means to a Muslim, to a Zoroastrian, to a Krishna worshipper as it will to a Buddhist or an Atheist or a secular scientist who believes "science" is God or the "Supreme Being".
The "pick and choose" of historically it wasn't there so it shouldn't be now, but this other thing was part of the government then as well, and I want it kept, is a hard arguement to make and defend.
I don't believe Atheism has any right having it's views represented in government any more than I believe Religion should equally as well.
That is not the case.
Just my two cents.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got no problems with the L.A. Seal. It's listed as one of many elements of their society, which is true.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe it was added to the flag originally as a Historical Symbol representing the Historic Spanish Missions of the south.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The "pick and choose" of historically it wasn't there so it shouldn't be now, but this other thing was part of the government then as well, and I want it kept, is a hard arguement to make and defend."
My argument, which may have been lost in the lengthy post, was this: The previous versions applied to all Americans. The newer versions do not. I do not feel this is right.
Telling me that the words can mean whatever I like doesn't address the issue that exclusionary phrases were introduced and that wishing they were gone does not mean I'm attacking religion.
[ November 03, 2004, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And it's not a matter of it "not being a problem" it's already been removed officially due to a Lawsuit decrying the sacriledge of defying Ammendment 2.
It's already gone but in memory and history.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't believe Atheism has any right having it's views represented in government any more than I believe Religion should equally as well.
I love this argument.
Its so sly.
Since atheism has no views, no symbols, no thing that names it, the absence of anything religious is considered proof of atheism.
Its like arguing that since there is no green in the American Flag, it is unfairly biased against the Green Party.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, the term "God" is ambiguous as best. What it means to me will be different from what it means to a Jew as it will be different from what it means to a Muslim, to a Zoroastrian, to a Krishna worshipper as it will to a Buddhist or an Atheist or a secular scientist who believes "science" is God or the "Supreme Being".
I have a few questions for you Chad. Do you know very many Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Krishna-worshippers, Buddhists, atheists, and secular scientists? If so, have you queried them on what the term "God" means to them? In your mind, is there a difference between the words "God" and "god"?
The reasons I'm asking these questions is because it sounds like you are trying to characterize the beliefs of others without any actual data on the matter. I don't know whether or not this is actually the case, it just sounds that way to me. If I'm wrong, let me know.
Most, if not all, of the atheists, Buddhists, secular scientists/engineers, and Muslims that I have ever talked to about the matter believe that the word "God" with a capital G specifically refers to the Judeo-Christian deity. For that matter, so do most of the Jews and Christians I've talked to about it. The uncapitalized word "god" is a different matter entirely, but, again, most, if not all, of the people I've talked to about this make a distinction between the two words.
[Edit: By the way, I haven't had any opportunity to discuss this with Krishna-worshippers or Zoroastrians, so as far as I know your characterization of what "God" means to them may very well be correct.]
quote: So you are saying that because "God" means something definable to "Christians/Jews" and did to those who put it in, it should be removed?
That's almost right. "God" in the context of "under God" meant something definable to the people who added it, and was intended to send a clear and exclusionary signal to people who didn't mean the same thing by the word "god," or who wouldn't want to use the word "god" at all.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mentioning something religious or the government's relationship with somethign religious is in no way an official endorsement of any religion. The commandments in a courtroom, "Under God" in the pledge, and a cross on a flag are gestures that don't harm anyone and don't force anyone to hold any religious views. They each recognize the role of religion in our society, but seeing as they harm nothing and restrict nothing, I don't think the effort to ban them is very reasonable.
The separation of church and state is not about never mentioning God in a public realm. It is not about avoiding offending the nonreligious. It is about preventing one religion from being forced on someone. Unless there is some indication that that could go on, there's no reason for anything to be banned or changed by force.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please see my first post where I specifically said I didn't want to fight to remove the references. I think the fight would be worse than leaving them in.
I just think they're wrong and needlessly exclusionary, and am amazed that others don't.
Edited to add: But the Ten Commandments issue is forcing religion on others. As I said in the other thread, I have no problem with the ten Commandments being included in a larger list of lawgivers. That's simply acknowledgement of reality.
I have a great big problem with a thousand-pound monument solely to the Ten Commandments, with inscribed quotes about the need for religion in our lives from various founding fathers, stuck on a courthouse lawn.
[ November 03, 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidently, why are there no complaints about the ancient Greek gods that are depicted on public buildings across the nation? Are they not religious?
The fact of the matter is, putting greek Gods on your courthouse does not mean you endorse an ancient Greek religion. We all know this. And just the same, putting the ten commandments into a courtroom does not mean there is any endorsement of judaism.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a tacit endorsement of Judeo-Christian beliefs if it's the only one there. Stick the Code of Hammurabi and Napolean's Code on either side, add some context. Why not? You're not endorsing just one, are you?
The first four Commandments (or five, depending upon which version is used) are purely theological in content. They refer solely to the Jewish and Christian religions.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xap, does it matter to you that the phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge, and "In God We Trust" was made the national motto, and people have moved to put the 10 Commandments into courtrooms, all as deliberate endorsements of a given religion? Or does the fact that people who are excluded by this behavior can choose to see it a different way, even if they're aware of the original purpose of the changes, mean that the intent of the changes is irrelevant?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres has brought up the crux of the argument. We're not for banning "religious" iconography or language, we're for banning, attacking the Judeo/Christian iconography/words.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gotta admit, if I walked into a courtroom and saw a nice big Ten Commandments plaque on the wall over the judge, I'd feel persecuted before a word was said. I break five of them on a daily basis, and another if I discuss my parents. Should I expect fair treatment from someone who apparently believes in all of them?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The crux of my argument, again: "But the motto and the Pledge were once equally applicable to all Americans, and then they were changed to exclude nonbelievers. My plea is not to remove God from them but to restore them to their previous all-inclusive status."
I have yet to hear why changing them the first time was a good idea, but changing them back is evil and an attack on Christianity.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's also important to note that there are two conflicting definitions of atheisms which have been conflated. The first, more supportible one is "without reference to religion", which I think is a good standard for any rights based, rational government. Reasons that boil down to "Our holy book says X." cannot be fairly applied in any sort of portable context. If people belong to another religion or for any other reason reject the authority of your claim, the only recourse you have is force. Ideally, this is unacceptable in a rational government. It's fine to live your personal life how you wish, but forcing people to conform to what you want because you have no chance of persuading a rational person who doesn't share your non-rational (descriptive, not pejorative) beliefs is not acceptable. Of course, ideally, this should apply to all arguments based solely on non-rational beliefs.
On the other hand, athiesm also referes to a style of belief system that posits that there is no god. Endorsing this style of belief is also not acceptable and in fact runs counter to the first definition.
The problem is that many people, both pro and con, don't differentiate between these two things. Many athiest activists of the second type believe that the athiest under the first definition governemnt should be actively hostile to religion. On the other side, it seems like many Christians think that them not being able to use the government to force other people to conform to their religious beliefs is somehow an attack on their religion and conflate the principle of no reference to religion with active hostility to religion.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"That was not the 'intent' of the ammendment."
Let me ask you again: do you believe that the phrase "under God" was not deliberately added to the pledge to promote the Judeo-Christian God, despite the fact that the people adding it said that was why they were adding it?
If you grant that it was so intended, do you grant that people might well object to its inclusion even if they're perfectly capable -- through sheer effort of will -- of making "God" mean something else for them personally?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Xap, does it matter to you that the phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge, and "In God We Trust" was made the national motto, and people have moved to put the 10 Commandments into courtrooms, all as deliberate endorsements of a given religion? Or does the fact that people who are excluded by this behavior can choose to see it a different way, even if they're aware of the original purpose of the changes, mean that the intent of the changes is irrelevant?
The intent is irrelevant. Only the actual function of the thing in question matters. If it functions to stop you from holding the religious views you want to hold, then it is a problem. The intention doesn't matter just so long as it doesn't cause any actual oppression of religion. (And no, being offended does not count as actual oppression of religion.)
If a bunch of officials think America should be more secular and want to stick "God is dead" on the dollar bill, more power to them. Stuff like that is trivial. A statement on a dollar bill will not stop me from going to church, and it won't stop anyone else from NOT going to church either.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
2nd try: I have yet to hear why changing them the first time was a good idea, but changing them back is evil and an attack on Christianity.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I think there clearly is no reason to think that, Chris.
But it's one thing to say Congress should change the pledge. It's another thing to say it's unconstitutional, and use the courts to force America to change it against the will of the people.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:the second ammendment interpretation of "Separation of Church and State" is completely wrong and needs to be reversed/fixed
Chad, if you're talking about amendments to the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms, not about religion at all. The 1st Amendment is the one with the clause about no law respecting the establishment of religion.
I would also really appreciate a response to my earlier questions.
------------------------------------------
quote:It's also important to note that there are two conflicting definitions of atheisms which have been conflated.
Squick, typically I've heard people use the word "atheism" only to mean the second of your two definitions. When people talk about the first definition they usually use the word "secular."
quote:Many athiest activists of the second type believe that the athiest under the first definition governemnt should be actively hostile to religion. On the other side, it seems like many Christians think that them not being able to use the government to force other people to conform to their religious beliefs is somehow an attack on their religion and conflate the principle of no reference to religion with active hostility to religion.
Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "many"? And do you have any data to support your use of the term on either side, atheist or Christian?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The intent is irrelevant. Only the actual function of the thing in question matters."
Hm. The difference between murder and attempted murder, I suppose? If I point a gun at you and pull the trigger, and you for whatever reason do not die, clearly you have no right to complain. j/k
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Response to Xaposert) And again, I am not calling for that.
What I hear are reasons I shouldn't be upset over the forced insertion of God into government, and why any attempt I make at mentioning my displeasure really means I hate God and Christianity. What I was asking for -- granted, without any real expectations -- was for defenders of the change to understand my position. I've been excluded and I'm being told I shouldn't think that way. I'd like to know why.
[ November 03, 2004, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "intent" in certain states of giving "Women" the right to vote was to sway certain elections at those times. Since that is now past, should we remove it?
What about "Slavery"?
Original intent isn't a viable "arguement" unless you are willing to call into question the validity of other "changes".
The whole second ammendment is then "questionable" as to it's current applications and Supreme Court definitions are then "wrong".
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I would agree that society has evolved to the point that the Second Amendment is now largely unnecessary and in need of revision, Chad, I'm not sure that's what you mean to be saying.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, does the Pledge say "Jah" or "Yaweh" or "Lord Jesus Christ" or "Ahura Mazda" or "Mithra" or "Krishna" or etc. etc.?
No, it's "ambiguous". If it is "defined" because you choose to "attach" certain definitions to it, that is "your" choice for so doing.
Also, wanting that phrase removed, doesn't solve the problem, you still have Jehovah's Witnesses who will abstain from saying it, and that means it should be banned altogether...because it's unfair to ask them to "abstain".
You also would have to crack down on teachers celebrating holidays and birthdays, because those would also be exclusionary because of their religious beliefs.
So school would have to be open on all holidays to not be exclusionary towards Jehovah's Witnesses.
If it's offense, then fine, but asking it to be changed so someone feels better about themselves, is what?
quote: Most, if not all, of the atheists, Buddhists, secular scientists/engineers, and Muslims that I have ever talked to about the matter believe that the word "God" with a capital G specifically refers to the Judeo-Christian deity. For that matter, so do most of the Jews and Christians I've talked to about it. The uncapitalized word "god" is a different matter entirely, but, again, most, if not all, of the people I've talked to about this make a distinction between the two words.
This is my experience as well.
Posts: 236 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you pray, Chad, do you address God or Yahweh?
And when people added "under God," do you think they meant "Krishna" as well, or do you agree that their exchanged letters make clear that they quite specifically meant the God that you could, but never do, call Yahweh?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
sax, No, I don't have any numbers or anything. I was just trying to throw out what I thought was one of the keys to this problem. Not intended as an argument, just as a potentially useful insight.
And I agree about the secular thing being a much more common term. I just didn't think that framing it that way really helped what I was saying, as secular, through the magic of excessive labeling (generally of the "secular humanist" stripe), has pretty much come to equal the second type of athiesm for many religious activists.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Right here, in this thread. Tell me why changing the Pledge, changing the motto of our entire country to exclude the nonreligious was a good idea. I've told you why I think restoring them to their original versions would be good, and you've parroted straw man arguments back at me. Tell me why I should be glad I have to add mental disclaimers when I pledge allegiance to my country. Convince me.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I trust in God, but I don't trust Him to guide this country or any country for that matter with the possible exception of Israel. I take the exclusionary nature of the mentions of God a step further. I believe it is indicative of the fact that a majority of Americans view this country as a Christian one and while people say that Jews and Christians have the same God, I believe that when Christians say God they refer to the trinity.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we should return to the use of "E pluribus unum." Also, more people should study Latin, so that we actually know what it means.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because you can create a slippery slope argument here (or for just about anything), Chad, doesn't mean its true. Sure, if we followed your logic, we'd do those sorts of things, but most people, including most opponents of the "under God" clause and the 1950s motto, don't support [EDIT: removing] everything, but these are two very public governmental items that do exclude some people's beliefs. According to the pledge, atheists (who not all worship themselves, or anything else, as a God, unless you want to dilute the definition of worship) can't be considered to have allegiance to this country. Any time someone uses money, you could say that's a tacit approval of the motto (although to boycott money would cause ruin rather quickly).
If not every citizen needs to be beholden to these phrases, why have them included? Especially since they were NOT our originals, which would be perfectly serviceable today.
posted
Hey Chad, I think the quotation mark button on your keyboard is stuck. Try removing the key and cleaning it with rubbing alcohol.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a Christian, therefore I pray to "Our Father in Heaven".
Also I would point anyone to the entymology of the word "God" and try to defend it is a "Judeo/Christian" word.
Also God to the Muslims is "Allah" which basically means "The God" in Arabic. It's "Al" which is "The" and "Ilah" which is "God" Masculine (Ilat is the feminine). So for Muslims "God" is the Anglicized version of the word "Allah".
In fact in Arabic Bibles the word "Allah" appears where "God" does.
However "God" is not a "Biblical" word in origins.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Somewhere between requiring kids to say the Lord's Prayer every day and expelling them for saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of people in this country would find both to violate our principles of Church and State.
The fact that a line has to be drawn is not a reason to avoid considering the issue.
quote: Also God to the Muslims is "Allah" which basically means "The God" in Arabic. It's "Al" which is "The" and "Ilah" which is "God" Masculine (Ilat is the feminine). So for Muslims "God" is the Anglicized version of the word "Allah".
So you would support a referendum I might propose to change the word "God" in the pledge of allegiance to "Allah?" Since, after all, they're both "generic" references to a higher power?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Might as well come clean. I am attacking Christianity, or at least the Ten Commandments. I don't want focus on them in our courts or in our schools because too many of them are not only irrelevant to many Americans but some of them are actually contrary to our nation's highest ideals.
The first commandment prohibits the worship of any deity other than Jehovah, a direct conflict with the First Amendment.
The second commandment prohibits the use of religious statues, the taking of photographs, drawing of paintings. etc., and promises that God will punish anyone who worships statues. In addition, their children, grand-children, great-grand-children and perhaps great-great-grand children will also be punished by a God of intolerance and wrath. In this country a person should be held responsible for their own sins and crimes, not those committed by parents, grandparents, great-grand-parents, what-have-you. This is also in conflict with the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom. Many religious groups and individuals use statues in various ways.
The fourth commandment calls for people to not work on Saturday (or Sunday, for you revisionists). This intrudes on the lives and practices of many people, particularly followers of faith groups that do not worship on Saturdays.
The fifth commandment calls for children to blindly honor their parents, without allowing for parents who do not deserve such honor. Sadly, they're out there.
The sixth commandment is violated every time we execute a criminal, wage war on other humans, or (depending on your beliefs) perform abortion.
The tenth commandment treats women as objects that are owned by their husbands. It recognizes human slavery as a normal part of society.
If you really must post a religious message in our courts and our schools, why not the Beatitudes? Or the Golden Rule? Both contain excellent advice that is not exclusionary or dangerously out of date.
[ November 03, 2004, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Be careful not to use quotation marks in an attempt to emphasize a word (the kind of thing you see in grocery store windows—Big "Sale" Today!). Underline or italicize that word instead. (The quotation marks will suggest to some people that you are using that word in a special or peculiar way and that you really mean something else—or that your sale is entirely bogus.)
quote: 2nd try: I have yet to hear why changing them the first time was a good idea, but changing them back is evil and an attack on Christianity.
[Devil's advocate] Chris, maybe "Under God" and "In God We Trust" have become part of our national tradition. On the whole, many atheists I talk to don't care about these words. They've been stripped of meaning, just words to be repeated in the pledge and brushed aside on the dollar bill. But stripping any tradition from a culture is dangerous proposition (this is why I agree with you, in leaving the matter to later generations).
We all know December 25 was not Jesus's real birthday, that he was born sometime in the Spring. But Saturnalia was chosen for the Christmas celebration because it was the greatest celebration of the year for the once pagan Romans. The tradition of Saturnalia remained, it was just re-named "Christmas", thereby appeasing both pagans and giving Christians their celebration. I'm sure there was an outcry from Christians at the time, but alas, December 25 has stuck. If historical evidence suddenly came along proving Jesus the man was born on April 20th, would Catholics demand for a date change? Would the Pope? Probably not. The tradition of Christmas in winter, on December 25, with snow falling, is so firmly entrenched in Catholic tradition that nobody would agree to it. Maybe they'd add a special holiday on April 20th and call it something else, but I think Christmas on 12/25 would remain.
I know "Under God" has only been around for 50 years, but that's two whole generations. It's older than the Super Bowl. Old enough to become firmly ingrained in the heads of all Americans.
Adding the words during the Cold War probably upset people too, but the country was more homogenous at the time, and maybe Americans at the time were so convinced of Communist infiltration that people were readily willing to go along with reaffirming a few things that set "us" aside from "them", like religion.
But removing "Under God" from the pledge would only cause pain for many Christians, while the words themselves really don't have any real impact on my life as a non-Christian. Of course, I can't speak for all non-Christians.
[/Devil's advocate]
The ten commandments, however, are a different matter. Putting them on a courthouse lawn with no other context was just a bad idea from the start.
Posts: 236 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I wouldn't have a problem with representing the 10 commandments as part of the historical basis of our society if we gave due credit to the Enlightenment by showing the list with the explicitly religious ones crossed out. Ah, the Enlightenment, the time when many of the founding ideals of our nation were formed.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
j/k
