Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That wouldn't ever be a problem since there's no such thing as a statue of Mohammed under the Muslim religion. The religion doesn't really permit depictions of Mohammed in any way...
I know that. That's why we're not protesting any Muslim statues on public land, as suggested.
Why not Zeus, you do know what he stands for don't you?
The 10 Commandments are not a sign of Christians are here. Judaism and Islam also follow te 10 Commandments.
It's not just Christians who have asked for the 10 Commandments to remain. Ten Commandments
When the Israelites accepted the Ten Commandments from God at Mount Sinai, they committed themselves to following a moral code of behavior.
Judaism also teaches that the two tablets are parallel. In other words, our duties to God and our duties to people are equally important. If, however, one must choose between performing a duty to God or performing a duty to a person, one should first perform good deeds for another a person.
So it represents two out of hundreds of religions. If you want your monument there then everyone needs to be allowed to do so too.
Learn to share the public domain, or keep your monuments out of it. It really is that simple.
The Declaration of Independence had the same people involved. How could you think it wasn't related? The same people who wrote the Federalist Papers were also involved. They were all involved in one or the other of these documents. Madison, as President, signed the Constitution, John Jay helped draft the final version of the Constitution in 1777 at the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton signed the Constitution,
The three writers of the Federalist Papers claim their Christian heritage and beliefs.
John Jay spoke of his Christian faith. Jay shared an experience he had, in France, with some atheists. ""On one occasion I was at a party with several atheists. They spoke freely and contemptuously of religion. During the course of it, one of them asked me if I believed in Christ. I answered that I did, and that I thanked God that I did. Nothing further passed between me and them or any of them on that subject."
Before Alexander Hamilton died, he had plans to establish an organization that would preserve the basic values of Christianity and the Constitution. He was going to call the organization - The Christian Constitutional Society.
James Madison was a seminary student. He studied under Rev. John Witherspoon.
When these men studied law, they studied it from the premise of a higher law which all human law must conform. They studied Blackstone who stressed a higher law in God.
It is precisely because the same people were involved (except Jefferson) in the drafting of the US Constitution as were involved in drafting the Declaration of Independence that should convince you that they had intended the US government to be secular in nature.
They could have easily sprinkled the document with religious references, just like Jefferson did in the Declaration of Independence, but they deliberately chose not to do so. Just as they deliberately chose not to mention anything about slavery directly in the US Constitution. These were conscience choices, not some oversight on their part.
No problem. As soon as Muslims put up a statue of Mohammed on public land, we're all over it.
Muslims won't let images of Mohammed be up at all. Why do you think they were ready to kill anyone who tries to make pictures of him? Is there any images of him anywhere?????
What part of keep your religion off of government property, or allow any and all, do you not get? Your religion doesn't get special privileges. Sorry. If you don't want other religious monuments, don't expect others to allow yours.
So then allow other to be there too. It was installed only 2 years ago, and before it even went up there were cases to prevent it going in. The Governor gave half of the money for the sculpture, and raised the other half. I'm sorry, but pushing this through despite the objections, is wrong. So, the government can fix this wrong by removing the monument, which I'm sure a church would proudly display in front of their church, or they can allow any and all other religions to have a place on the grounds as well.
Did you know that the OK government is now trying to pass a bill that would allow the 10 commandment on ANY government property? It wouldn't allow any other religious displays. How does that work with the 1st amendment?
It is precisely because the same people were involved (except Jefferson) in the drafting of the US Constitution as were involved in drafting the Declaration of Independence that should convince you that they had intended the US government to be secular in nature.
They could have easily sprinkled the document with religious references, just like Jefferson did in the Declaration of Independence, but they deliberately chose not to do so. Just as they deliberately chose not to mention anything about slavery directly in the US Constitution. These were conscience choices, not some oversight on their part.
I really think it would be best to see what was actually written and not what we think about the Founding Fathers. Again, I am not in favor of revising history.
Just a few examples, but it is apparent that the Framers intended to convey that the federal government, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof,†was not to interfere with the free and public practice of the Christian faith.
Start with Article 1, Section 7 - If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
If the Constitution was respecting of the Jews, they would have said, (Saturdays excepted), but they didn't.
What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and ordinances which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the nonconformist. There never was an established religion without all these. ... Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. ... It [religion] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. ... In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendents."
- House Judiciary Committee, "Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress", (Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854), pp. 1, 6, 8-9.
"The clause speaks of “an establishment of religion.†What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to that establishment which existed in the mother-country. ... [which was an] endowment, at the public expense, in exclusion of or in preference to any other, by giving to its members exclusive political rights, and by compelling the attendance of those who rejected its communion upon its worship or religious observances. These three particulars constituted that union of church and state of which our ancestors were so justly jealous, and against which they so wisely and carefully provided. ... They [the Founders] intended, by this Amendment, to prohibit “an establishment of religion†such as the English Church presented, or any thing like it. But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people ... they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy."
- Senate Judiciary Committee, "The Reports of Committees of the Senate of the United States for the Second Session of the Thirty-Second Congress, 1852-53", (Washington: Robert Armstrong, 1853), pp. 1-4.
"[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others."
- George Mason, United States Founding Father, Member of the Constitutional Convention, "Father of the Bill of Rights", Kate Mason Rowland, "The Life of George Mason", (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892), Vol. I, p. 244. His proposed wording for the First Amendment.
I know but two or three States where there is the least chance of establishing any particular religion. The people of Massachusetts and Connecticut are mostly Presbyterians. In every other State, the people are divided into a great number of sects. In Rhode Island, the tenets of the Baptists, I believe, prevail. In New York, they are divided very much: the most numerous are the Episcopalians and the Baptists. In New Jersey, they are as much divided as we are. In Pennsylvania, if any sect prevails more than others, it is that of the Quakers. In Maryland, the Episcopalians are most numerous, though there are other sects. In Virginia, there are many sects; you all know what their religious sentiments are. So in all the Southern States they differ; as also in New Hampshire. I hope, therefore, that gentlemen will see there is no cause of fear that any one religion shall be exclusively established." - Samuel Johnston, United States Founding Father, Member of the Continental Congress, Governor of North Carolina, Member of the North Carolina Constitutional Ratification Convention, US Senator during Bill of Rights, "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution", Jonathan Elliot, editor (Washington, D. C.: Jonathan Elliot, 1836), Vol. IV, p. 199, Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788. Discussing religion at state Constitutional Ratifying Convention. Click: 'US Founding Documents', 'The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 1787-1789 (Elliot's Debates)', 'Contents' Next to Volume 4 under picture of books, 'page immage', 'Turn to image: 199'.
Some are afraid, Mr. Chairman, that, should the Constituion be received, they would be depried of the Priviege of worshipping God according to their consciences, which would be taking from them a benefit they enjoy under the present constitution. They wish to know if their religious and civil liberties be secured under this system, or whether the general government may not make laws infringing their religious liberties. ... Many wish to know what religion shall be established. I believe a majority of the community are Presbyterians. I am, for my part, against any exclusive establishment; but if there were any, I would prefer the Episcopal. The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. They suppose that if there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans. ..." - Henry Abbot, United States Founding Father, Member of the North Carolina Constitutional Ratification Convention, Click: 'US Founding Documents', 'The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 1787-1789 (Elliot's Debates)', 'Contents' Next to Volume 4 under the picture of books, 'page immage', 'Turn to image: 191'. "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution", Jonathan Elliot, editor (Washington, D. C.: Jonathan Elliot, 1836), Vol. IV, pp. 191-192, Henry Abbot, July 30, 1788. Discussing religion at state Constitutional Ratifying Convention.
"As morality and piety rightly grounded on evangelical principles will give the best and greatest security to government and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to due subjection; and as the knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated through a society by the institution of the public worship of the Deity and of public instruction in morality and religion; therefore, to promote these important purposes, the people of this State have a right to empower, and do hereby fully empower, the legislature to authorize, from time to time, the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies within this State to make adequate provision at their own expense for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality."
- New Hampshire Constitution, "The Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America", (Boston: Norman and Bowen, 1785), p. 4, New Hampshire, 1783, Article 1, Section 6, “Bill of Rights.â€
"As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the People of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their Legislature with power to authorize and require ... the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or religious societies, to make suitable provision at their own expense for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality." - Massachusetts Constitution, "A Constitution or Frame of Government Agreed Upon By the Delegates of the People of the State of Massachusetts-Bay", (Boston: Benjamin Edes & Sons, 1780), pp. 7-8, Article III “Declaration of Rights.â€
"You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention." - George Washington, United States Founding Father, Member of the Continental Congress, Commander-in-Chief of the American forces in the Revolutionary War, President of the Constitutional Convention, Signer of the Constitution, First President of the United States under the Constitution, "The Father of His Country", "The Writings of Washington", John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XV, p. 55, from his speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779.
It is precisely because the same people were involved (except Jefferson) in the drafting of the US Constitution as were involved in drafting the Declaration of Independence that should convince you that they had intended the US government to be secular in nature.
They could have easily sprinkled the document with religious references, just like Jefferson did in the Declaration of Independence, but they deliberately chose not to do so. Just as they deliberately chose not to mention anything about slavery directly in the US Constitution. These were conscience choices, not some oversight on their part.
They did END the document referring to the Lord. The Constitution, therefore, definitely sanctions the nation's affiliation with Christianity and no other religion. They were trying to prevent any "singular" Christian denomination from being elevated above any other.
Quote:
After Section VII, the US Constitution - Signatories states:
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names
Baphomet? A fallen angel? What a waste. They should have went this route:
Why immortalize a lesser evil when you could have immortalized the greatest evil of them all?
Cthulhu fhtagn...
When I was in college there was a group who did an unoffical celebration of Cthulhu, just for fun of course. They had little signs around campus to find the party with clues. Everyone was welcome, just dress in black of course. The really dark lord is popular in filking too (ie science fiction fandom inspired folk songs). Who wants to write songs about minor evil beings?
Agreed. This is not about equality of religious rights, it's about mocking Christianity. This has become a battleground that's rallying various anti-Christian groups. The Flying Spaghetti Monster church is also applying to go there; a fake religion crafted for the sole purpose of mocking religion. It's not a religion, it's trolling. To think there is genuine religious motivation here is letting your own bias shine through; it's nothing more than a publicity stunt.
I completely agree about militant Atheism. I have no problem with tolerant, everyday Atheists. I know some personally and they're perfectly nice people. On other hand, militant Atheists or anti-theists seem to be more motivated by their hate of religion and hate of believers than their non-belief. They reject than religion does anything good. They come across as truly hateful, narcissistic, angry, bigoted jerks whose sole motivation seems to be de-converting people from their faith and eradicating religion. Why would I ever want to leave my religion and become as mean and miserable as those people?
The point is we seperate religion and government. A clearly religious monument with lines from the christan bible is in violation of that. On *state* property all religions are equal. Even the flying spagetti people and even a purely athiestic view. Government is not about religion.
Yank it out and move it to a church. The current situation is all further monuments are 'on hold' pending the ACLU suit. Should the proponents of christianity lose, then you can be sure the ten commandment will go quickly before they give anyone else a good legit argument for their memorials. It would be a good lesson to help drag some of my fellow citizens into the modern world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
