Should the Ten Commandments be removed from the Alabama courthouse? [Archive]

gwladgarwr

08-23-03, 07:33 PM

Yes, the judge should remove the Ten Commandments.

It's strange that folks are so selective in choosing which of the amendments of the Bill of Rights or any of the other articles of the Constitution should be enforced. And it's also strange how folks will twist the wording around in any of the amendments in order to bolster their own interpretation of these articles and amendments at the expense of the other amendments and the rights of other people.

Sorry, but the First Amendment most certainly ensures freedom FROM religion as well as OF religion. It also ensures that the Federal government does not establish a state religion (as still found in Great Britain, for example) and force the people, whether believers or not, to accept the government line.

This judge placed himself above the laws of the state of Alabama as well as above the Constitution by presuming to speak on behalf of the people by stating that the people are and should be subject to his beliefs. WRONG.

He also presumed to interpret the Constitution on his own terms and insist that everyone else in the country agreed with his beliefs and his actions.

His actions and attitude is exactly what the Founding Fathers aimed to prevent, whether or not all the Founding Fathers and the entire population shared his own religious convictions. The judge's being ordered to remove the monument is viewed as an attack against religion and against Christianity in particular. This is a perverted twisting of fact and practice. The moment he insisted on hoisting his faith on the population and imposing his beliefs and morality in the name of law is highly presumptuous and unbelievably self-righteous. He also used his position and influence to do so. I think he forgot he was an impartial agent of the court system.

It pains me to see that many people think the same way as this judge in that he and many others willfully (or ignorantly) disregard the Constitution and Bill of Rights, especially regarding religion and the First Amendment. This isn't a matter of simply offending others, as that is allowed under the First Amendment and is not libellous, slanderous, or seditious - this is a matter of disregarding the First Amendment.

Everyone is protected under that provision of the First Amendment to practice or NOT to practice a faith without interference from the people and from the government. It also protects freedom of conscience (thought) in that the Federal government will not speak on behalf of the people with regard to religious belief. This is exactly what this judge did. Even people who practice a faith are threatened when the Federal government establishes the practice of acknowledging some belief in a religion. If that happens, those who practice a faith can one day find themselves askew of the law if the official government stance changes. Government under our Constitution is to stay out of religion. This didn't happen when the judge publicly installed his monument and when he made his statements to the effect that we are all subject to his religious beliefs.

Everyone should practice, believe, or NOT believe in anything they want and this right must be protected. However, I will not accept the Federal government dictating to me that I should accept a belief - even if I am of that same faith .

crew

08-23-03, 07:40 PM

They should stay... no arguments, no excuses....we've given up enough, get the judge back on the bench and keep our commandments where they were put. I really can't believe that people go around looking for something to change or complain about...because a minority wants it changed. Get a life.;)

crew

08-23-03, 07:44 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong..but in a court of law, I believe we all must place our right hand on......a Bible..and swear to tell the truth , nothing but the truth so help me...God.....(or was that changed as well....and if so, who do you swear this to).....I rest my case.:D

arzach

08-23-03, 07:57 PM

Stuff your horsesh!t views and interpretations in a sock gwladgarwr...You write with a silver keyboard..lots a words, no sense. The State shall not install a state run Religion...pure and simple...1st ammendment is clear and written in simple English...Don't muddy the waters with your twisted views...

crew

08-23-03, 08:00 PM

well......that made sense ..:)

gwladgarwr

08-23-03, 08:09 PM

Um, who is WE? If you mean by 'we Christians', Christians have given up NOTHING. However, you may look to people of other beliefs or no belief who have just been told their faiths or lack-of-faith in a belief is not valid and will not be respected.

By the way, we do NOT swear on the Bible and 'swear to God' by law. You can if you want, but such an oath is unconstitutional as it forces one to state a religious belief contrary to one's own (or lack thereof). Swearing on a Bible is a custom (an unconstitutional one), but is not mandatory. Neither is 'so help me God."

The argument that if people don't like what the monuments says can simply ignore it is so faulty as to be ridiculous. "If it's so far away" or "if it doesn't hurt you" are two old chestnuts that still plague our freedom. We could also ignore slavery by not owning slaves. We could also ignore segregation by saying we'd all be better of with "our own kind anyway". It shocks me to see that so many eagerly desire the Federal government to dictate to the people what they should or should not believe. It also frightens me that people also believe that "majority rules" is always right. The "majority" also wanted to keep women and African Americans from the polling booth and the military. The "majority" in a certain Western state voted to make a law preventing a certain segment of the population from equal protection under the Constitution. The "majority" also supported imprisoning 110,000 American citizens during WWII because of their race. Of course, this makes it all OK.

And why was this judge using taxpayers' dollars to put up this monument? Would it make it better or OK if he had used his own money? Does placing the monument in public imply government establishment of religion? Is the judge's right of religion exercised constitutionally? NO to all these questions.

ivalis

08-23-03, 08:11 PM

8 of 9 judges said "no 10 commandments", i suppose judge Moore is the right one, I doubt it.

crew

08-23-03, 08:16 PM

You're correct ..court gives the option to swear on the Bible...but I still made my case, since I'm answering a question on a post, not on trial for my..beliefs..which are.......keep the friggin statue where it is

arzach

08-23-03, 08:22 PM

I see both 'chestnuts' are in line with each other...ivalis and alphabet spout a lot of crap...Religious Men founded this Country...sacreligious men are trying to tear it apart. That is the truth as I know it.

crew

08-23-03, 08:25 PM

I'm with you on that arzach...:rambo:

ivalis

08-23-03, 08:32 PM

this country was founded by people who were shunned because of their minority religious beliefs. as such, the majority should not be imposing their will upon the minority.

i can see a theocracy along the lines of the one in Iran developing if these religious zealots run this country. Judge moore seems to think he's above the law. he deserved to be pulled from the bench.

arzach

08-23-03, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by ivalis
this country was founded by people who were shunned because of their minority religious beliefs. as such, the majority should not be imposing their will upon the minority.

i can see a theocracy along the lines of the one in Iran developing if these religious zealots run this country. Judge moore seems to think he's above the law. he deserved to be pulled from the bench.

Seems to me ivalis, that if that was going to happen, it should have happened long time ago. This Country has always been a God fearing Country; I don't see any danger of turning into another iran.

You and alphabet don't want to believe in The Lord, that's your business, that's your choice.

Country has been going to hell in a hand-basket ever since people like the two of you, have been trying to remove God's Presence from our Country.

Hang tough Crew...Semper Fidelis

arzach

08-23-03, 08:51 PM

The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President.

"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters.

We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!

ivalis

08-23-03, 09:02 PM

the religious (how come it's just men??) men that founded this country used to burn witches. WTF is that all about. the founders were also religious outcasts/weirdos/criminals from their country of origin.

arzach, take a few days, read some history.

.

arzach

08-23-03, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by ivalis
the religious (how come it's just men??) men that founded this country used to burn witches. WTF is that all about. the founders were also religious outcasts/weirdos/criminals from their country of origin.

arzach, take a few days, read some history.

Far as readin' history, I have...and I don't need any more days to do it. You see, I READ history, I'm not into changing it. I for one, am glad that the 'outcasts/weirdos/criminals' did come here; they were religious outcasts only in the manner of NOT wanting/accepting the STATE RUN religion. People like you would have been shot...mebbe you were born too late???

crew

08-23-03, 09:14 PM

Well, well...Ivalis, since I'm not a man maybe you need to listen to me...(the little witch)....and the history speaks through us all, my forefathers are my relatives...the criminals, the insane..the military, high officials in office and common people, even witches I'm sure.and the men who killed them

ivalis

08-23-03, 09:22 PM

that's exactly the point, they did not want a "state religion". the 10 commandments at the entry to a courthouse certainly implies that "justice" in that courthouse requires a belief in a judeo-christian "god".

freedom from and freedom of religion mean the same thing.

thedrifter

08-23-03, 09:39 PM

It is alright to express your opinions and view points, but we do not tolerate outright attacking of other members......

"A WORD TO THE WISE IS SUFFICIENT."

Sempers,

Roger
:marine:

gwladgarwr

08-23-03, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by arzach

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!

Um, no. This country was NOT founded on the belief in "one true God". Wherever did you pull that from?! Where in our Constitution does it say "God" or whatever is our foundation? IT DOESN'T. Maybe the Founding Fathers and drafters were religious - many of them were also humanist, or even...gasp...atheist. Most people of the day would easily invoke the name of God as they would say "Good Morning" as religion, government, society and law at that time were so intertwined (witness Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the Vatican), even if they didn't feel particularly religious or acknowledged some higher power.

Yes, God is mentioned directly or indirectly in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence (which is not a legally binding document insofar as our Constitution is concerned - it is a compact between the former original 13 colonies and Great Britain) - that was the custom of those days. This is not the 18th Century! We have a Constitution that allows and encourages change (when it is needed) that changes with the times and circumstances. Folks may have been so quick to say "God" or acknowledge God back then, but, the Founding Fathers were also sure to prevent the State from justifying its existence as being "God-given". The old kings of Europe did it all the time, and the mullahs and sheikhs all over the Middle East and Muslim world do the same now.

There is nothing wrong in acknowledging any religioius belief in public or in private. Just don't presume to do so at my expense, and do not presume to impose those beliefs on me via a state-run religion, or with a religious monument.

BTW: "In God We Trust" is NOT our history and heritage, and neither is an official state religion, which is what you propose. Sorry, we didn't revolt against King George III to impose a new state religion. "In God We Trust" is a relatively recent act, as was the revised Pledge of Allegiance (where God was not even mentioned).

It is truly amazing that even after 227 years we still have folks who want to undo everything we fought a revolution, a British invasion, a civil war, a tax rebellion, two World Wars, two more wars in Asia, and two in the Middle East for, as well as experienced civil upheaval in the form of civil rights movements, desegregation, suffrage, and the end of slavery by justifying imposing a religion or their system of belief on others.

I'm also amazed that some also presume to speak on my behalf with regard to religious belief. Sorry, but this country is not and has never been a "God-fearing" country. I don't fear God because I don't believe that one exists. This country has a secular government who stays out of the religion business except for when the First Amendment is violated.

I suggest that if some don't like a secular goverment as opposed to a theocracy there's a slow boat to Saudi Arabia leaving very soon.

I'm sorry, Arzach, but please keep your insults and lack of courtesy to yourself. Yes, these are a lot of words, and yes, I DO happen to have a silver keyboard. I've stated my opinions as you have, without resorting to insults. As for plain English, please note that I know how to spell and use proper punctuation. I'm afraid I can't say the same for yours.

Twisted views and interpretation? Since when is "Feds, stay out of my religious views" twisted? Hmmm? Since when is "no government establishment of religion" twisted? Here's some plain English for you that you may or may not understand and certainly would not honor:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What part of this do you not understand?

crew

08-23-03, 11:03 PM

all my post wasn't printed, so I will refrain from comment , but thanks again for your insight, my opinion is the same...statue should stay where it's been sitting.:)

zippoman

08-24-03, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by gwladgarwr

I'm also amazed that some also presume to speak on my behalf with regard to religious belief. Sorry, but this country is not and has never been a "God-fearing" country. I don't fear God because I don't believe that one exists. This country has a secular government who stays out of the religion business except for when the First Amendment is violated.

Reason you don't believe in God, is cause you ain't never been in a fightin hole.....ain't no such thing as an athiest in a fightin hole !!

Just my two centavo's...

arzach

08-24-03, 06:15 AM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What part of this do you not understand?
__________________________________

alphabet, are you so blind or do you just not understand?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"....Having the Ten Commandments on display at the courthouse...does NOT establish a religion

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"....Even you should be able to understand what this means...unless you want to deprive people of their rights just so you and your ilk can feel good about yourselves.

Changing interpretations to mean what you want them to mean is BS...you weren't around when this country was born, how can you speak of the way things were?

Maybe you spell real nice, type real good; so what? In my opinion, it's all wasted education if you do not use it for a positive. ZippoMan hit it right, The Lord, our God was in every fighting hole in every war our country fought. I told YOU before, "Stay out of my fighting hole", meant it then, ain't changed my mind.

Far as insults go, I've only insulted myself by carrying on a conversation with the likes of you. In the Nam, you'd have been 'dust' a long time ago...not a threat, just an observation. Take it anyway you want to.

firstsgtmike

08-24-03, 06:48 AM

Marines,

I'd hate to see this discussion aborted because some of us are making personal attacks. We have been warned!

Personally, I'd hate to lose what we have going here.

Step away from the specific issue for a moment to observe what could be learned from this discussion.

Most of the people responding to this topic have posted many times before on other issues and other topics. Sometimes we agreed with them, sometimes we didn't.

We can gain a better understanding of our country, and ourselves if we examine the dialogue.

Regarding one poster, you may say: "I usually agree with him, but I can't believe that he'd be so out of line, this time.

Or conversely, "I've never agreed with this guy before, but this time he is right on."

Look at it and try to understand why. Is there a thread of consistancy? Or not? Is this a knee-jerk reaction that doesn't fit in with his other expressed beliefs?

We may get a better understanding of our own positions, and either strengthen or modify them, at the same time we learn what the opposition is thinking and the strength of their convictions.

And yes, we may conclude that "I always thought you were an a-hole, and this proves it."

No one can stop us from thinking it, but it is best left unsaid.

We have been warned about that, and I'd appreciate it if we could take heed and keep this discussion going.

Thank you.

zippoman

08-24-03, 08:01 AM

mardet65

08-24-03, 08:04 AM

Personally, I'd rather not get caught up in this discussion as no agreement will ever be reached. The best we can expect is a mutual acceptance and tolerance of each others opinion (let's hope). What I would like to do however, is make this observation... and you can draw your own conclusion on the point.

If God was in every fightin' hole in every war our country fought, then wouldn't we have to concede that the other guy's God ( or at least his interpritation) was in his fightin' hole with him?

zippoman

08-24-03, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by mardet65
Personally, I'd rather not get caught up in this discussion as no agreement will ever be reached. The best we can expect is a mutual acceptance and tolerance of each others opinion (let's hope). What I would like to do however, is make this observation... and you can draw your own conclusion on the point.

If God was in every fightin' hole in every war our country fought, then wouldn't we have to concede that the other guy's God ( or at least his interpritation) was in his fightin' hole with him?

Re read my post Marine...never mentioned that God was in the fightin hole.....just said there weren't no athiests in fightin holes.....I've said enuff about this and don't want to dissrupt this board as before..........them stones should stay in Bama !! Other folks have as much right to have them there as the one's that don't want em......

First Sgt Mike...nice to see yer writings again......

Arzach....quit beatin a dead horse and give the lil boot a pat on the head for me........catch ya later........

arzach

08-24-03, 08:14 AM

Good points Mardet65...but just for the hell of it, ask the Phillistines...seems to me, if you're right, all will work out to your benefit...if you're wrong, you still have 'lessons' to learn...

gwladgarwr

08-24-03, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by zippoman

Reason you don't believe in God, is cause you ain't never been in a fightin hole.....ain't no such thing as an athiest in a fightin hole !!

Just my two centavo's...

For your edification, I HAVE been in a fighting hole and dug a fair share of them myself. It's called Iraq, from where I just returned.

Secondly, please refrain from being so presumptuous as to tell me what my reasoning for my religious views are. My views were just the same before my little trip to the desert as after. I will not be so presumptuous as you have been to comment on the possible reasons as to the reasoning for your own religious views.

Thirdly, it's "centavos", not "centavo's" - the word is a simple plural and only requires an "S" to make the plural. Additionally, I'm sure you must mean "my two bits", which is the correct colloquialism.

But thank you for your concern for my religious beliefs. I'm sure you are aware of our First Amendment.

btrogu

08-24-03, 09:19 AM

This is how wars start. Put our General Orders up.

arzach

08-24-03, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by gwladgarwr

For your edification, I HAVE been in a fighting hole and dug a fair share of them myself. It's called Iraq, from where I just returned.

Secondly, please refrain from being so presumptuous as to tell me what my reasoning for my religious views are. My views were just the same before my little trip to the desert as after. I will not be so presumptuous as you have been to comment on the possible reasons as to the reasoning for your own religious views.

Thirdly, it's "centavos", not "centavo's" - the word is a simple plural and only requires an "S" to make the plural. Additionally, I'm sure you must mean "my two bits", which is the correct colloquialism.

But thank you for your concern for my religious beliefs. I'm sure you are aware of our First Amendment.

Your views/beliefs are yours, keep them to yourself and quit trying to push your azzinine views down everyone's throat.

So ya did some time in the desert, pat yourself on the back. But please tell me, did your typewriter fit in that 'fightin' hole with you OK?

leroy8541

08-24-03, 10:12 AM

Things have changed a bit since the constitution was written by our founding fathers. They probably didn't have a clue that thier words were going to get twisted and deformed like they have, because when they wrote "Freedom of religion" they were burning witches at the stake. Indians that worshiped the land were still savages and hunted for bounty.

leroy8541

08-24-03, 10:25 AM

Woops, missed a couple of pages before speaking. brotgu is correct, this post is case in point, looks like a pretty good little "firefight" erupting here.

zippoman

08-24-03, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by leroy8541
Woops, missed a couple of pages before speaking. brotgu is correct, this post is case in point, looks like a pretty good little "firefight" erupting here.

No firefight from me ..........I'm a pieceful sort.....(spelling correct) if ya get my jist !! I live in a small community in the swamp coastal land of Virginia......there is a great big ole sign of the Ten Commandments hangin in the hall of the High School here and a copy of them in every single classroom.....a couple of years ago somebody tried to get em down, and the school board told them to go Fvck themselves....they're still up and I guarantee the United States Surpreme Court, or the Attorney General or the President of the US of A couldn't get em down !! The school would come down first !!!

arzach

08-24-03, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by zippoman

No firefight from me ..........I'm a pieceful sort.....(spelling correct) if ya get my jist !! I live in a small community in the swamp coastal land of Virginia......there is a great big ole sign of the Ten Commandments hangin in the hall of the High School here and a copy of them in every single classroom.....a couple of years ago somebody tried to get em down, and the school board told them to go Fvck themselves....they're still up and I guarantee the United States Surpreme Court, or the Attorney General or the President of the US of A couldn't get em down !! The school would come down first !!!

You got it Bro...the community you speak of is well known to me and highly respected...

Just wonderin', if the DIs of our day ever got their mitts on some of the 'recruits' that pass thru Our Island; do ya think they'd have made graduation? Highly doubtful is my guess..

Got a message here from the Li'l Boot Bro....

zippoman

08-24-03, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by arzach

You got it Bro...the community you speak of is well known to me and highly respected...

Just wonderin', if the DIs of our day ever got their mitts on some of the 'recruits' that pass thru Our Island; do ya think they'd have made graduation? Highly doubtful is my guess..

Got a message here from the Li'l Boot Bro....

o..o...o....one.........t...t....t....t....twooooo o......t..tt....t.....t...threee....f...f....f..ff ...ff...fff....fou........do i have to do all twenty today ??

arzach

08-24-03, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by zippoman

o..o...o....one.........t...t....t....t....twooooo o......t..tt....t.....t...threee....f...f....f..ff ...ff...fff....fou........do i have to do all twenty today ??

Boy said ifn ya don't, he charges 'interest'...:D 1 more for each day it takes to finish..;)

eshensie

08-24-03, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by greensideout
Should it be removed?

firstsgtmike

08-24-03, 11:41 AM

Been thinking.

When you dump all the garbage out of the posts on this thread, you notice that both sides, pro and con, are quoting the First Amendment and the Constitution to support their positions.

I'm not a historian, and not much on in-depth research, but I have an idea for a Master's Thesis in Political Science.

It would have to be done by a historian with extensive knowledge of the framers of the Constitution and the debates concerning the various Articles and the Bill of Rights.

Do a paper featuring four or five, possibly Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Adams, etc.

Have them together, looking down from heaven, up from hell, from a spaceship or from whatever makes you comfortable. Have them discussing the various Amendments and their interpretation by recent Supreme Court decisions.

Let them continue the arguments they had way back when, and have them include or make reference to the continuing arguments today.

From each of their historical positions, have them discuss school prayer, this situation with the Ten Commandments, divorce, abortion, welfare, equal rights, gay rights, etc. etc. etc.

I think it could be done, and I think it would be interesting.

Then we could have another argument here, as to how accurate we thought the presentation was.

arzach

08-24-03, 12:11 PM

Nice idea Top, thing is, you'll never get it accepted. I have no doubts that the Founding Fathers are either rolling over in their graves, or extremely puzzled as to how we have gotten into this mess.

The PC crowd has done more harm to this country than good;started in the 60s and continues to this day. No one wants to take responsibility for their actions, always blaming some one else. I've heard it said, in 50 years or so, the USA will be just another 3rd world country. Nothing that has been going on makes me doubt that; our moral values are diminishing, there is no accountability and every faction wants things 'their way'. A day of reckoning is coming, when? I haven't got the foggiest idea, but I will continue to live my life with the morals and values instilled in me by my Church, Parents and my beloved Corps. Also, I will pass these morals and values on to my children, the youngest of which is three and a half years old. You see, the Lord has blessed me with another Son at this time in my life for a reason, I will NOT waste this opportunity and I WILL enrich his life to the fullest of my ability....

mrbsox

08-24-03, 12:48 PM

This post has turned into a shouting match, and from it's original purpose..

ANSWER THE Fkn QUESTION.

This is how political debates turn FROM simple ideas into Politically correct BS that bogs our Country down.

I, like EVRYONE of you swore an oath to:
-- 'uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign and domestic SO HELP ME GOD'.
If GOD was not supposed to be a part of our laws, our basics for existing, then WHY would our forefathers have sewn it into the very fibers that make up our Country ??

Part of that entitles "gwladgarwr" to say YES, it should be removed, WITHOUT fear of reprisal from the Country, it's laws, or us. It also entitles US to say NO, it should stay, with out the same consequenses.

All I'm trying to say here is if you want respect for YOUR opinions, then you need to respect others, even if you don't agree with them. If you cannot see that the Constitution we are supporting provides that, then you need to re-address whos Constitution you wish to support. That should put an end to the ARGURING that's going on in here.

As for the answer to the question that was asked:

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SHOULD STAY !!! in my opinion.

1) They were put there with PRIVATE FUNDS, not tax dollars
2) The US Supreme Court has a statue of MOSES, with (you guessed it) the 10 Commandments displayed for all to see, EVER SINCE THE COURTHOUSE WAS BUILT
3) It is the inaleniable right of every human on this earth, TO BE WRONG

Just my 2 cents

Terry

firstsgtmike

08-24-03, 01:03 PM

arzach,

I'm doing the same thing, for the same reasons.

Last month my youngest son celebrated his first birthday and another celebrated his third, this month my adopted daughter was eleven, next month my oldest son will be eight, and in November another son will be seven.

And they are MY reasons for living. They are enriching MY life.

greensideout

08-24-03, 09:46 PM

It has already been pointed out that both sides of this discussion have quoted the 1st Amendment. My surprise is that no one has yet quoted the Ten Commandments to support their view in respect to the laws of our land.

I find nothing in the words (Laws) of the Ten Commandments that might offend anyone of any faith based religion.

To those that claim to have no religion should perhaps just learn to ignore what is unpleasent to them as I do everyday. Viewing works and actions and to hear words against my God is unpleasing to me.

You say that you have that right. Ok, I will not stop you, that is your choice.

But like you, I too have a 1st Ameandment right. The Ten Commandments at the courthouse or anywhere else is a part of my religious freedom.

Just learn to ignore it and go about your way. It is the only way that we can SHARE this freedom.

MAJMike

08-25-03, 12:32 AM

So, following the above argument (made by those who have no knowledge of Constitutional Law), it would perfectly correct for a Marine to disobey a lawful order.

And, yeah, it is the same.

The Federal Court and the Alabama Suprteme Court in an 8-0 decision have correctly ordered the commandments removed from a GOVERNMENT BUILDING!! The US Supreme Court acknowledged the correctness of these decisions by refusing to grant a stay or intervene.

It doesn't get more "law" than that, and it is no different than a lawful order issued you by an officer or senior non-com in the Corps.

Some of you who do not understand the concept of separation of church and state should start by reading the Constitution, and then bone up on the Federalist Papers, then perhaps a few relevent Supreme Court decisions.

I'm sure all you fervent Christians would be singing another song it it were a Muslim or Hindu icon that had been placed in the middle of the Alabama Supreme Court Building. Perhaps you didn't notice that the Founding Fathers failed to identify whose God they were referring to.

What if someone showed up tomorrow and placed a giant bust of Muhammad in your county court house? Would you be OK with that? I doubt it!

As long as it's YOUR God stuck out there on public property, it's OK, right?

Yes, you have freedom to speak your mind, but you don't have freedom to wake me up at oh dark thirty screaming obscentities in front of my house. There's a difference.

Yes, you have freedom to worship any God you wish, but you don't have the right to cram YOUR God down someone else's throat in a government building.

I am truly embarrassed that people who served and swore to defend the Constitution of the United States know so little about it!

And what the hell is this topic doing on a Marine Corps forum?

M.R. Ventura
MAJ USMCR (Ret)
JD - University of Illinois

zippoman

08-25-03, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by MAJMike
So, following the above argument (made by those who have no knowledge of Constitutional Law), it would perfectly correct for a Marine to disobey a lawful order.

And, yeah, it is the same.

The Federal Court and the Alabama Suprteme Court in an 8-0 decision have correctly ordered the commandments removed from a GOVERNMENT BUILDING!! The US Supreme Court acknowledged the correctness of these decisions by refusing to grant a stay or intervene.

Some of you who do not understand the concept of separation of church and state should start by reading the Constitution, and then bone up on the Federalist Papers, then perhaps a few relevent Supreme Court decisions.

I'm sure all you fervent Christians would be singing another song it it were a Muslim or Hindu icon that had been placed in the middle of the Alabama Supreme Court Building. Perhaps you didn't notice that the Founding Fathers failed to identify whose God they were referring to.

What if someone showed up tomorrow and placed a giant bust of Muhammad in your county court house? Would you be OK with that? I doubt it!

As long as it's YOUR God stuck out there on public property, it's OK, right?

Yes, you have freedom to speak your mind, but you don't have freedom to wake me up at oh dark thirty screaming obscentities in front of my house. There's a difference.

Yes, you have freedom to worship any God you wish, but you don't have the right to cram YOUR God down someone else's throat in a government building.

I am truly embarrassed that people who served and swore to defend the Constitution of the United States know so little about it!

And what the hell is this topic doing on a Marine Corps forum?

M.R. Ventura
MAJ USMCR (Ret)
JD - University of Illinois

That's about as "law" as the law gets. It is a lawful federal order.

The topic is here because we have the Constitutional Right of Freedom of Speech.......(sometimes)

firstsgtmike

08-25-03, 07:44 AM

I agree that "The topic is here because we have the Constitutional Right of Freedom of Speech.

However, I would like to see a rebuttal to the expressed comments.

Would anyone care to take them on, one by one?

As a 25xx (Communicator) in the Corps, I was taught, and I taught, that silence meant acceptance.

A radio message that said, "I'm going to do this, or I'm going to do that, or I'm moving here, or I'm moving there. If the monitoring HQ chose to say nothing, it meant that the message was accepted as written.

NOW! Who is going to step up to the plate and argue with:
===========
"I'm sure all you fervent Christians would be singing another song it it were a Muslim or Hindu icon that had been placed in the middle of the Alabama Supreme Court Building. Perhaps you didn't notice that the Founding Fathers failed to identify whose God they were referring to.

What if someone showed up tomorrow and placed a giant bust of Muhammad in your county court house? Would you be OK with that? I doubt it!

As long as it's YOUR God stuck out there on public property, it's OK, right? "
==========
Come on folks, don't crowd. One at a time, there's room for all.

(and if you check out the demographics, this may be the situation your grandchildren will be facing.)

Come on, write the script for them. Give them the words they will have to repeat 40-50 years from now when THEY are protesting statues on Government property.

arzach

08-25-03, 05:33 PM

===========
"I'm sure all you fervent Christians would be singing another song it it were a Muslim or Hindu icon that had been placed in the middle of the Alabama Supreme Court Building. Perhaps you didn't notice that the Founding Fathers failed to identify whose God they were referring to.

What if someone showed up tomorrow and placed a giant bust of Muhammad in your county court house? Would you be OK with that? I doubt it!

As long as it's YOUR God stuck out there on public property, it's OK, right? "
==========

The Founding Fathers didn't have to identify which God was intended...Since they were all one form of Christian or another..it was Judeo/Christian...

Muhammed? It would be appropriate if we were a Muslim country, but thank GOD we are not...Same with Buddah, The Great Spirit etc. Founding Fathers were not muslim, budist(sp) or native american..they were Christian...

Which God is it 'stuck out' on our currency? Sure as hell ain't Muhammed. Another thing to think of is the symbol of our judicial system...the 'blind' lady holding the scales is a 'Goddess' is she not?

The intrepretation of the 1st ammendment has been so twisted by the liberal court, it wouldn't be recognized by the people who wrote it. The 10 commandments in no way 'force' any religion down anyone's throat...nor do they establish a Religion. If you choose not to believe in the Creator, then don't.

So to those who oppose the symbolism of 'God' in our Government...how do you reconcile spending our currency? And don't hand me that crap about using 'plastic'..check your statement it says, pay in 'U.S. currency'.
-----------------------------------------------------

Top, I was gonna drop this, but I had to answer back on the Major's comments...

firstsgtmike

08-25-03, 06:14 PM

Quote;

"If you choose not to believe in the Creator, then don't."

End quote.

By definition, there can be only ONE Creator. The choice is to believe or not believe.

The Creator has been worshipped and/or feared by believers since the beginning of time. And ignored by athiests.

English speaking Christians refer to the Creator as God. Non-English speaking Christians have another name for Him.

Non-Christians who worship the Creator have still another name and symbols.

In that sense, all those who believe in a Creator are on the same side, against those that don't believe in a Creator.

There are feuds even in the best of families, but they always join together against an outsider (athiest).

greensideout

08-25-03, 06:37 PM

You know MAJMike, I'm not to sharp at this law stuff like you. Thank you for pointing it out to me. I guess my time in the books has done me little good. You have a wonderful way of crafting words to show dominence over the common blue collar working stiff like myself, but we try. We work hard for a living and respect others that do the same. We also respect the beliefs of others and chose not to defame their beliefs. In fact, I have never ran to the ACLU with complaints of other's practice of their faith, (or lack of faith). I have never sued anyone, though I have had slam dunk cases that I would have won. Respect of others is a way of life that my parents, the Church and the Marine Corps have taught.
I chose to live by those principles.

I have a question though, you know "people like me" just have to ask questions because of our ignorance. I was just wonder'in if you support the ACLU? Oh, one other question if you don't mind. Did you ever meet a Christian that you liked?

Semper Fi Sir

zippoman

08-25-03, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by greensideout
You know MAJMike, I'm not to sharp at this law stuff like you. Thank you for pointing it out to me. I guess my time in the books has done me little good. You have a wonderful way of crafting words to show dominence over the common blue collar working stiff like myself, but we try. We work hard for a living and respect others that do the same. We also respect the beliefs of others and chose not to defame their beliefs. In fact, I have never ran to the ACLU with complaints of other's practice of their faith, (or lack of faith). I have never sued anyone, though I have had slam dunk cases that I would have won. Respect of others is a way of life that my parents, the Church and the Marine Corps have taught.
I chose to live by those principles.

I have a question though, you know "people like me" just have to ask questions because of our ignorance. I was just wonder'in if you support the ACLU? Oh, one other question if you don't mind. Did you ever meet a Christian that you liked?

Semper Fi Sir

I think I'd like to belly up to the bar with you and buy ya a cold one........

btrogu

08-25-03, 07:22 PM

Guys lets give this a rest. We're Marines, we fight the bad guys, not each other. I think stuff like this is better kept within yourselves. Everyone has his or her own view on Religion. This is why we have the greatest country in the world, our freedom. We can't change what the courts say. Just like if we're ordered to a place to fight that we think is wrong. I hate to see a lot of good people on this sight leave over something like this.. SEMPER FI guys.

ks4oc

08-25-03, 07:27 PM

NO WAY should the monument be removed.

The purpose of the "separation of church and state" as written into the Constitution is specifically to protect...THE CHURCH!

Remember that historically, King Henry (the 8th, I believe) was seeking a divorce from Anne Bolin. Since the Catholic Church did not believe in divorce and annulment was impossible because they had consumated the marriage, Henry was stuck with a "barren" woman. One who could bare him no children. In his anger that he would have no male offspring, he had the Queen beheaded...divorce final. Henry went on to create the Anglican Church, or Church of England, based on the Catholic Church, but allowing divorce.

When our forefathers declared their independence and established the Constitution, they wanted to ensure that the STATE could not establish a NATIONAL religion.

The 10 Commandments were given to Moses by God (so it is written). They are the basis for all laws of man, no matter how detailed we choose to make them.

Personally, I think the Monument should stand as what it is, where it is. The basic laws as given to Moses. The ACLU and the 3 lawyers that found it offensive should go back and re-study their law books, and the Bible.

Frank

garryh123

08-25-03, 08:44 PM

good call Frank

garryh123

08-25-03, 08:46 PM

When you overthink things...it usually screws everything up.....just my humble under educated opinion..LOL

arzach

08-25-03, 09:00 PM

firstsgtmike

08-25-03, 09:06 PM

If you accept the arguments presented for the removal of the monument then you must also believe that all tax-supported museums throughout the country should be required to eliminate all religious works of art, to include paintings, prehistoric statuettes, totems, any and all references to fertility rites and goddesses, tribal beliefs, historical references to the pilgrims, and the religious settlements which later became States.

Also, the historical bibles and family bibles which contain the history of their generations, and any and all historical documents which quote scripture.

Federal Holidays, such as Thanksgiving Day, Easter, and Christmas must be abolished.

By the way, don't forget that the names of many cities will have to be changed so as not to be offensive. Remember it is tax dollars that pay for street signs, etc,

Please don't stop with the removal of just one monument. If you are going to do it, DO IT RIGHT! Sweep the whole country clean.

I'm waiting to read about the first class action lawsuit asking for monetary damages for their pain and suffering for being forced to live under such horrendious traumatic conditions.

firstsgtmike

08-25-03, 09:32 PM

GreenSideOut,

Do you see what you started with this poll?

I haven't had this much fun with my clothes on in a long time.

top1371

08-25-03, 09:48 PM

This has gotten to be quite interesting. Or really confusing :D

I'm at the point that I am on both sides :D

I would like to cari fy for all my friends here, that I said I was a person with out religion, BUT if you come to my house for dinner and wanted to say grace, I would let you and I would even bow my head and close my eyes out of respect.

firstsgtmike really hit the nail on the head for me when he pointed out that this was more an issue of disobeying an order. (paraphrasing here).

:confused:

Top

firstsgtmike

08-25-03, 10:58 PM

quote;

"I'm at the point that I am on both sides."

unquote;

That IS the point!

Both sides must appreciate the fact that both sides have valid arguments.

A position of understanding leaves room for tolerance and acceptance. And sometimes makes the "unbearable" bearable.

zippoman

08-26-03, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by arzach

Second round is on me..

Now i reckon I'll have to skip that one, cuz I don't drink that imported Sh!t that you drink....maybe I could have a shot of GradySan's Cabin Stillness.......or JD......:p

MAJMike

08-26-03, 08:45 AM

Cpls. Greenside and ks4oc make interesting points.

First of all, I am a Christian - a member in good standing at St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Atlanta, so I am NOT some Godless heathen.

KS4OC correctly points out that our system of law in this country (except in Louisiana, where it is patterend on the French Napoleanic Code) is based on English law. I won't go into the obvious history or reasons for this. It's ENGLISH law - not Biblical law.

KS4OC also states:

"Remember that historically, King Henry (the 8th, I believe) was seeking a divorce from Anne Bolin. Since the Catholic Church did not believe in divorce and annulment was impossible because they had consumated the marriage, Henry was stuck with a "barren" woman. One who could bare him no children. In his anger that he would have no male offspring, he had the Queen beheaded...divorce final. Henry went on to create the Anglican Church, or Church of England, based on the Catholic Church, but allowing divorce.

When our forefathers declared their independence and established the Constitution, they wanted to ensure that the STATE could not establish a NATIONAL religion."

Gentlemen: Putting a religious icon in a government building promotes a specific religion. Yes, it is judeao-christian, but there are a hell of a lot of us "Americans" who are neither Jewish or Christian. There are more Muslims in this country than you probably imagine. ...and Hindus and a hundred other religions. If it's OK to place a Judeao-Christian icon in a court house, then it's OK to place a copy of the Quoran there also.

And while most of these religions acknowledge a Creator, it is not accepted by all religions that this Creator handed the Ten Commandments to Moses.

You have all jumped on the "religious" aspect of this issue, but no one has touched on the simple, basic issue - that is Judge Roy Moore has disobeyed a lawful, legal Federal order.

So, as Marines, who are sworn to "defend the Constitution of the US..." you advocate disobeying a legal, lawful direct order because of religious grounds?

If you were an active duty Marine and were ordered to Montgomery to provide security while the monument was removed, what would you do?

Let's recall the Arkansas National Guard troops, many who held segregationist views, who were federalized when Gov. Faubus "stood in the school house door in Little Rock" and refused to integrate the Little Rock schools. There were no instances of any of them refusing to carry out the order - REGARDLESS of their beliefs.

You guys get so impassioned over YOUR religious "rights" that you neglect to consider that this has to do with carrying out a legal order, let alone the "rights" of someone who may not have your same beliefs.

Perhaps we should engage our brain housing group before spouting off.

And, yes, I DO support the ACLU. And if the Founding Fathers were alive, so would they - they were the ORIGINAL ACLU - stop and think about it. They defended the rights of the ordinary man against the Crown. The ACLU supports and defends the rights of the common man.

And, as an aside, MANY of the founding fathers, far from being religious fanatics, were "deists" - a popular form of religion in the late 18th century that stated that you worshiped and showed reverence to "God" through everyday acts and the observation of nature. FEW were regular churchgoers. For an excellent example of this, pick up and read "Benjamin Franklin" by Walter Issacson, currently on every best seller list in the country. The most religious of the Founding Fathers were the New Englanders - based on thier Puritan and Calvinist backrounds.

Remember also that events such as the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials were conducted under the guise of religion in government.

If a few of you are at least thinking about some of this, then I have served my purpose.

At ease, I'll be in the area all day.

MAJ MR Ventura USMCR (Ret)
A6 Driver
The Nam 1970-72

zippoman

08-26-03, 10:04 AM

Yeah, I just bet one on my founding fathers would have voted and supported the ACLU on this one.....

Unprecedented Group of Civil Rights, First Amendment Advocates Join ACLU in Urging U.S. Supreme Court to Block Boy Scouts Bias
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, April 26, 2000

NEW YORK – Assembling one of the broadest, most powerful coalitions ever to come before the U.S. Supreme Court in a lesbian and gay rights case, the American Civil Liberties Union, joined by 18 of the nation's leading civil rights groups, today urged the Court to rule that Boy Scouts of America cannot discriminate against gay people.

The nation's premiere African-American, Asian-American, Mexican-American and women's organizations joined leading First Amendment advocacy groups on the brief in Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale.The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case this morning.

"This brief makes an incredibly profound statement – not simply in its content, but in its source," said Matthew Coles, Director of the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. "Every leading civil rights and First Amendment group in the country has come forward, together, telling the Supreme Court that preventing the Boy Scouts from discriminating is not only constitutional, but is in line with the core American value of judging people on the basis of capability, not on stereotypes."

James Dale, a former Boy Scout and Assistant Scout Master, was told to sever his relationship with the organization because he is gay. He sued, saying his expulsion violated New Jersey's anti-discrimination law, which forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation in public accommodations. The trial court ruled against him, finding that the Boy Scouts is not a public accommodation and that subjecting the group to the state anti-discrimination law would violate Boy Scouts' freedom of expressive association. An appellate court reversed that decision, and the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the reversal. Dale is represented by the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

In the brief filed in today's case, the broad coalition of civil rights and First Amendment groups said the Boys Scouts "has no more right to discriminate in violation of state law than the Rotary Club or Jaycees. Like those other organizations, whose earlier efforts to evade the civil rights laws were soundly rejected by this Court, the exclusionary anti-gay membership policy that the Boy Scouts now so vigorously defends falls outside the scope of any associational or expressive freedom protected by the First Amendment."

The brief was filed by the ACLU on behalf of the following groups: the American Federation of Teachers, the Anti-Defamation League, the California Women's Law Center, the Center for Women Policy Studies, Equal Rights Advocates, the Human Rights Campaign, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Asian Pacific Legal Consortium, the National Council of Jewish Women, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Partnership for Women and Families, the National Women's Law Center, the Northwest Women's Law Center, People for the American Way Foundation, Women Employed and the Women's Law Project.

The brief in Boy Scouts of America v. James Daleis available online at: http://archive.aclu.org/court/boyscouts_v_dale.html.

To learn more about lesbian and gay issues, visit the Lesbian and Gay Rights section of the ACLU's web site, http://archive.aclu.org/ .
============================================

I think you objected to original subject even being on a Marine Corps Forum board.........this sure as hell ain't the place to be talkin about a bunch of anti American scumbags like the aclu....
They have undermined just about every moral law in this Country...
Damn $%^*%$^(&**%&%*^& PC'd jarheads is worse than anything !!! I need my blood pressure meds..........

USMC-FO

08-26-03, 12:28 PM

Well this has certainly been one of the most spirited exchanges I have seen--ANYWHERE--for some time ! All very enjoyable reading.

I have found most all the arguements to be well meaning and certainly important and impassioned to the speaker.

But my opinion is with the Major. I believe he is right in all this.

And "Zipoman" you changed the subject here. And I have to assume too that given your passion on both subjects you must spend a lot of your time jacked up on you BP meds.

zippoman

08-26-03, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by USMC-FO
Well this has certainly been one of the most spirited exchanges I have seen--ANYWHERE--for some time ! All very enjoyable reading.

I have found most all the arguements to be well meaning and certainly important and impassioned to the speaker.

But my opinion is with the Major. I believe he is right in all this.

And "Zipoman" you changed the subject here. And I have to assume too that given your passion on both subjects you must spend a lot of your time jacked up on you BP meds.

Hey Marine....the Major mentioned the ACLU...and I was just pointing out one of the lame azz issues that the ACLU was defending......don't worry bout my fvcking Meds...the VA gave me a great big ole black coffee cup with the following on it !!
"Heavily Medicated For Your Protection !!

USMC-FO

08-26-03, 01:37 PM

Hey Marine...

Take a breath and relax !

mardet65

08-26-03, 01:57 PM

[
But my opinion is with the Major. I believe he is right in all this.

]
USMC-FO
Good for you! But be careful or you'll be branded a "Godless Heathen!"

USMC-FO

08-26-03, 02:07 PM

Not a problem MarDet, I've been called worse.

Has been a spirited exchange hasn't it !

S/F

zippoman

08-26-03, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by mardet65

USMC-FO
Good for you! But be careful or you'll be branded a "Godless Heathen!"

Mardet65 and USMC-FO.....tell ya what.....I wouldn't never call nobody a Godless Heathen.....I don't know nuthin bout your personal relationship with a God or without a God and it really ain't none o my damned business....I promised somebody that when I came back into this forum and website, I'd behave myself, and I think I'm gonna try to live up to my word.....so I'm gonna drop all this stuff now except my opine is that the Stone should stay.....I'm back on the subject matter now, and thats just my opine based on what I believe this Country was founded on. If you think otherwise, then thats your right and you opine too.....
I'm not a scholar or an expert on the Constitution. I ain't never cared too much about "Man's" law anyway, so I just usually go on my gut feeling and common sense. Treated me right so far.
Have a good day !!!

MAJMike

08-26-03, 02:37 PM

Gentlemen:

Our system of law is an adversary based system. That means that BOTH sides are free to argue, in a legal manner in a court of law, their side of the issue. Both sides will find legal precedents to support their cases. It is up to a judge and or a jury to decide who is right and who isn't.

You may not like or agree with the ACLU, BUT if we didn't have organizations like this, and didn't have an adversary to take up the unpopular cause, then the government could do what ever it wants, when ever it wants, without being challenged.

What the ACLU does in the legal arena is not dissimilar to what a labor union does for its members. The rise of the unions in the US was sparked by dictatorial policies by the huge industrial corporations. The unions were born to give voice to the common worker.

You may not agree with some of the causes that the ACLU champions, but you should be thankful that someone is willing to stand up and challenge some of these things.

It wasn't too long ago that governments with no adversarial system of justice came to power - those of Nazi Germany and Facist Italy - because they eliminated any system to challenge the government.

On another point, I cannot understand that many who profess to be devout Christians are also homophobic. Someone explain to me how someone who professes a religion that is based on love can be so hateful to people with a different sexual orientation?

Just another log on the fire, boys.

MR Ventura
MAJ USMCR (Ret)

MAJMike

08-26-03, 02:47 PM

LCpl Zippoman:

Actually, I would equate the Founding Fathers as being the ORIGINAL ACLU!

What does ACLU (the acronym) stand for? American Civil Liberties Union!

The Founding Fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and after we had won our independence from the Crown, drafted a Constitution based on the Rights of every man (and woman) in this country.

Stop and consider what you learned in American History - No taxation without representation; Give me liberty or give me death!

Convince me that the American Revolution WASN"T a fight for basic civil liberties?

Are any of you veterans on disability? The ACLU was a major proponent for the Americans With Disabilities Act. Yeah, they might be fighting homophobia these days, but they also fought against the Klan, McCarthyism and a lot of other "causes."

Just another perspective.

The Major

mardet65

08-26-03, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by zippoman

Mardet65 and USMC-FO.....tell ya what.....I wouldn't never call nobody a Godless Heathen.....I don't know nuthin bout your personal relationship with a God or without a God and it really ain't none o my damned business....I promised somebody that when I came back into this forum and website, I'd behave myself, and I think I'm gonna try to live up to my word.....so I'm gonna drop all this stuff now except my opine is that the Stone should stay.....I'm back on the subject matter now, and thats just my opine based on what I believe this Country was founded on. If you think otherwise, then thats your right and you opine too.....
I'm not a scholar or an expert on the Constitution. I ain't never cared too much about "Man's" law anyway, so I just usually go on my gut feeling and common sense. Treated me right so far.
Have a good day !!!

It's just a discussion my friend, no offense taken and none meant.

mardet65

08-26-03, 03:02 PM

I usually tend to agree with what the First Sgt. has been saying in many of his recent posts but as a police officer for thirty plus years, I've got to go with the Major on this. It took me a lot of those thirty plus years and a heck of a lot of training to accept and understand the role of the ACLU and our Supreme Court. Good point on the Founding Fathers as the first ACLU... I like it.

USMC-FO

08-26-03, 03:20 PM

Right on point MarDet.

It is often very difficult to accept and reconcile the line where religion, freedom, and law intersect as this tread has well demonstrated. The blood runs hot and emotions can easily run over that which we all treasure about this country.

arzach

08-26-03, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by zippoman

Mardet65 and USMC-FO.....tell ya what.....I wouldn't never call nobody a Godless Heathen.....I don't know nuthin bout your personal relationship with a God or without a God and it really ain't none o my damned business....I promised somebody that when I came back into this forum and website, I'd behave myself, and I think I'm gonna try to live up to my word.....so I'm gonna drop all this stuff now except my opine is that the Stone should stay.....I'm back on the subject matter now, and thats just my opine based on what I believe this Country was founded on. If you think otherwise, then thats your right and you opine too.....
I'm not a scholar or an expert on the Constitution. I ain't never cared too much about "Man's" law anyway, so I just usually go on my gut feeling and common sense. Treated me right so far.
Have a good day !!!

I'm in with you Grunt...Ain't got no proper schoolin', just the school of hard knocks and four years at The University of Science, Medicine and Culture...

The original question WAS 'Do the Commandments stay?'...I've said all along that they should.

Major, far as puttin' up ol muhammed up in a court house or other public building..I believe the saying "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" applies here.

Come on Bro, lets do sum brews n shots....

MAJMike

08-26-03, 04:39 PM

I'm declaring liberty for one and all.

GREAT discussion!!!!

Sempers

Major Mike
A6 Driver - Bomb Deliverer

greensideout

08-26-03, 07:33 PM

Major,

I expected better from you!

zippoman has you grappling to defend your position of support for the ACLU. Your argument has been reduced to name calling!
"Homophobic", "boys"?

Not what I would expect from a Marine Corps officer!

Humm, I wonder what Sigmund Freud would think of your obsession for those words?

GSO

arzach

08-26-03, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by USMC-FO
.

And "Zipoman" you changed the subject here. And I have to assume too that given your passion on both subjects you must spend a lot of your time jacked up on you BP meds.

USMC-FO...I know Zippoman personal, don't think that crack about his meds was called for. And you want to call him about changin' the subject?

Just 'cause the Major is a Major, don't make him right either. My opine, he's about 'out there' with the aclu...and no, the aclu is no comparison to Labor Unions. I ain't real enthused with Labor Unions but they do serve a purpose, a useful one most times...aclu just irritates most of the time.

Still waitin' on them brews n shots Daner..

mardet65

08-27-03, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by zippoman
I think you objected to original subject even being on a Marine Corps Forum board.........this sure as hell ain't the place to be talkin about a bunch of anti American scumbags like the aclu....
They have undermined just about every moral law in this Country...
Damn $%^*%$^(&**%&%*^& PC'd jarheads is worse than anything !!! I need my blood pressure meds..........

USMC-FO did not bring up the subject of zippomans medications.
All he did was refer to the above comment by zippoman himself,,, and it was a harmless joke at that. You guy's gotta' calm down some... the idea of open discussion means everyone can express his opinion without getting blown out of the water. And what does the Major's being a major, have to do with his being right or wrong on any subject? The man is right because his argument is based on fact and not on his personal beliefs... Whatever they may be. Your personal presumption that we agree with the Major because he's a major, is a perfect example of what I mean about personal beliefs making people think their conclusion(s) are always right.

Barrio_rat

08-27-03, 12:08 PM

This discussion has been something else. I had to take some time, step back and collect my thoughts on this issue. I have found myself agreeing with most of what the First Sgt. has been stating, though he has taken both sides of the issue, and I have found, while he makes very valid arguments, that I do not agree with the Major on most of his points. Just over the one issue of a monument being placed in the Alabama State Court House, we have touched on many other issues in this forum - I think it is great.

I personally do not think the monument of the Ten Commandments should have been placed in the Alabama State Court House - though I do not have a problem with it being in a public area, such as a park where there is room for other such monuments that can represent a whole host of religions and faiths, or at least other parks where they can be placed. When this monument was placed in the location where it is now they had to have known that this was going to happen. Perhaps that was the reason for doing it. Since the monument is there, I think it should stay. I do not believe it violates the First Amendment as no religion is endorsed. If you say one is, I’d like to know which one. The Jewish faith? Perhaps Lutheran? Or Catholic? Maybe Pentecostal? Which religion is it? None. Because of this, it should stand.

Something both the First Sgt. and the Major have brought up is the law. Is it okay to ignore or break the law if you don’t agree with it? No, it’s not. However, there are some laws which go against the Constitution making them moot. A moot law is unenforceable and, some would argue, should be ignored. Yet these so-called moot laws are enforced every day. We have people in prison for violating these moot laws. Some would argue that the ruling by the eight other state judges as well as the ruling by the federal judge is moot. Though I do agree, the judges have ruled and the ruling should be followed while still being fought in the courts.

As to Judge Moore, I think he is making a fine stand. He has chosen his battle and is not wavering. I respect him for this though I think he has taken the wrong track in the battle - disobedience. He could very well have stated that since no Alabama or federal tax dollars were used to create or place the monument, he would use no Alabama or federal tax dollars to remove it and that he would not collect any funds to do so. He could have further stated that if the ACLU wanted it down, they could collect the funds and remove it themselves and be liable for any damage to the court house in the removal of the monument. There is the issue of state rights which has been getting more and more blurred since the mid 1800's. I think with the issue of state rights and that private funds created and placed the monument, he would have a very valid point in using private funds to remove it. How far it would go, who knows? This may have taken part of the burden off of him (Judge Moore) and placed it on the ACLU - if they want it done, let them get it done.

The ACLU in my opinion is a hypocritical bureaucracy and has no desire to help or defend anyone’s civil liberties but, rather, only want to dismantle the United States with nonsensical laws and law suits. The ACLU is my enemy. They support child molesters and help those who would wish to do me harm. They have taken good men and, through pressure of the federal courts, had them put in prison for doing their job. Just because it states American Civil Liberties Union does not mean that is what it is or what they do. The DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), a.k.a. North Korea, is hardly democratic, is not for the people and has yet to become a republic - just because it’s in the name does not make it true. And yes, I understand that the ACLU has done some good - the Mafia has done some good too, I don’t see any point in celebrating their accomplishments.

zippoman

08-27-03, 12:20 PM

Outstanding food for thought !!! Chomp....chomp....damn, almost as good as canned peaches and fruit cocktail.....whur's my Lucky's......

arzach

08-27-03, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by mardet65

---------------------------

And "Zipoman" you changed the subject here. And I have to assume too that given your passion on both subjects you must spend a lot of your time jacked up on you BP meds.
---------------------------

USMC-FO did not bring up the subject of zippomans medications.
All he did was refer to the above comment by zippoman himself,,, and it was a harmless joke at that. You guy's gotta' calm down some... the idea of open discussion means everyone can express his opinion without getting blown out of the water. And what does the Major's being a major, have to do with his being right or wrong on any subject? The man is right because his argument is based on fact and not on his personal beliefs... Whatever they may be. Your personal presumption that we agree with the Major because he's a major, is a perfect example of what I mean about personal beliefs making people think their conclusion(s) are always right.

Didn't say USMC-FO 'brought' up Zippomans meds...and it don't sound to me like a joke..mebbe if he knew Zippoman but to come out with the above statement about the meds is a cheap shot..don't matter much, just considerin' the source. Whoops, might have gotten in some trouble with that one..just for speakin' my mind.

Presumtions aside, what I said about the Major was simply...just because he's a Major, don't make him right. The only thing he's right about is the disobedience of a Federal Judge. In my opine tho, most of those lefty Judges need replaced anyway. That being said, you can agree with whomever you please..don't matter much to me anyway, I'm comfortable with my position.

Semper Fi...

greensideout

08-27-03, 07:03 PM

OUTSTANDING POST Barrio_rat!

As you pointed out, this issue has brought out interesting views that show how the movement of the monument pulls on very deep seated and strongly felt beliefs of many of us on both sides of the issue.

The monument has been moved now.
Judge Moore complied with the court order.
Justice has been served.

Semper Fi,
Ron

Sparrowhawk

08-27-03, 07:32 PM

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tmdlo/2003/tmdlo030826.gif

Sparrowhawk

08-27-03, 07:35 PM

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tmdiw/2003/tmdiw030826.gif

gwladgarwr

08-28-03, 12:11 AM

Moore and his supporters claim the Ten Commandments are the foundation of the U.S. legal system and that forbidding the acknowledgment of the Judeo-Christian God violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion. Um, it was that sort of meddling on the part of the British monarch in all our present civil rights, including religion and the right of personal conscience and thought that prompted the inclusion of the First Amendment (and no, the First Amendment was not created to protect the church - or ANY church - considering that the “State Church” at the time was the Church of England whose head was - guess who? - King George III. He dictated that YOUR official religion was the Anglican Church - regardless of what your true faith was. The 1st was created to protect individual freedom of thought and conscience and expression and to prohibit “government” AND “majority” intrusion. Our Constitution is neither based on nor derived from anything in the Bible except out of wishful thinking.

So, we can have free exercise of religion in our country under our Constitution ONLY if we acknowledge the Judeo-Christian god. Good. The Romans allowed early Christians to practice their faith only if they worshipped HIM - the emperor - as a god, and all the other deities, too. If Judge Moore and every one of his supporters can show where in the Constitution and in judicial precendence and American history that specifically proclaim the Ten Commandments and the Bible (or the Torah) are the foundation of our Constitution and the supreme law of the land, I’ll go and get re-baptized and swear immediate and perpetual allegiance to the Vatican.

Not only has this man used his office and influence to impose his own beliefs on the citizens of the state of Alabama on the arrogant presumption of speaking on their behalf, he also showed flagrant disregard and contempt for the laws of the State of Alabama and our Constitution that he swore to uphold by refusing to remove his privately-funded monument under Federal court order. Remember, Fabius refused to integrate Little Rock High - in the name of ‘states rights’ - in defiance of court order and presidential Executive Order - under the appalling pretense of attempting to maintain and protect “custom and tradition” “protected by law”.

Alexis de Tocqueville (yes, he was a French aristocrat) stated:

“The sovereign can no longer say, “You shall think as I do on pain of death”: but he says, “You are free to think differently from me, and to retain your life, your property, and all that you possess; but if such be your determination, you are henceforth an alien along your people. You may retain your civil rights, but they will be useless to you, for you will never be chosen by your fellow-citizens, if you solicit their suffrages; and they will affect to scorn you, if you solicit their esteem. You will remain among men, but will shun you like an impure being; and those who are mostly persuaded of your innocence will abandon you too, lest they should be shunned in their turn."

It is true that many, many people in this country subscribe to the Judeo-Christian faith, but arguing that “that’s what most of us believe in, anyway” is highly dangerous in that the Founding Fathers were extremely aware of the possibility of a majority of any group or issue believing that they have the irrefutable right to impose their will on the rest of the population simply by virtue of their numerical “superiority”. In other words, “majority rules” is not always right, and is not always desirable, under our Constitution. Just because the “majority” agrees with it don’t make it right. (One single judge appointed by the State of Alabama doesn’t make it any more legit, either.) The Founding Fathers foresaw this issue by implementing a variety of mechanisms, namely, a Bill of Rights, to ensure that individual rights themselves, as well as the individuals’ right to be free from government and popular whim (not in the sense of ‘trendy’, but in the sense of ‘the people’), be protected. Does the majority argument pass the test of the 1st Amendment, or the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.? On the flip side where the minority will does not prevail at the polling booth or in the courts, does the minority argument pass Constitutional muster?

When I became a Marine, I swore to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States of America - not the Ten Commandments nor the Bible nor the Koran nor Dave Letterman’s Top Ten List (the “so help me God” part WAS a violation of my Constitutional rights, but was a small price to pay compared to much greater injustices in our country’s history). I did not swear to protect my interpretation of the Constitution and not the Gallup Poll’s May 2003 edition popular opinion interpretation of the Constitution (all this is ultimately decided by the Supreme Court appointed by the President whom WE elected). I fought to protect THE Constitution for ALL Americans and all rights, duties, obligations and LAWS contained therein - not for the benefit of just one person or one group. And I certainly did not fight to protect one religion or belief or rights at the expense of the rest and at odds with the Constitution and the law. I honestly wish Judge Moore could say the same for himself.

Some of it is my opinion, and the rest is FACT.

MY two bits.

firstsgtmike

08-28-03, 12:57 AM

Nigerian stoning appeal heard
Wednesday, August 27, 2003

Lawal gave birth to a baby girl more than nine months after divorcing.

KATSINA, Nigeria (AP) -- Tears of fright in her eyes, a 32-year-old Nigerian single mother cuddled and nursed her young daughter in a sweltering Islamic appeals court Wednesday as lawyers pleaded she be spared death by stoning for bearing the child out of wedlock.

Heavily veiled and draped, Amina Lawal appeared overwhelmed by the crush of riot police, journalists and rights workers as she arrived for a case that has sparked international campaigns on her behalf.

"I've never been this afraid," Lawal said, tears rolling down her downcast face as she made her way past riot police ringing the courthouse in northern Nigeria's Katsina state. "I'm tired of all this."

In her arms, daughter Wasila, whose birth brought Lawal's death sentence for adultery, stared wide-eyed up at her mother.

Lawal is the best known of three people awaiting stoning sentences in a dozen northern Nigerian states that have adopted Islamic law, or Shariah.

Introduction of Islamic law has heightened Muslim-Christian tensions in Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation. Heightened religious, ethnic and political violence has claimed at least 10,000 lives since President Olusegun Obasanjo's 1999 election ended 15 years of repressive military juntas.

An Islamic court convicted Lawal in March 2002 following the birth of her baby, more than two years after Lawal and her husband divorced.

Judges ordered her buried up to her neck in sand and stoned. While appeals continue, courts have ordered Lawal's execution postponed until her child -- now nearly 2 -- is weaned.

The alleged father of the baby denied responsibility and was acquitted.

On Wednesday, Shariah court prosecutor Nurulhuda Mohammad Darma argued Lawal's pregnancy and divorced status were "enough evidence" that adultery had been committed.

Judges said Wednesday they would announce their ruling Sept. 25.

Yawuri also contended that under some interpretations of Shariah law, babies can remain in gestation in their mother's womb for up to five years, making it possible under Islam that her ex-husband could have fathered the child.

Nearly an hour into the hearing, the chief judge, or Grand Khadi, Aminu Ibrahim, warned the dozen or more volunteer and charity-appointed attorneys clamoring to give arguments on Lawal's behalf not to dally.

"The case has dragged on for too long," Ibrahim said.

Barrio_rat

08-28-03, 01:47 AM

I received this email today and thought this was as good a place as any to put it. If you are offended, well, that wasn't the intent.

WRITE IT ON THE BACK OF YOUR ENVELOPES

You may have heard in the news that a couple of Post Offices in Texas have been forced to take down small posters that say "IN GOD WE TRUST." The law, they say, is being violated. It is something silly about electioneering posters (is God running for office)?

Anyway, I heard proposed on a radio station show, that we all write "IN GOD WE 'TRUST" on the back of all our mail. After all, that is our national motto and it's on all the money we use to buy those stamps. I think it is a wonderful idea. We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed.

If you like this idea, please pass it on and DO IT. The idea of writing "IN GOD WE TRUST" on our envelopes sounds good to me. Some people are even having a STAMP made for easy application!

It has been reported that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the pledge of Allegiance.

Could it be that we just need to take action and tell the 14% to sit down and shut up?

USMC-FO

08-28-03, 06:54 AM

Well written and thought out "two bits" L/Cpl Alphabet.

Semper Fi

Sparrowhawk

08-28-03, 10:21 AM

Shouldn't what the Ten Commndments say, be taken into consideration?

What is wrong with what they say?

Scatch off the ones you don't agree with...

Sparrowhawk

08-28-03, 03:16 PM

I just realized I violated commandment no. 10 when I posted this.

I ripped off the image of the gif showing the ten commandments off another site.

Humm, about that image thing, did I just violate no. 2 as well?

MAJMike

08-28-03, 04:44 PM

Very well argued and stated!

MR Ventura
MAJ USMCR (Ret)
(and a former Sgt/2531 before OCS!)

greensideout

08-28-03, 06:06 PM

Sparrowhawk,

Don't worry about the "image thing" unless you plan to worship it.

I figure, if it doesn't normally wear a skirt you won't be. LOL

firstsgtmike

09-06-03, 05:30 AM

A Monumental Story

Friday, September 05, 2003

By Eric Burns

It is made of granite. It weighs 5,300 pounds. It was a big object in the rotunda of the state judicial building in Montgomery, Ala. It is not there anymore, but it remains a big object in the news.

I will not, in this column, take a stand on whether or not the Ten Commandments monument belonged in its former location; far too many people have already expressed their opinions. Rather, I want to explain why this story has bulked so large both on the air and in the papers for the past two weeks.

Part of its appeal, actually, is that it is two stories, depending on how the various reporter or columnist wants to tell it.

It is the story of the lone Christian crusader, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, now suspended, fighting the forces of secularism and immorality and having inspired a march by supporters on the state capitol.

Or it is the story of the lone crusading egomaniac, defying the intent of the Founding Fathers for the purpose of personal religious expression.

Or it is a story that combines elements of both of the above, hoping to achieve a certain fairness and balance.

It is the kind of story to which people respond viscerally; encounter it for the first time with a blood pressure sleeve around your arm and your numbers may very well soar. Why would anyone want to get rid of the Ten Commandments? some will wonder as both systolic and diastolic climb to the red zone. Why would anyone so blatantly disregard the Founders’ desire to separate church and state, not to mention the oath he had sworn upon becoming a judge? will be the plaint of others as the nurse runs for medication.

It is also the kind of story to which people respond intellectually, as it stirs debate about the meaning of the First Amendment. What kind of law, precisely, respects an establishment of religion? What kind of monument does? Didn’t the framers of the Constitution, during the very process of constructing the document, acknowledge their belief in, and dependence upon, the Almighty?

It is a story that raises hackles as well as questions, that transcends the here-and-now and asks about the very nature of being an American.

It is a story about the apparent bull-headedness of Judge Moore. Why did he think it was his place, and his alone, to order the Ten Commandments monument to be installed in the judicial building in Montgomery? True, he and other private donors paid for it--no taxpayer money involved--but what made him think such a step was necessary?

And could he please stop comparing himself to Patrick Henry?

That having been said, it is also a story about the role of faith in American pubic life. Yes, the Ten Commandments are the teachings of Christianity, but although expressed in different language, and with different points of emphasis, they are also the teachings of every other major religion in the world. Don’t all creeds insist on the primacy of their divine being, and set aside a holy day each week? Don’t all men and women of sound mind and good will object to killing and stealing and bearing false witness?

Why is it so controversial, in a nation founded by Christians and populated primarily by Christians, to express such basic tenets of human behavior in the language of Christianity, even in, or especially in, a public venue? There is no implication in the Ten Commandments of unfair treatment toward Jews or Muslims or Buddhists. The Ten Commandments are not, after all, the Seven Deadly Sins.

Furthermore, some of the Ten Commandments are the basis of law as well as religion. To engrave them on a piece of granite in the rotunda of a judicial building does not seem altogether inappropriate.

The big piece of granite is now out of sight. The appeal of the story, however, remains clear.

gehrij

09-12-03, 03:34 PM

LEAVE THE 10 RIGHT WHERE THEY ARE!REINSTATE THE JUDGE!!!
This country was founded"under God" note not one particular denomination,---but GOD!!!
Ever hear GOD_COUNTRY_CORPS?
What is wrong with basic guiding principles???
One of them is "thou shalt not steal"
Why must we as a country even listen to bleeding aeithiests,and others who should be deported?

Omega

09-20-03, 08:35 AM

I know this is a little late but I figured I'd put in my two pennies. One what is the first of the ten commandmants. thou shalt have no other gods before me. So if I go in this particular courthouse and happen to be a buddhist. what would I think I'd think I better pretend to be a christian otherwise I'm disobeying the ten commandments rules this judge lives by. something he upholds higher than the law which he is supposed to enterpret.

Someone here said there's no such thing as an atheist in a fighting hole. I've heard SEVERAL people tell me they stopped believing in god when in combat. and as a direct result of it. not all but some so I find this statement to be false.

should the commandments stay? I say no. They directly violate other peoples religous beliefs. Ever read the saying how can a civil right be a moral wrong? Morals are opinions. everyone has their own interpretation on what is good morals and what isn't. That should not be a part of the decision making process for a judge who is supposed to be interpreting MANS law. If he (the judge) wanted to be a Moral leader then he should have been a priest or preacher.

My statements are not of malicious intent and are not meant to attack anyones views or path in life. I respect every Marine for what they have done for me. But these are things that I thought had some bearing on the discussion at hand.

BTW, If I disagree with you does that mean I should be deported? I should hope not. I was raised by a deeply religious person. when I expressed that my views no longer matched this person I was not thrown out of their home. If someday I have a child and it doesn't not agree with me on moral views that's fine as long as it obeys my laws (or rules) of the house. Isn't that what the USA is based on Acceptance and tolerance of opinion. Not Imposing my opinions on others. As long as that individual obeys our laws?

Sparrowhawk

09-21-03, 07:51 PM

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ch/1992/ch920911.gif

arzach

09-21-03, 08:08 PM

Really like Calvin..this strip really says a lot about the way the country is heading. Ain't gonna get real deep in it, but when we as a Nation turn away from God and start acting like the 'bit' players at Soddom and Gommorah....well, ya'll know what I'm talkin' about.

Osotogary

09-21-03, 09:54 PM

Really?:)

JChristin

09-22-03, 01:19 AM

Present day society appears hell bent on doing the “politically” correct action, at the expense of “sterilizing” our society, so much so, that eventually, we will all have our own faces wiped clean of any appearance because it may “upset” someone. That way, when we all look the same, smell the same, dress the same, and talk the same; everything will be equal, in a godless society, where everything must be sterile in order to be fair to all members of that society.

The United States of America was founded as one nation “under” God. Reviewing a dollar bill, it does not state under: Buddha, Ishmael, Mohammed, Jesus, or Dear Abby, it states: Under God. That provides a generic reference to a higher being – without naming it directly. That is very American. Having existed as one nation under God for well over 228 years, I think the testing of “Under God” has withstood the pressure washing of time – almost to the point of becoming “sterile-white,” and that our society will survive, Under God.

The Ten Commandments are not only Christian principles. They are found in the Old Testament – which according to my recollection is part of the Jewish faith and one other major world religion. They are not possessive to one Christian sect, such as the Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, or Mormons. They are principles on which to live by – as ideals. Should they be removed? No. Just as neither should the sayings of Jefferson, Adams, or Franklin be removed from federal or state building around the country.

Semper fi,
jchristin

Lock-n-Load

09-22-03, 06:20 AM

:marine: Nice post...I agree with your observations of what is taking place in our American society since 1992...what has made the USA rock/solid should never be cast aside; rather, our inherent American characteristics should be reinforced everyday.....Semper Fi :marine:

arzach

09-22-03, 05:08 PM

jchristin ....excellent post...thing is, it's all been said and still they argue and want God removed....Lock n Load, samo,samo....

Semper Fi Marines

Rick

acts837

09-23-03, 09:37 PM

they should be stay!

greensideout

09-25-03, 07:42 PM

acts837,

I looked and found no acts837, however the footnote says it all!

Semper Fi Marine

Rat Patrol

09-25-03, 08:02 PM

8:37 1 Early mss do not contain verse 37

37[ And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."]

greensideout

09-25-03, 09:55 PM

Funny thing, sort of;

I was at a new location (building) at work today and was called to get a machine back on line.

After doing so I headed back to the shop area. On the way I saw about 20 people that were standing in a circle being solemn and looking up at the ceiling. I wondered immediately if something terrible had happened. I stopped and watched to learn what was going on. They were then instructed by a leader to move their head into another position.

They were practicing Yoga! A Hindu religion! They do it everyday!

The problem is, this was in a GOVERNMENT BUILDING!

What happened to, "Separation of Church and State"?

We really know what that means, "Separation of (The Christian Church) and State".

Would they mind if I posted the "Ten Commandments" in that room?

I already know, it's not allowed!

garryh123

09-25-03, 10:17 PM

They have special rooms in schools here for the muslims to pray in. Talk about hypocracy!(think i spelled that right LOL)

JChristin

09-25-03, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by greensideout
Funny thing, sort of;

On the way I saw about 20 people that were standing in a circle being solemn and looking up at the ceiling. They were practicing Yoga! A Hindu religion! They do it everyday!

Would they mind if I posted the "Ten Commandments" in that room?

Greensideout,

post the Ten Commandments on the ceiling, directly above their circle.

semper fi,
jchristin

Sparrowhawk

09-25-03, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by JChristin

Greensideout,

post the Ten Commandments on the ceiling, directly above their circle.

semper fi,
jchristin

Good one! jchristin

arzach

09-26-03, 03:38 PM

Can't believe the athiests haven't chimed in on this yet...maybe they're out looking up at a ceiling somewhere.

Rick

USMC-FO

09-26-03, 04:16 PM

What is to be said "arzach" ? You have all beat this subject to death talking to one another's choirs. Incidently if some may differ with your point of view--and a number of us do on this-- they are ought not by, that belief, be characterized as "athiests". Comments such as that lend themselves to ignorance. Candidly this has all become quite amusing.

S/F !

thedrifter

09-26-03, 04:31 PM

"WE HAVE OUR OWN OPINIONS AND BELIEFS, WE ARE TAUGHT TO RESPECT THE OPINIONS AND BELIEFS OF OTHERS." WE AS MARINES ARE TAUGHT TO DEFEND THIS GREAT COUNTRY OF OURS AND ALL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, NO MATTER WHO AND/OR WHAT THEY ARE.

Thank you USMC-FO for your input..........Now let us see who heeds this advise.

Sempers,

Roger
:marine:

arzach

09-26-03, 04:32 PM

Well fo, the 'atheists' know who they are...if the shoe fits would apply well here. You have your point of view, I have mine..guess you would have a working knowledge of ignorance..I'll stick with tolerance, difficult as it is at times.

Sparrowhawk

09-26-03, 05:52 PM

You're right, Roger, 'atheists' have every right to be wrong!

LOL

Seriously, I've always wondered how someone cannot believe in "God," a supreme being, of good, justice and what dwells within us.

Something, someone restrainsmany of us from doig what we know is wrong.

Gosh darn that Eve.....

USMC-FO

09-26-03, 06:08 PM

Arzach ... you are most predictable.

greensideout

09-26-03, 06:52 PM

I intended to make a fresh point on this subject.

We pretty much know how each of us feels about the expression of Christian beliefs, (The Ten Commandments) being allowed in a government building.

What I saw the otherday was Yoga being practiced as an expression of another faith in a government building---there seemed to be no problem with that by those that "protect our freedoms".

You that disagree about the Ten Commandments remaining on government property now have an opportunity to tell me why other religions should be allowed to be expressed there.

Who want's to go first?

arzach

09-26-03, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by USMC-FO
Arzach ... you are most predictable.

Maybe so fo...but not quite as transparent as you are...if you want to continue this crap, do it by PM

Sparrowhawk

09-26-03, 07:02 PM

practicing "Christian" liberty.

This is and remains a Christian nation.

Those that founded this nation wanted freedom from those that controlled the Christian faith, freedom to read and decide for ourself how to practice that Christian faith.

Buddism, and other religions never paid for the boat ride.

arzach

09-26-03, 07:21 PM

Hawk, you're beatin' a dead horse...right as you are...when the Supreme Court and the lesser Federal courts start re-writing the Constitution, we'll all be de-graded to the least common denominator.

top1371

09-26-03, 08:25 PM

Please dont go into the founding fathers crap...

Our nation is what it is today because of everything that has happened through time. The changes in society, the way that people developed - and the unfortunate situations that the founding fathers put the US through.

It is NOT what it is today because "The ideas of our founding fathers." that some hold as holy.

If you tried to live by the ideas of the founding fathers today, you would be shot. Many of THEM were athiests and masons! By the way, ever read the truth about the Masonic All Seeing Eye on the back of the One Dollar Bill?

If anyone thinks the founding fathers and their ideas were so great, think about these ideas: Slavery, taking the land from the indians, making indians hunt indians or putting them into slavery, marriage to kids... many of the presidents owned slaves at one time or another.

I would not invite any of them to my dinner table.

yellowwing

09-26-03, 08:41 PM

In a related story:

Couple Sues Over Inscription Omission
Fri Sep 26, 6:13 AM ET Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!

By GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

SEATTLE - A couple who purchased an inscribed brick for a state park playground are suing because the words "Thank you Jesus" were not included as they had wished.

Residents had organized an effort to build a playground this spring at Saint Edward State Park, located on the northeastern shore of Lake Washington.

Money for the project was raised in part by the sale of inscribed bricks to be displayed there for $100. Dan and Olga Buchanan ordered one with the message: "Thank you Jesus, Daria & Evan Buchanan."

But when they saw their brick in the playground's walkway, it read only, "Daria & Evan Buchanan."

On Wednesday, the American Center for Law and Justice filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court on behalf of the Buchanans. ACLJ lawyer Stuart J. Roth said the omission violates his clients' free-speech rights.

"The law is very clear: If a state permits a wide variety of messages to be posted in a public area, the state cannot reject a message because it contains a religious reference," Roth said.

The group had offered the couple their money back. Colleen Ponto, who lead the volunteer effort, did not return calls.

Virginia Painter, a spokeswoman for the state Parks and Recreation Commission, said Thursday that the volunteers were trying to respect the constitutional separation of church and state.

yellowwing

09-26-03, 08:44 PM

"I would not invite any of them to my dinner table." - are you kidding me! I'd love to chat and drink scotch with George Washington. If nothing else commend him on authorizing raising the first battalion of Marines.

"Hey Mr. President, that was a terrific idea. Look what we've done since then..."

firstsgtmike

09-26-03, 10:02 PM

Where are we headed?

Consider the news article posted by Yellowwing.

Someone paid $100 for a block with a designated inscription. The money was accepted, but the inscription was denied.

How many of us would be willing to pay $100 for an item, the money kept, but delivery denied, for whatever reason.

If you are one of those, send ME your check for $100.00. I promise to send you a "thank you" note. (after your check is cashed.

Sparrowhawk

09-26-03, 10:06 PM

cut out, "In God we trust," out of the paper money he paid for the bricks with...

JChristin

09-27-03, 01:57 AM

To dine alone with Jefferson would be the greatest honor.

The founding fathers argued the pro and the cons of slavery. Division guided their thoughts and actions. Study Madison's "Federal Papers." Unfortunately, their opinions and eventual actions were based upon the cultural norms and what society would accept back in the 18th century - without causing further separation between the southern states and the northern states, especially on the economic stability of the new country. Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison all agreed, that a Consitutition Convention would most likely be held about 50 years after the signing of the Consitutition. They believed that slavery would be addressed then, as well as many other issues. Of course, what happened was the War between the States (Civil War).

The founding fathers were uncertain nearly every inch along the way towards establishing a democracy. Once the war was won, uncertainly ran amuck how to construct, establish, and govern this new form of government. A revolutionary manner of goverance was born and thrusted upon the world stage. We are the result, a political experiment. It could make one cry on one scale and smile at the advancement of human thought on the other side. Regardless, we are the greatest form of government since the time of Rome.

We can argue the pro and the cons of the unjust taking from the Indian. We can argue why they didn't free the black person from slavery and why they didn't give women the right to vote. We can sit back and point fingers at the wrongs or injustices inflicted. Or we can continue what the founding fathers gave us, the courage to bring forth a better world. Remain in the personality defect and effect no change or be guilded by principles towards building a better world.

Are we prefect? Hell no. Our national conscience swings from the right