10 Commandments flap: LET'S BOMB ALABAMA!

• Is Arnold Schwarzenegger a real conservative or is he just playing one on TV? Ann Coulter and Donna Brazille square off in a debate tonight on `Hardball' tonight at 7:00 on MSNBC.

Gonna have to bomb a lot more than Alabam'

What's the flap? If we want equal historical time for influences on American Constitutional/Federal law, why not place a Code of Hammurabi Stelae, a Roman law scroll, the English Magna Carta, and a Big Mac and Fries in a display case with it?

I think they should just ban the sculpture on the grounds of being ugly.

or if i covet my neighbor's wife?

the section of the legal code that deals with coveting is sorely lacking.

We have a Greco-Roman basis for law in America, not a pagan one (at least in terms of codified law). And I would like a chocolate shake with my Magna Carta.

oh and Sterling, there's a section in the Patriot Act about coveting

Oh yeah, and since we're discussing "separation of church and state" here, why are some public universities fully willing to teach Islam? Hardly anyone says a word about that. I'm not talking about within a Comparative Religions class, I'm talking about full-on teaching Islam as the whole purpose of the course. If some public universities are able to do that, I think other public universities should have to teach Christianity (and in the same P.C., "oh, let's not offend anyone here" manner that Islam is handled), Judaism (ditto), Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Hinduism. And what the heck, let's throw in Wicca as well.

There. I've fulfilled my daily requirement of pissing someone off. ;)

Because, no offense Dee, that just isn't relevant. It's a course. It's optional. Public universities also offer courses on Christianity, Judaism, etc.; if some don't offer everything, that's no less true of literature, foreign languages, etc.

why are some public universities fully willing to teach Islam? Hardly anyone says a word about that.

I doubt it's a mandatory course. You don't have to take it (though you'd probably do well to avail yourself to knowledge of the faith in question). The 10 Commandments Sculpture, however, sits dead center in the middle of the courth house, casting a pall of intimidation over those who :::::gasp:::: may not share Judge Moore's unflinching faith.

or if i covet my neighbor's wife?

Most jurisdictions have laws against elder abuse and neglect, and some still have laws on the books outlawing adultery. But there are secular reasons behind these laws.

Maybe my days of being on the Unmentionable Website are still haunting me or something. *laughs*

But yeah, the school I attend [public university] has a class on the Koran. I haven't seen similar classes on the Bible or on the Torah, nor on the religions of Southeast Asia. Yet. I'll keep an eye out for them, though.

Anyway, I thought people would be up in arms if there were even optional courses on a Judeo-Christianic religion. You know, mass protests and all that. Hmmm. Massive re-think [I stole that phrase from someone -- apologies!] of other people's attitudes on the way?

And yeah, I do think the Ten Commandments statue should be taken down. Shock! Horror! I'm in total agreement with the left! Heh. To me, religion is a PRIVATE thing and I feel that the whole issue of praying out in the open so that EVERYONE can see you doing that was taken care of when Jesus was doing His ministry.

And history isn't binding. That's why it's history. Again, arguing that the Ten Commandments have some kind of special public importance because they are -- much less might be, but even granting you the positive -- one of several trickled-down foundations of American law is silly. Why not read the Midrash in Catholic churches, then? Or an explanation of Marcion's canon? Or the Infancy Gospel of James?

Because as influential as those things were, codifying a Catholic canon and a system of formulation for Catholic doctrine explicitly rejected the binding qualities of those things as texts unto themselves. The creation of a legal system is no different in this respect.

Roman law may well have been greatly influenced by Constantine. Constantine, though, was a pagan. He was born a pagan, belonged to pagan cults all his life, and was particularly a great devotee of the cult of Sol Invicta. He was the first emporer to be baptised, but only on his deathbed.

The Code of Hammurabi, incidentally, is usually described as a law code. Whether it is or not, though, is somewhat open to debate. It's equally possible that it was a monument to Hammurabi himself, rather than a public statement of the law - much as the Alabama stela isn't a statement of the laws of Arizona.

No, this is a good description of things. Even seminary students -- folks who are going to be priests or ministers of one stripe or another -- generally have to take courses on other religions, including non-Western ones.

The Roman Empire was Christian for many hundreds of years after Constantine. Roman law is very important, especially in terms of legal concepts of family and citizenship.

I still am of the opinion that history is history, and that the ten commandments are just as much part of legal history as the Code of Hammurabi, and I don't find any concept in them to be offensive when taken in historical context. I think the flap is silly. Shall we remove the "blind justice" statue from everywhere because it is pagan (Greek I believe?). I would say no, because it too is a part of Western legal history.

A scroll here, a Greek statue there, a Big Mac in the corner, what's the difference? Besides those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it, and that history can be placed in context (a placard to the sign explaining the historical significance of it, and how we have moved on in our legal concepts since then to a separation of church and state--actually educate people instead of banging them over the head with rhetoric).

Ok, time for work, Flog me as you will.

I had no idea there was even such a thing as a religion department in public universities. Your setup sounds ideal, really, to be as even-handed about each major world religion as possible.

And having just gone through my bag to look for the course catalog and reading through the course description of the course I was referring to, it does sound as though the Koran is being teached more along historical lines than religious lines. Ok, so scratch one fallacy off the lists of fallacies that reside within my brain.

... this is the subject of a lot of debate actually, yeah. I don't think it's especially germane to the topic at hand, but a quick search of various academic resources would show that (the debate would focus alternately, or jointly, on "first" and "law." This isn't my field, but it's often addressed tangentially in studies of early Israel.)

Well, I have; but I guess not everyone learns their Middle-Eastern archaeology from one of the experts in the field, as I did.

that would be a cool museum though!

is this an example of the "activist judges" that bush & co. are always complaining about? oh, wait, those judges are liberal.

i chose to take these classes.

"FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!"

per justice moore, they're there as a reminder of our heritage and responsibilities! lots of things are in courthouses that don't need to be there, the question is whether they should be there.

The priests start smiling

Chapter 4
1 And so the ape called Man came to believe in the Gods,
2 Who had given Man everything he had,
3 And who could take it all away again in an instant, if they weren't kept happy,
4 Which is why the imaginative ones had to become priests and seers,
5 In order to explain the will of the Gods to the less imaginative ones,
6 Who were unable to make it up for themselves.
7 And the Gods made many demands asking for the best portions of the food, the best clothes, the best weapons,
8 And other things besides, including a virgin every so often,
9 And especially including things taken from other tribes,
10 Such as their heads and other parts of their bodies.
11 And the priests rejoiced at the bounties offered by the people, and cried out in joy, saying,
12 "Aren't the Gods great and generous? Look at what they have given us! Never have we seen so much food and clothing and weaponry and body parts all in one place!
13 "Truly this is a good thing, and we are well pleased."

WORD!

*decides that's similar to meditation, lies down on floor, ponders ceiling tiles*

*thinks of ceiling tiles as being slightly tablet-ish in shape*

*thinks of how much one stone tablet could weigh*

*decides Moses was a strong dude*

*does pre-emptive rolling eyes gesture*

Despite shades of spritual Greenpeace action going on from his hangers-on, I question what Moore really gets out of this: after years in public office, does he really want to be known at "that Monument Guy"?

Silly me, I thought history was created from important causes.

Burn, Alabama, Burn!

*amen!*

At every pause, some jerk says "amen" or "yessir".

why is this bad? that's just like any pentecostal church....

oh.

Given that the principle players in this little story are spouting equally ridiculous hyperbole, I find it wildly applicable. Also, I can't help raising my eyebrows at how you seem to be questioning my good taste, yet use terminology like "sucks ass" in order to do so.

*if you couldn't tell, that was sarcasm.

Have they really been using the word "bomb" or any other term for mass murder in their rhetoric? If so, I apologize. If not, I feel that's a bit more ridiculous than any hyperbole relating to "God's word" or what have you. Also "Sucks Ass" doesn't exactly imply violence either, and second, I used it in a message, not a thread title.

I know "bomb" has become a euphemism for wishing a group of people away, as opposed to wishing the actual act thereof, but it kinda sickens me how widespread it's used (and obviously not just by you, Alex). But hey, I'm alone on that one..

For what it's worth, I do not actually wish death on the entirety of the state of Alabama.

Alabama
your beautiful sunlight
Your fields of cerecea potatoes and corn
Alabama
your crimson red clover
All mingled around the old place I was born.

Alabama
your hills and your valleys
Your creeks with laughter as onward they flow
Alabama
so sweet in the springtime
Sweet ferns and wild flowers and winter with snow.

Alabama
so sweet to my mem'ry
You shine like a light on a beautiful hill
Alabama
in days of my childhood
I labored and toiled at the old sorghum mill

Alabama
when red leaves are failing
I roam through your pastures with fences of rail
Alabama
when 'possums are crawling
And hound dogs are howling and wagging their tails.

Alabama
your beautiful highways
All curved through the mountains where love ones do wait
Alabama
your golden rod flower;
And the "Welcome home' sign hanging over the gate

Alabama
to me you are callin'
My footsteps are haltered no longer to stray
Alabama
you hold all I long for
You hold all I love so I'm coming today

Well, my mom used to be a dog shower, so it's just a professional term for female dogs to me (though I agree it can be used at times as a word of violence), but I'm going to be ditching the moniker in the near future anyway.

Alabama, you got the weight on your shoulders
That's breaking your back.
Your Cadillac has got a wheel in the ditch
And a wheel on the track

Oh Alabama
Banjos playing through the broken glass
Windows down in Alabama.
See the old folks tied in white ropes
Hear the banjo.
Don't it take you down home?

Alabama, you got the weight on your shoulders
That's breaking your back.
Your Cadillac has got a wheel in the ditch
And a wheel on the track

Oh Alabama.
Can I see you and shake your hand.
Make friends down in Alabama.
I'm from a new land
I come to you and see all this ruin
What are you doing Alabama?
You got the rest of the union to help you along
What's going wrong?

I've heard of raining cats and dogs and all...

Such a MANLY man.

To: Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America
October 7, 1801

Sir,

Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the Unite States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere. Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ. Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States - and all the world - until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you - to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people. And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut

President Thomas Jefferson's Response

To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut
January 1, 1802

Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson President of the United States

The term "Seperation of Church and State" was established to prevent the government from intefering in people's right to worship whoever they choose, and maintain the fact that religious expression can exist in this country without the government making laws to discriminate against people of one specific faith. Seperation of Church and State was NOT established to remove any display promoting a specific religious belief that happens to be on government property.
The US is great because we are allowed to express ourselves as we wish. The Ten Commandments are something our founding fathers believed in, and it's a part of our history. It's not telling anyone what to believe, that's up to you. Just like Santa Claus on a postal stamp or on a school building is not TELLING you to believe in Santa Claus. People aren't being arrested for breaking the laws on the Commandments, it's just a piece of stone that represents the laws that our very Constitution were based on. If you don't believe me, look it up! Most of the people who started this country were Christians, and there's no changing that. The commandments are a part of history, like it or not. If the majority of the people in this country want to DISPLAY (I'm not talking about forcing people to follow or have faith in) something of a particular faith on government property, and our government is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people... then the big deal again is...what now?
Do we really have nothing better to do with our time? Must we now run around like fucking circus clowns trying to white out every sign of the things that makes us unique and individuals just to facilitate the grudges that certain people of one belief group hold against the members of another belief group? I can just imagine the kind of bullshit this is going to lead to... government workers are going to start getting sent home or sued for wearing ties with candy canes on them at Christmas time, the US postal service won't be allowed to make fucking stamps with Santa Claus on them because "Not everybody celebrates the birth of Christ", and we are going to be have people wanting to stop government agencies from having free candy on their desks in October because they would be promoting a "secular pagan holiday". and we'll just keep scrubbing the face of our government clean till our system resembles something that promotes a belief in no beliefs... and then born-again Christians will start suing the government for promoting atheism.

I know this post is going to piss a lot of people off, but can you really tell me there are no better ways we could be spending our time and efforts? And I'm directing this to people on both sides of the debate.

The best point made on this thread so far.

Um by that argument you could say "well if the majority of the people in this country want to ENSLAVE OTHERS..."

I don't think this is the case, but if it is...so what?

Ideas, esp. religious ideas, can be pretty powerful, no?

This judge has specifically refused to place the Ten Commandments in that sort of context.

Despite shades of spritual Greenpeace action going on from his hangers-on, I question what Moore really gets out of this: after years in public office, does he really want to be known at "that Monument Guy"?

He wants to be Guv'nah Moore. And the inbred fundie crackers of Alabama are going to elect him, I guarantee.

No it's not different at all. You're saying "hey well the people are in favor of it" (nevermind that it hasn't been put to a vote, and there's a few well-publicized nutcases overrunning the courthouse, not the citizens of the state), and I'm saying that's a pretty lousy argument. Any number of ridiculous, bad ideas have been lauded by a majority throughout time; the great thing about the U.S. constitution is that it was explicitly designed to make sure that the majority didn't have too much power (kinda weirdly contradictory in probably the best democratic document ever). You may say that "the people" want this big ugly sculpture there, but you don't even know that to be the case. And the religious beliefs of the founding fathers are irrelevant; what is relevant was their foresight in passing the Bill of Rights.

inbred fundie craxxx = nu corny indie etc?

hstensil - Physical enslavement is a rape of a person's human rights. A display of religious beliefs on federal property is not. And okay, maybe I worded it badly, but if the majority of the people think religious expression should be allowed on federal property, then why shouldn't it be? So put it to vote! I'd put money on the majority of people wanting to keep a piece of their past.

Sure does, but I don't think that place is in a public courthouse. Nobody is rewriting history (cept maybe the folks who say the commandments are the foundation of our law), nobody is preventing anybody from following or believing in the commandments.
I wouldn't be the one to start a protest about this sort of thing, but since one is already started and a JUDGE is disobeying the law, I'm gonna have to side with those who want it removed.

If said display leads directly to people without Christian beliefs being judged in a different manner than people with Christian beliefs, it absolutely is. And I think that's what this Moore guy ultimately wants. The sculpture is just the first step.

yeah when a conservative judge does it, it's "standing up for his beliefs" and when a liberal judge does it, it's that insidious "judicial activism."

If you have no respect for the rule of law, you shouldn't be a judge.

And you still haven't convinced me as to why something that simply expresses faith, that is historically relevant, yet is not legally binding has no place in a court room.
It's not "historically relevant." As I noted, the Judge refuses to place the monument in a historical context, which would make its display legally permissible. He has stated that he wants to promote the idea that our laws come from the Judeo-Christian Gawd.

And that is a direct "establishment of religion."

I'm an agnostic. I shouldn't be tried in a courtroom that professes to uphold "thou shalt have no God before me." When people elsewhere do this, we invade.

You still haven't answered the question, Dan, as to WHY this monument needs to exist (not to say that you personally have to justify it for everyone, but...). And just responding that it is the will of the people isn't good enough. After all, the average American populace seems to have enjoyed living in a national security police state for the past 56 years.

You want the Ten Commandments? Put it all over your house, your driveway, anything you own. But you're never going to convince me that it deserves to be anywhere in a public government institution. And there is no need for it to be. Its very presence (intentions be damned - as some people clearly have misinterpreted the intentions of the First Amendment) is inimicable to the blind, impartial, and unbiased position justice in particular (and government at large) is [supposed] to be in possession of.

America's fundamental problem always has been its inability to be mature about religion.

- The woman for the statue looked like a glammy blonde NYC executive.
- The woman against the statue looked like she came straight from the pages of "Trailer Frump".

Best exchange was when GlamGirl said "We have people willing to lose their jobs and lay down their lives over this issue!" and FrumpMama said, "Well, I'm sorry you have people feel like they need to lose their lives over a statue."

That simple. I'm out.

Actually, as a bald statement stripped of context this is patently false, but I know what you mean. (And I know you were talking to the other Dan.)

But this isn't a new issue, DP... there was a huge debacle a few months back about several promotional displays from "The Ten Commandments" movie starring Charlton Heston that were being displayed on federal property, and then there is the ongoing debate about removing "In God We Trust" from our money and removing the "Under God" from the pledge of allegence.
The judge thinks free expression in his building is fine, and as long as it doesn't effect his ability to unbiasedly pass judgement, what's the big deal? If he does start compromising his judgements, hopefully someone will remove him.

I'm not sure what your argument is here. You're certainly not making a legal argument, Dan - unless you can provide some reasoning whereby the Establishment Clause doesn't apply in these instances.

By saying "his building," Dan seems to be arguing that the Alabama Supreme Court building is Moore's to do with as he pleases. Not quite ownership, but control.

Tell me this, if you were at the Wounded Knee Memorial, and you saw a large stone monument to the native americans who died, and this monument mentioned "The Great Spirit" who looked over the tribe, would you have seriously consider removing the monument because it was located on federal land and made reference to a religious group or specidfic diety? Tell me how this is any different than what is going on now. This is the first step towards cultural sterilization.

Dan OTM. It was (IIRC) added in the 1950s--part of the reactionary Cold War mindset by which we had to distinguish ourselves from the godless Commies.

1. This is in a courthouse
2. In your example, "The Great Spirit" is merely mentioned and is specific to 'the tribe'. It is not inferred that he holds power over the entire country.
3. Native Americans (and their religion) are an oppressed minority group who don't have a history of persecuting those whose views are different from their own.

Wow. So let's cover the two things already mentioned in this thread:

One, there is no historical context to the piece. Our legal "foundation" goes far beyond the Ten Commandments, and arguably, the Commandments aren't even an 'original source' of influence. Thus, it's legal to put up the Ten Commandments as part of a greater context about the foundation of our legal system. Judge Moore refuses to put the Commandments in context because...

Judge Moore has stated that this isn't about celebrating the "legal foundation" of the United States but promoting the idea that we are a Godly nation, and that our laws are the laws of Christianity.

He. is. promoting. his. religious. beliefs.

Period.

He admits this. He's proud of it.

Do you think that the government promoting a particular sect's religious beliefs is a) acceptable and b) legal?

Tell me this, if you were at the Wounded Knee Memorial, and you saw a large stone monument to the native americans who died, and this monument mentioned "The Great Spirit" who looked over the tribe, would you have seriously consider removing the monument because it was located on federal land and made reference to a religious group or specidfic diety? Tell me how this is any different than what is going on now. This is the first step towards cultural sterilization.
You mean, references to a religious figure in a historical context! No, that can't be legal! I can't have mentioned that twice!

What you seem to be ignoring is that the Judge tried. And failed. And was ordered by the federal courts to remove the monument, in accordance with extant caselaw and the Establishment Clause. And his appeal wasn't heard by the Supreme Court.

But I asked for your argument. What's the legal basis to allow the promotion of Protestant Christianity (or, Judeo-Christianity in general) by a government body?

Which laws are founded on "the Ten Commandments" - not inspired by, or cover the same material, which laws are specifically drawn from the Ten Commandments?

So what do we need? A Scrapping of the whole system to keep all forms of religious promotion out?
We already have one. It's called the Establishment Clause. It does not prohibit government entities from recognizing religious beliefs. It does not prohibit government entities from placing religious beliefs in a cultural and historical context, in public.

But it does prohibit government entities from promoting religion(s).

I mean, we aren't allowed to have more than one wife... now that's a legal principal based on a moral one, and it seems like it stems from Christianity...
Oops OTM. I feel that laws on polygamy should be repealed, being that they are religious in nature (much like sodomy laws).

Once again, INDIVIDUALS have rights to free expression. The American government itself, as an entity, does not.

The judge chooses to revise history to state that it is Christianity and only Christianity that defines the nation's government. Thus simply adding his bit to the gigantic hypocrisy resultant when a group of puritans leaves one country to found another free from religious persecution, only to be allowed to persecute any variants they choose not to like (but coercion and normativity, mind you, not out and out war). And as for being all Christ-like, had we done that, we would've gotten on a lot better with the Native Americans, wouldn't you say? Can't forget the divine right of Manifest Destiny. Sorta like the way we've been running our foreign policy since Truman, come to think of it...

Well then perhaps the judge's appeal should be heard by the Supreme Court, because there certainly seems to be more than just a minority fringe group that thinks the Ten Commandments should be in that court. I guess the judge does not feel he has gotten the due process granted to him underneath the 14th ammendment and is doing everything in his power to stretch this out so he can take further action.
Maybe the Judge's reasoning is off to you, but he took an oath when he was sworn into office to uphold the State Constitution of Alabama, "So Help him God". He is displaying a historically recognized document regarding law that represents (Keyword represents) a document given by God to man to help govern himself, and now this governor is getting into trouble for displaying these laws which are a part of our legal system's history.
This is a ridiculous subject that should be dropped, but it's been going on for years with people making a big deal over a simple act of expression, and the law of the land have been contridicting itself for years. Want examples?

Supreme Court Building Completed; Moses and Ten Commandments Are Included

In 1935, the United States Supreme Court Justices moved into their current location, which served as the first permanent home of the U.S. Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court Building’s physical architecture acknowledges both Moses and the Ten Commandments.

The exterior of the building features a sculpture of Moses atop the Greek styled columns. In this sculpture, Moses is holding the Ten Commandments.

The entrance door to Supreme Court Chamber bears a representation of two tablets. One tablet carries the etchings of Roman numerals one through five; the other tablet is engraved with Roman numerals six through ten. This is an obvious reference to the Ten Commandments.

Upon entering the Chamber, a display of Moses holding the Ten Commandments is located directly above the Justices’ bench.

Ten Commandments Are Constitutional When in Front of a Courthouse

On March 16, 1973, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that a Ten Commandments monument, which was displayed in front of the Salt Lake County Courthouse, was perfectly constitutional. In the court’s decision, Judge Murrah writes, “Although one of the declared purposes of the monolith was to inspire respect for the law of God, yet at the same time secular purposes were also emphasized… An accompanying plaque explaining the secular significance of the Ten Commandments would be appropriate in a constitutional sense, we cannot say that the monument, as it stands, is more than a depiction of a historically important monument, with both secular and sectarian effects.”

The Ten Commandments Are Unconstitutional When in Our Schools

On November 17, 1980, the United States Supreme Court ruled a Kentucky law, which required the Ten Commandments to be posted in all public classrooms, was unconstitutional. In a narrow 5-4 decision, the court not only ruled that Kentucky’s law was unconstitutional, the majority opinion contained the following statement: “The pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature. The Ten Commandments is undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposedly secular purpose can blind us to that fact.”

The Ten Commandments Are Constitutional in Front of City Halls

On December 29, 1999, United States District Judge Allen Sharp ruled that a Ten Commandments plaque, which sat in front of the Elkhart, Indiana City Hall did not violate the U.S. Constitution. His decision found that Elkhart’s display “represents a proper balance concerning all of the constitutional values that are involved in the case, and complies with the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States.”

Never Mind… They Are Unconstitutional When in Front of Our City Halls

On December 14, 2000, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the federal court judge, who had previously ruled the Elkhart, Indiana, display of the Ten Commandments was constitutional. Important to the court's reasoning was the presence of the clergy representatives at the 1958 dedication ceremony and the specific statements they made which the court viewed as urging the people of Elkhart “to embrace the specific religious code of conduct taught in the Ten Commandments.”

After the decision, Elkhart’s mayor commented, “We’ve taken on that snake that’s crawling around, looking for religious markers to devour. The ACLU and its tyrannical assault on religious freedom need to be stopped.”

The Ten Commandments Ruled Unconstitutional When in Our Courthouses

On June 5, 2000, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals refused an appeal from two courthouses and a public school district, which challenged a lower court judge’s ruling that deemed the Ten Commandments violated the First Amendment.

Ten Commandments Are Only Unconstitutional If Other Religions Are Denied

On July 19, 2002, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the city of Ogden, Utah, would have to remove the Ten Commandments from the lawn of Ogden’s municipal building. The court ruled that the city acted inappropriately by refusing to allow another religion’s monument. The Summum religion wanted to display “the Seven Principles.” The court ruled, “The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment compels the City of Ogden to treat with equal dignity speech from divergent religious perspectives. On these facts, the City cannot display the Ten Commandments monument while declining to display the Seven Principles monument.” The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals never once invoked the so-called “Establishment Clause” or “separation of church and state.”

Ten Commandments Are Again Constitutional in Our Courthouses

On August 22, 2002, Federal District Court Judge Karl Forrester, in the Eastern District of Kentucky, held that a display of the Ten Commandments, together with other historical documents in Rowan and Mercer Counties in Kentucky, are constitutional. This case comes after both counties were sued by the ACLU of Kentucky. Judge Forrester acknowledged, “For good or bad, right or wrong, the Ten Commandments did have an influence upon the development of United States law and it can be constitutional to display the Ten Commandments in the appropriate context.”

Ten Commandments Are Unconstitutional in Front of States’ Capitol Buildings

On October 10, 2002, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the entire Kentucky legislature’s decision to place a Ten Commandments monument in front of the Capitol Building in Frankfort, Kentucky. State Senator Albert Robinson, who sponsored the legislation that passed in General Assembly, believes, “It’s important for us as Americans, it's important for us as Christians, for us to be able to do this.” Unfortunately, the appointed members of the judicial branch disagreed with the elected legislature.

Ten Commandments Are Constitutional When on Government Symbols

On May 30, 2003, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Official Seal of Richmond County, Georgia. Though a depiction of the Ten Commandments was featured on the county’s seal, the court found the governmental use of the Ten Commandments to be constitutional. The decision reads: “Although the Ten Commandments are a predominantly religious symbol, they also possess a secular dimension… Because the use of the Seal does not have the purpose or primary effect of endorsing religion” the Ten Commandments are deemed to be constitutional.

Wait a Minute! They Are Unconstitutional When on Our Courthouses

On March 6, 2002, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell ordered officials of Chester County, Pennsylvania, to remove the Ten Commandments from the county courthouse. Judge Dalzell wrote, “The tablet’s necessary effect on those who see it is to endorse or advance the unique importance of this predominantly religious text for mainline Protestantism.”

Whoops! They Are Constitutional When on Our Courthouses

On June 26, 2003, a three-judge panel from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the West Chester, Pennsylvania, courthouse was within its constitutional rights to display the Ten Commandments at the county courthouse. “We cannot ignore the inherently religious message of the Ten Commandments,” Judge Edward R. Becker wrote, “However, we do not believe ... that there can never be a secular purpose for posting the Ten Commandments, or that the Ten Commandments are so overwhelmingly religious in nature that they will always be seen only as an endorsement of religion.”

Just Kidding! Ten Commandments Are Unconstitutional When in Courthouses

On July 1, 2003, a three-judge panel from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore acted unconstitutionally by displaying the Ten Commandments within the Alabama Judicial Building. This decision comes only five days after the Third Circuit Court’s decision to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed at a Pennsylvania courthouse, and little more that one month after the same court ruled Georgia’s governmental use of the Ten Commandments was constitutional.”

'Cuz I'm guessing they've got a wee bit of an agenda.

Basically, what a lot of it comes down to is you and I agree on many broad points, but my view of Christianity is more optimistic. At least that's how it's looked to me. I didn't want to resurrect that argument!

My comparison is more oblique than I thought, maybe: what I meant was, well yeah, any time a "Christian right strikes again" issue comes up, Christians are going to jump in and defend it, often with spurious arguments -- but only some Christians, and it isn't fair to toss all Christians in the same barrel as the bad apples: any time a "white supremacists strike again" issue comes up, the defenders are going to be white, but you wouldn't similarly condemn all white people.

(And yeah, race isn't a choice the way religion is; that doesn't have the same effect on my analogy that it would if we were talking about the actions of actual religious institutions here, but I know it isn't a perfect analogy)

A quick google on "Whoops! They Are Constitutional When on Our Courthouses" (SIC) yields this.

No, no agenda at all. Just NEWS you won't hear on the news!

Tep I dig you and I've actually engaged pretty deeply with Christianity, I'm not (quite) as irrationally emo as I know I come off on this subject. But...I don't know, man. The older I get, the more it seems like the only humane choice is to reject it entirely. I mean, if I had a scientific formula that looked good on paper but every damned time somebody tried to put it into practice, people got enslaved or killed or forced to move onto reservations, I'd probably reexamine the formula.

Just promise that at some point you will let me buy both of us drinks and present my side :) That's all I ask.

(Especially since I don't actually advocate churches, which to me is the key distinction.)

Jesus, that looks like something the Church of the SubGenius would do.

Well, looks like you found it! Amazing... I probably could have dug through my web history, but I figured a clever fellow like you would find anyways. So tell me, does the fact that the history is documented on that site make the court cases any less real, or must I go through and look up the records for all of them individually and post them to you too?

well yes I mean I'm certain that they've posted all the pertinent facts, perish the thought that there might be dozens more on-point rulings regarding the place or lack thereof of religion in the courthouses and the site didn't list them because it wouldn't bolster their argument

Arghhhh.... When presented as a historical piece (I hesitate to call them a 'document'), in the context of our government/culture/history, the Ten Commandments are fine.

That's where your examples "conflicting" caselaw don't really conflict (which is why I pointed out the bias - they choose to see religious displays as a duality - you're either pro-God or anti-God). There's a difference between presenting the Commandments as "something our forefathers considered and believed in" and presenting the Commandments "as the word of the Almighty God, from whom we derive our power to govern." Thus the Ten Commandments featured in architecture doesn't equal a singluar monument specifically placed to further the Christian religion.

I mean, is there a pro-"The French Revolution Occurred" bias in textbooks, or did the French Revolution actually occur & anybody who says otherwise has a li'l ass/elbow problem?

A hundred times yes.

But to display it alone, in order to maintain religious neutrality, requires that you show that it was the sole influence on American government and laws. And that's obviously impossible.

And for the hundredth time, if a judge ever showed signs that he was enforcing the ten commandments and not the law, he should be removed from his position!
A little bit late, then. "Oh, sorry, Mr. Atheist, that the judge put you on death row for consorting with the devil!"

The justice system relies as much on appearance as action to be effective. It has to present the appearance of being fair to all comers (ha!), regardless of race, religion or creed.

When you start promoting religion in the course of daily judicial business, people would, rightly, lose faith in the judicial system. That's not a good thing, I'm guessing. LA didn't seem to enjoy it.

But what I can't figure out is how you dispute that this was a promotion of religion. The fucking Judge admits it!

He's a historical figure who promoted civil rights AND a specific religious belief, so why should he be treated differently?

Oh, for the love of Christ.

Do you really believe that a statue of MLK has anything to do with the promotion of religious values?

Now, if only I can get the taxpayers to pay for that and put it conspicuously in the middle of some government building...

Now you're just being naive about history. A sidepoint, yes, but I seem to remember that games like "Cowboys and Indians" and things like the Trail of Tears weren't spawned from donations.

As for the MLK thing, Martin Luther King was a civil rights leader who happened to be a religious leader as well. However, the struggle predominated over any religious implications; he clearly was more interested in building a multifaceted and ecumenical coaltion for equal rights than he was in any sort of religious promotion or proselytizing. You might even argue that only someone in a position as a religious leader would be able to generate respect across color lines at that time, as well as develop advanced rhetorical skills. However, I have never once heard anyone claim that King made exceptional advances in religion, nor rank him as one of the top religious leaders of all time for his purely religious work.

There are doubtless many tributes to Gregor Mendel. But I highly doubt that any are for his exceptional work as a priest.

But MLK was a religious leader, maybe not one of the greatest (and in the views of his belief system, all servants of God are equal in heaven) , but he was a rev. to the end of his life, and expressed views of uniting "All god's children", and was a man of deep faith!
How is it right for the government to promote a statue of King, or other religious figures singly, and not be in violation of this neutral religious balance?

So according to that standard, if he had discovered a cure for cancer, and he was honored for that fact, these other circumstances not bearing as much direct weight to his most famous work would still warrant that a statue to him would be of a religious nature and thus shouldn't exist? Listen to yourself! There's being a Devil's Advocate, and there's just wanting to extend an argument on weak analogy. Pardon me, but I think you've drifted far too much towards the latter.

Girolamo, MLK was def. outside the religious mainstream of Southern Baptism at the time but his ministerial work was far from incidental—all that speechifying practice, for one!

obv this judge is an asshat, but everybody comes out of this looking bad

Hey, I gave props to his religious work giving him the necessary mad skillz. But the religious work itself, per se, is not a fundamentally necessary part of sealing the legacy. It got him to where he could become a great social activist - and it is that social activism, not the religious background that gave root to it, which is given honor and paid respect and tribute.

When you put up an MLK statue, which is the implied message - support for his civil rights work, his religious work, his socialist leanings or his adultery?

-- Girolamo Savonarola (gsa...), August 26th, 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Listen to yourself! The ethical compromises being extended to this agruement are unbelievable to me, but with the logic that you are applying to a single religious exhibit, you could change the whole nature of how all people and things connected to theology are to be treated! You may not see it now, but with the amount of hype played on this issue and the upcoming elections, this could be the tip of the iceberg for spiritual reform in this country, and you may not like where it goes.
MLK is an example, just one individual who is tied to both religion and social progress, but his status as a religious leader, under this reasoning that theology-related images or representations cannot be placed individually on federal property, would put into question wether we could choose to honor him or not.
Tell me, how far does the seperation of church and state go? Do you folks even know? Do you really think once you start following this line of reasoning you can control where it's going to go?

We already have a federally recognized holiday for him, Milo. Is a statue that far off?

Whose "reasoning" is this? Can you cite any court decisions to this effect?

Hell, you've had the standards outlined for you, numerous times.

How, exactly, would placing a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr. on government property violate the Establishment Clause?

Girolamo I'm getting the feeling that you respect MLK and what he's done but would prefer not to think of him as a religious person. I don't know if that's possible to do in intellectual good faith. His religion wound through all of his rhetoric and ideology until the day he died. The sermons weren't just diction exercises. MLK's faith wasn't a portfolio piece. You can't separate that out, much as you might like to.

That's asinine.

As for MLK being a religious person, no dispute there. Being a socialist, an adulterer and religious probably informed his civil rights work a great deal. But when people put up a statue of MLK - unless it's in a Baptist church - they aren't do so for any kind of religious reason. It's "motherfucker led the fight for equal rights!" not "motherfucker preached the Holy Word!"

Yeah, actually, just read Milo's last post.

>>"I don't think he did the whole thing as a way to bring more people to his faith"

No one said he did, Girolamo. It may be hard to believe but God does not require new converts each week for continued membership, it's not Amway

Again, the Mendel case would be the same - gigantic scientific impact; minimal religious impact, even if his spiritual beliefs inspired him towards his research.

Should be "MLK was not the only civil rights leader, yes."

How? How does an MLK statue do that? Is MLK carrying a fucking cross?

How is an MLK statue - sans cross, I assume - a promotion of religion?

What if a Muslim started a campign because he is offended by a large, 6,000 pound bronze image of a Baptist Minister at the center of his town, on federal property?
You undermine your own argument here. The respect held for MLK across all racial and religious lines betrays the fact that his was not a religious movement. It was a civil rights movement that happened to be led by a religious man.

He was also, once again, a socialist. Does that mean the civil rights movement was socialist in nature?

Perhaps you think I'm really being far-fetched here, but how does this not fit in with the line of thinking that is at the core of your arguement?
No, it's not. Not even close.

Martin Luther King, Jr. isn't a religious symbol.

If you wanted to put up a statue of MLK with a cross strapped to his back while carrying the Ten Commandments, then I'd have a problem with it.

I'm not endorsing any beliefs. I think it's a wonderful thing that MLK was a socialist, and (this may be apocryphal), he had talked about running under the SPUSA's banner in 1968 with another man I respect a great deal (David McReynolds).

But when you see a tribute to MLK, it's not about socialism, religion, adultery or anything else. It's about the civil rights struggle. That's why he's honored.

If he had never stepped foot in a church his entire life, but everything else remained the same, he would still be honored.

MLK had huge religious impact: 1) his success helped to show that religious organizations could be an organizing base for social change (look at the Right-to-Lifers for continuing proof of this legacy) 2) he helped bring politics front-and-center to black protestant churches in the South, and in turn brought those churches front-and-center into American life

Girolamo, MLK is not Gregor Mendel --> forget that tack.

Tracer, you're arriving in London in a couple of weeks: bear in mind that you migght find yourself sitting by me at a FAP built around coveting your neighbour's ass...

Who's "redefining" anyone? Has anyone denied that Mendel and King were religious? Has anyone said we should downplay that portion of their lives?

Of course not.

You're just stretching to come up with an argument.

So let's try this again - under the Alabama decision (re: Lemon test), in what way is placing a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr. on government property unconstitutional? No cross strapped to his back, no overt religious paraphernalia.

The best way to argue with religious guys: point out the bizarre contradictions inherent in their odd-looking facial hair.

Is this your 'agenda'? Would you be as ready to stand up for 'freedom of expression' if it went totally against your personal beliefs? Should spiruality be spoon-fed to people because you (and others) think we need it?
Let it die a natural death, if that is in fact what is happening.

haha, yes.

I am not concerned about what abject morons think. (IOW, who is this mythical American who would look at a statue of MLK and have "Baptist" be the first thing that popped into his/her mind and can I pelt him/her with stones?)

riiiight... why don't you take a poll on here hstencil, and see how many people actually attend a place of worship of ANY religion on a regular basis, or meet with other people on a regular basis to discuss issues of faith?
I'm getting ready to hear an avalanche of "B-b-but I sat in the library and read a book by myself on theology two weeks ago... I'm spiritual!"

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this your 'agenda'? Would you be as ready to stand up for 'freedom of expression' if it went totally against your personal beliefs? Should spiruality be spoon-fed to people because you (and others) think we need it?
Let it die a natural death, if that is in fact what is happening.

-- oops (don'temailmebitc...), August 27th, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes I would support ideas that don't jive with my own beliefs, Oops... that's the whole point. I don't have to agree with certain ideals to support their expression. And I'm not talking about spoon-feeding religion to people, I'm just not so gleefully in favor of painting out all signs of it's connection to the government. I don't like where this is leading.

I would comment on what a fatuously stupid comment that is, but the fact that you go on to quote Bill Maher kind of does that for me.

Maybe so.

What Emily's point was, however "fatuously stupid" you might think it's expression, was that religion doesn't actually do anything positive for humanity. I'm very much inclined to agree. What good does come out of religious groups - charity, say - could just as easily come from a secular background.

In the ledger book of history, religion is deep in the red.

Not at all.

Your argument is that saying that religion has had a negative impact on humanity throughout history implies "prejudice" on my part. Presumably against religion.

And I do have a prejudice against religious beliefs. Along with ghost stories, psychic phenomena and other mumbo-jumbo.

What other prejudice would you be referring to?

But you imply that you're also against PEOPLE who go to haunted houses and visit psychics/Tarot card readers.
Um, no. I've never stated any prejudice against religious people, either. As long as you're not forcing me to go along, belief in whatever you want.

That I have no use for religious beliefs, but don't care if others have them, so long as I'm not forced to go along?

Or that I'll admit to prejudice against beliefs in the supernatural?

Hinduism is (arguably) the worst in the modern world, given the caste system's effect in India.

But just for grins, take a look at certain society structures in other animals. Do we really want to be like that? (Of course, who's to say animals don't have their own assemblance of "religion" either, but that's fodder for another thread, me thinks)

somehow i don't think it is religion that seperates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. i think it is called empathy.

"Coloreds can go to school if they want just as long as it's not mine."

Etc.

Furthermore, the way you are expressing yourself, you are not saying, "You can be religious as long as I don't have to be." You are saying, "You can be religious and I will belittle and ridicule you for it because I am superior."

Also Emily, if you want to say that Christianity leads to war, murder, prejudices, etc, you must also be willing to say the same thing about government, philosphy, science/technology, industry, sports, and pretty much any number of activities/ideologies that human beings have engaged in since the dawn of time.

I think simple genetics is what seperates us from the rest of the animal kingdom, much like simple genetics seperates every distinct species on the planet.

Because we can look at the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Dark Ages, the caste system, al-Qaeda, Jerry Falwell, the slaughter of natives, and the millions of other actions undertaken under the banner of God or Allah or Zeus or whomever, and go "yeah, religion aided and abetted those actions."

Do we know that actions wouldn't have happened with some other justification? No, that's impossible. But I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to assume that people would be less willing to slaughter if they didn't think they were ordained by God.

Without gunpowder, would people find (the same old) ways to kill each other? Sure, but it wouldn't be quite as easy.

Again. BOYCOTT WALKING UPRIGHT OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT UH YEAH. IT HAS DONE NO GOOD FOR HUMANITY.

Etc.
Right, except I haven't said that I don't want to see religious displays, and haven't said I don't want my children to associate with religious people.

Furthermore, the way you are expressing yourself, you are not saying, "You can be religious as long as I don't have to be." You are saying, "You can be religious and I will belittle and ridicule you for it because I am superior."
I'm actually saying both. 99% of the time, it's the first. That 1% of the time something becomes a discussion on religion and its effects, yes, I may be rude and prejudiced.

Do you have the same feelings for those who believe in psychic hotlines that you do for people who go to Church? How are they any different?

How does this fit with your statement (in this thread) re: "abject morons" for having a different view of MLK than you do (a view, I'll add that I share with you)?

when did we ever not walk upright?

Do we deny the negative impact of slavery because it's always been around?

No, of course not.

So if mankind can move past some bad habits (slavery), I think we can move past other bad habits (beliefs in the supernatural guiding our lives).

I will try to recreate it later.

(x-post) Slavery has "always been around"??? Owning a slave is equivalent to believing in God???

I'm not, actually, an atheist. (Nor, of course, did I grow up on a commune.)

I'm not being all that aggro against religion. Simply saying that, overall, it has done more harm than good throughout history. What good comes of religion isn't unique to religion, nor must religion exist for that good (charity, love, unity, whatever) to continue on.

But it's a response to the argument that we must accept something because it's always been around.

All of them are equally legitimate - or in my eyes, illegitimate.

How is commanding people to kill for a country different than commanding people to kill for God?

How do you separate the Hindu caste system and its effects from Hinduism?

Isn't it pure speculation - and hard to believe - to argue that an identical system would have prospered (and continued to prosper) without Hinduism?

How is commanding people to kill for a country different than commanding people to kill for God?

It's not. I'm not saying there's any difference in the acceptability of morality of an act in relation to religion.

Just that it's easier to convince people to kill when God is on their side. When they're promised a place in Heaven or Nirvana or Paradise. Same with cults - how do you convince people to drink the Kool-Aid or set their building on fire, if they don't believe that some eternal reward will come of it (barring actions where people believe they may accomplish some worldly effect, ala kamikazes, though that has ties to Buddhism, does it not?).

You are operating under the assumption that human beings aren't naturally violent.

If, a big if, I accepted that humans are "naturally violent," that still wouldn't disspell what I'm saying. Violence occurs every day without religion. But it's a different kind of violence, less brutal, and more difficult to get people to participate in (especially when it comes to risking their own life or directly giving it, ala martyrdom).

But yes. Where have I said people wouldn't kill or do bad things, if not for religion?

No, Milo, and that's what I was trying to say. The Hindu caste system is just a class system that's ingrained in Hinduism. But if you removed Hinduism, you wouldn't get rid of classism. Rich people would still think they were better than poor people. And it's not about money. People named Singh would still think they were better than people named Gupta. People create identities for themselves (be it through religion, nationality, musical preference, whatever) and they place values on those identities.

Where can we find a secular caste system that mirrors that of Hinduism? Where no matter how rich and successful someone might be, they'll still be "unclean" because of birth?

How do you separate Hinduism from caste system? How do we know that the caste system would have arisen, prospered and continued to live on without Hinduism?

In fact, isn't there an argument there that if nothing else, the continuing influence of Hinduism propagates the caste system, which Indian society could have and has tried to move past long ago?

Feudal system to thread.

"Old money" vs "New money" to thread.

Old money vs. new money, not even analgous to the Hindu caste system. You don't get killed by the Vanderbilts for your dot-com fortune.

If you think the Hindu caste system doesn't have serious repercussions on the populace of India, you are sadly mistaken and unaware.

It's funny you kept referring to homophobia and racism and sexism before. Your comment on the Indians you know sounds a lot like old folks I hear who say that a lot of black people didn't mind segregation, didn't hurt them at all.

(I should point out that I do not have a vested interest in this particular argument; if Milo can't be bothered to really examine how his prejudices are coloring the way he looks at the world, I can't be bothered to give him a decent counterposition to bounce off of.)
What a meaningless statement.

I've admitted to my prejudices - against supernatural beliefs. You've provided nothing else of substance.

How is it any different than your prejudice against 'abject morons' who hold a different view of MLK than yourself?

And I understand fully how my disbelief in religion colors my viewpoint. If I believed in religion - had a prejudice in favor of spirituality - it would also color my viewpoint. Having those kinds of prejudices is natural - recognizing them is the important thing.

Just like you have your prejudices - evidenced here by 'abject morons' who don't hold the same view of MLK that you do.

What you haven't provided is anything meaningful on what my prejudice is or how it effects my viewpoint, or more importantly how it discredits my viewpoint.

your prejudice discredits your viewpoint because if both were true, tarot card readers would be mass murderers

(not to mention the fact that as far as I know, there have been no murders perpetrated by any member of the congregation of Church St United Methodist Church in Knoxville, the Church at which I was forced to go to Sunday School)

Religion and tarot cards are both beliefs in the supernatural. That's the only connection I've made between them. I hold that, as I have no belief in supernatural activity, they must be treated the same. Thus I consider them equally illegitimate.

Nothing to do with killing.

Nor have I argued that all religions lead to murder. Or that all religious people would murder for God. Or anything like that.

Much like the Cat Power thread, you're seeing what you want to think I've argued, rather than what I did.

>The families of victims of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi AMin, etc etc would beg to differ Id imagine.

re the seperation of church and state

"What really needs to be emphasized is that official banning of
God-based religious expression constitutes official preferential
recognition and propagation of atheistic religion, specifically the
religion of secular humanism. Some prefer to refer to
humanism as a "philosophy", in which case it represents an
"alternative" to religion, or more properly a substitute for religion,
rather than an actual religion. But in either case, removal of
theistic references from a child's education guarantees that all
references he/she encounters - historical, sociological,
scientific, ethical, moral - will be atheistic references. The
principle doctrines of the religion of secular humanism are:

1. There is not God.
2. There is no afterlife.
3. Absolute authority does not exist.
4. Objective truth does not exist, at least in relation to moral
questions.
5. The morality of an act depends only upon its effects.
6. Humans and humans alone are the masters of their own
destiny.

There is no such thing as a religious vacuum. If God is
banished from the educational process, that doesn't mean that
our children are no longer exposed to religious and moral
concepts at school. In fact, such an action by the state
constitutes imposition of an atheistic state religion upon all
school children, and it is inevitable that they will be taught the
above religious beliefs, under the guise of "separation of church
and state"."

If it were, there'd be no point in having two different words for "religion" and "belief," but beyond that, it's complicated. (I don't agree with hstencil that atheism is never a religion; I just don't think it's relevant, and specifically tagging the absence of religion as religion is ludicrous.)

Regardless, for the purposes of the 10 Commandments discussion, the relevant definition of religion is the one the Supreme Court etc. uses in its interpretation of the 1st amendment. Just saying "but being very very political is religious too!" wouldn't actually matter.

1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

So you're going by #4, the least commonly used definition.
By prohibiting religion from public life, how is that endorsing secular humanism? It's a lack of endorsement, to be filled in with whatever a person chooses to, be it Xianity, Buddhism, astrology, Punky Brewsterism, etc.

hmm so I guess that makes my mom a devotee to the religion of the Democratic Party, as well as an Episcopalian. Will be news to her, I'm sure.

Tep, religion doesn't necessarily need institutions, but it can't just be manifested out of thin air. Even if you don't go to church, if you call yourself a Christian you must have at least some familiarity with what it means to be a Christian; i.e. familiarity with the scripture, life/acts of Jesus, etc. Guiding principles or tenets of faith, if you will. Atheism does not have such guiding principles or tenets. It is simply a belief, and not always one that would fit into the 4th part of that definition, either (I'm not a particularly zealous or conscientiously devoted atheist, as I just don't really care).

We really don't need to get into this, because like I said upthread: whether or not atheism is a religion just plain isn't relevant to anything else under discussion. I can get into it briefly, but I don't have a whole lot of interest in going through the various reasons behind what might come across as blunt statements.

Briefly -- atheism isn't just one thing, any more than theism is. Atheism is a descriptor; there are flavors of atheism which fit the same criteria as religious systems, depending on how you define religion. "Lack of belief" and "belief in a lack" are not synonymous. It's actually a very tricky thing to define "religion" cross-culturally, and outside of specific contexts (like the law and so on), there isn't much consensus on the issue. ("Magic" is even tougher; a conference called purely to address the issue ended up with no conclusion beyond "all we can really agree on is that we're not sure.")

milo you're right. Your beliefs about tarot cards and religion and killing aren't contradictory. I never took formal logic but here's how I see it.

i) one kind of supernatural belief is "religion"
ii) "religion" is capable of justifying killing on a mass scale

I actually agree with these two, or at least I could find a way to explain how they're both true. I think most people could. So,

iii) some kinds of supernatural beliefs (at least one: "religion") can be used to justify killing on a mass scale.

I would be intersting to know if there were any other superstitions that were used to justify killing on a mass scale. I can't think of any. It seems like it's not very relevant. If anything, it provokes a question—what does "religion" have that Tarot cards don't have? That where I think you don't want to go, milo. Because you'd have to try and understand why and how people believe what they believe within different world religions.

When mass killing on religious grounds occurs (examples?) it's usually the result of other factors: invasion, poverty, things like that. Religion is the cover story, the convenient fiction. Don't forget that serious perversion and outright contravention of the most mainstream tenets of religious texts is always necessary to undertake genocide.

On the other hand, adherence to these concepts can sometimes lead to almost supernatural progress in big aspects of society: the Civil Rights Movement (organized largely in black churches) is an example.

oops I'm just like "when you play by the book, the PLAN WORKS" like your basketball coach would do

-- miloauckerman (mlpowel...), August 26th, 2003 11:43 PM. (miloauckerman) (link)

Am I the only one who thinks this entire monument flap is a set-up to make Bush's Eleventh Circuit Court nominee look less like a religious nut? Bill Pryor (the Alabama Attorney General) is the same guy who was criticized by several Democratic members of Senate Judiciary Committee for being a religious zealot, which in turn got those members labeled "anti-Catholic." It was a big flap last month. He did eventually get voted out of the judiciary committee, over a streneous objection that Orrin Hatch was manipulating the committee rules, but he hasn't been voted on in the Senate yet. I'll bet any takers $5 that his actions in relation to Moore's monument are going to be "Exhibit A" when his nomination goes to the floor.

I think that's answered quite easily, though. Major religions have more followers and more power than Tarot card readers (fucked if I know the history of Tarot cards, but I'm guessing it grew out of Norse runes, and maybe it's related to Roma culture?).

But it's not just tarot cards I'm referring to. All forms of supernatural belief that aren't widely accepted are treated differently, when no difference really exists.

If you proclaimed a belief in the Greek deities, you'd be laughed at by most Americans (if not to your face, then privately). Why is a belief in Zeus less valid and acceptable than a belief in Jesus? Where's the difference, aside from one having popular acceptance in our culture?

A belief in psychic phenomena, Greek mythology, tarot cards and hauntings is no more outlandish than a belief in the virgin birth, miracles and resurrection of Jesus.

If I'm going to get a giggle out of people who call Ms. Cleo for serious reasons, I've got to giggle at people who pray, too.

When mass killing on religious grounds occurs (examples?) it's usually the result of other factors: invasion, poverty, things like that. Religion is the cover story, the convenient fiction. Don't forget that serious perversion and outright contravention of the most mainstream tenets of religious texts is always necessary to undertake genocide.

On the other hand, adherence to these concepts can sometimes lead to almost supernatural progress in big aspects of society: the Civil Rights Movement (organized largely in black churches) is an example.

In addition to Ooops comments, I'd argue the opposite. Where we can find the evils done by religion and in religion's name without corollary in the secular world (the Crusades, Inquisition, Hindu caste system), et al., what good that comes of religion can be found from extra-religious sources. The civil rights movement was populated (on its white side) by the precursors to the New Left, hardly a religious bunch.

For the civil rights movement specifically, I see very little other than a coincidental relation to religion. In the South, churches were one of the few places African-Americans could gather and organize with less than normal intimidation from whites. Most everyone in the South, white or black, before the last couple of decades, went to church every Sunday. So churches played a role because they were in the right place at the right time, not because of religious fervor.

It's not even a matter of religions being good or bad; it simply is something I am totally disinterested in, in and of itself, for reasons fundamental to the definition and meaning of religion and spirituality - not any particular religion or spirituality, but Religion and Spirituality, period. No book is going to change that; in fact, that very idea is completely antithetical to my choices in these matters.

I understand why others want to partake, and that's fine - on their own time, in their own private locations - but please keep it away from public locations that tax dollars pay for; it isn't necessary and I find it offensive as a citizen.

Do you think it was coincidence that a place people came every week to (ostensibly) meditate on how to love they neighbor more perfectly just happened to be the place where tangible action towards Civil Rights could be organized without the fatal degree of the internal squabbling that often accompanies and dooms progressive politics?

And stop talking about the Crusades and the Inquisition, that was like hundreds of years ago.

Girolamo you are flattering yourself here if you think anyone's trying to convert you.

A couple of problems there. One, the assumption that I don't have the "basic ideas" of Christianity down. If you can point out where I've erred on the basics of Christian thought, I'd love to hear.

The other problem is your assumption that basic ideas and the motivations of those who partake are relevant. They're not. You can believe in ghost stories because it helps you sleep at night, you can believe in them because you think they'll give you power, you can believe in them because you're afraid of eternal damnation, you can believe in them because everyone else believes in them and you want to fit in. I don't care. They're still ghost stories, no matter how noble or how evil their intentions may be.

If I'm gonna giggle at Ms. Cleo's followers, to be intellectually honest, I have to giggle at Pentecostals.

(Likewise, I find the tendency for some to attack Christianity, but avoid criticism of other religions on similar or identical grounds to be dishonest.)

No, just trying to give Dan a better understanding of where I'm coming from without making him read a book.

Yes. They were a gathering place.

The only tie that exists is that civil rights organizing took place (sometimes) inside of churches.

Not that the Bible foretold it, or that the Bible nor the Church helped make it so, or anything else.

Aside from being a meeting place, what role did religion play in the civil rights struggle? Did praying to God convince the Supreme Court to rule on Brown. v. Board of Topeka?

And stop talking about the Crusades and the Inquisition, that was like hundreds of years ago.
Well, gee, I guess they're not relevant to whether or not religion has done more harm than good throughout history, eh? Silly me, using history to judge history.

"You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. " - Bertrand Russell

Enemy?

(xp)

Objectivity can be a bitch...

Of course, to hear you, it seems like you've decided (without examining) that non-believer = discriminator against religion = someone with poor understanding of it.

And don't forget that discriminate itself merely means to make choices based on understood distinctions, which is hardly a vice in its essence.

If I were indifferent, I wouldn't care. I do care. I care enough to stay away.

You seem to have a problem with people not wanting to get in line and do things the way you want to. I find that trait precisely what is the most quintessential.

The reason I say the Crusades are sort of irrelevant now to your point about the Church being a source of unparalleled evil or whatever is because in those days the church really could confer great sweeping powers on people and groups of people, it was the ruling institution in much of Europe. It could literally be a king-maker.

Religion in Europe and the US isn't this kind of institution any more. Other systems have taken the reins of power, the power to make kings, the power to tithe. But churches still exist, and they are consist mainly of people. Actual people inside actual churches talking about things. What I find so strange is that in the case of the Crusades, or the Inquisition, you see a direct relationship between Catholicism and the actions carried out by its (purported) adherents; but with Civil Rights you don't see any relationship between Baptism and the actual people who filled Baptist churches. You say these meetings just happened to take place there. Well it wasn't for the air conditioning, those Southern Baptist churches were hot.

http://www.thewvsr.com/images/stfu.jpg

http://images.usatoday.com/news/healthscience/science/physics/images/2002-01-04-teller-now.jpg

If religion can truly sustain itself, if it's something that really has a universal need and appeal, then why not let people come to it of their own volition, instead of constantly trying to offer it to them? It seems that something that must be this popular shouldn't need any type of marketing at all.

Because many religions have a central message of helping your fellow man, and that includes teaching. A lot of people are glad that somebody took the time to reach out and give them hope. Many people of good faith don't see it as "marketing", they are simply trying to pass on to others what has helped them.
A lot of belief systems find the concept of free will as very important, because faith could not exist without it. Moral choice allows us the virtue of deciding what we commit to. Most religion aren't supposed to work like "a plague" that just sustains itself by infecting and overtaking a people and then spreading to another area. That kind of ideology is what gives so many religions a bad name. For the most part, there's supposed to be a moment of clarity, where you evaluate what you believe in and decide wether you want to commit to something greater than yourself. Oh, and most people who try and spread a message of faith aren't psychic. They can't be sure who has had the chance to join a certain religious group, so they try and reach everyone. Is that really such an inconvenience, to simply here what someone says and say "no thank-you?"

Explain why this can't simply function as a philosophy, then.

And, I have said no thank you several times, Dan. I would think that the fact that I'm still posting here is evidence that I've been reading all 370+ postings. Just because you haven't convinced me (and the fact that I haven't heard anything new argument-wise on the matter from you, which makes me doubtful you will ever convince me), doesn't mean I am being close-minded.

So explain to me why there needs to be a religion of helping your fellow man instead of a philosophy of helping your fellow man? Because I tend to find the latter a lot more noble, especially if there's no inherent built-in reward system of eternal salvation for doing whatever the book tells you to do.

Yes, but for something that's been around so long, there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about it. For example, there are a lot of people you just mention "Christians" to, and suddenly they have this image in their mind of a group of people who hate gays and everyone of a different faith that are out to take over the government brainwash everyone, and this is a popular stereotype blown up by the bad example of certain extremist groups. The reality is a Christian who paid attention to the teachings of Christ is ideally supposed to love the sinner and not the sin, and treat everyone they meet as they themselves would like to be treated. But rather than take time to understand what a certain group of people is SUPPOSED to be about, many people choose to instead continue labeling people of a certain faith as being one particular way. And you can't even attempt to educate anyone in public schools about religion, because this subject is left for people to pursue in college, and by that point they are probably so grounded in certain notions about Jews, Hindus, Christians or Muslims that they could care less about learning anything about them. And so the cycle of misunderstanding grows, as do the barriers between us as a country of people... do you not see how this is a bad thing?

Oh, and I think religion continues to exist because people have felt a connection to something bigger and more powerful than themselves and have seen and done things that would suggest they are experiencing such a connection, and if you've never in your life had an experience like this, there's no way to explain it. Sorry, but that's what has kept it real for people of so many different faiths for many, many years now. But I'll tell you one thing, most of these people claimed they never felt anything till they opened themselves up to it.

Sure there is. It's called 'delusion'.

It's just a logic loophole that has been exploited since religion began.

The sorry old "crusades and inquisitions" type line whilst ignoring the exponentially greater crimes of very recent secular atrocities in the world, ignoring all the far greater good things the church has done to educate, feed and care for people: shelters, hospitals schools, universities etc (no other institution or Government has done more for people in the history o mnkind) , ignoring the mitigation of "time and place" of crimes many hundreds of years ago (most certainly however not "justification", men acting in the name of the church have carried out some horrific and evil acts) etc… is just plain dishonest

More important however is the underlying, irrational logic in regard to metaphysica and superior attitude shown by some.

IMO people should read more of Karl Popper and less of Bertrands dubious scribbling to understand the value of intellectual modesty. SOcrates "I know that I do not know" etc, if we all start from that... we can all make progress. The positive arguments in support of metaphysical realism are many and varied for those interested reading up on philosophy and Christianity arguments from a catholic perspective a great link below:

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ75.HTM

Faith and Reason are inseparable: remove the reason and you have pure nonsense re gnomes .
We do not know such metaphysical realism in the sense of demonstrable knowledge. We also do not know it in the sense of testable 'scientific knowledge'. But this does not mean that our knowledge is unreasoned, or unreasonable. On the contrary, there is no factual knowledge which is supported by more or by stronger (even though inconclusive) arguments.

Reason's last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it. It is merely feeble if it does not go as far as to realise that. If natural things are beyond it, what are we to say about supernatural things?

--- Blaise Pascal,

Apparently, the answer to this question is "yes." Hmm.

(Note: I understand that this was supposed to be a joke, not an actual suggestion.)

Anyhow...The Onion chimed in on this one as well.
http://www.theonion.com/current_wdyt.html

milo there's something very strange going on here. The jump from this airy-fairy irrational superstition to actual bloody killing you make without hesitation, without explaining how a belief in the Bible, Jesus Christ, etc. actually translated into the organized actions undertaken in the Middle Ages. If you're going to "explain history with history" you have to address this. From what I've read about the Crusades, much of it consisted of gold-hungry knights who asked the Church to bless a series of foreign looting frenzies. If you've got a different story I'd be glad to hear it.
More along the lines of "God, Gold and Glory" for an earlier age. You can dismiss the role of religion there, but do you dispute that the Crusades were undertaken at the behest of the religious authorities, under the (supposed) direction of the Christian God, to retake the "Holy Land"?

There were a lot of places easier and better than Palestine to plunder, if that was the sole cause.

The reason I say the Crusades are sort of irrelevant now to your point about the Church being a source of unparalleled evil or whatever is because in those days the church really could confer great sweeping powers on people and groups of people, it was the ruling institution in much of Europe. It could literally be a king-maker.
How is that become irrelevant religion's role in human history. At what point do you want to start the clock on religion's good v. evil accounts?

But this is also why I said that Hinduism, in the modern world, is arguably the 'worst' religion because of what it does to the people of India.

Religion in Europe and the US isn't this kind of institution any more. Other systems have taken the reins of power, the power to make kings, the power to tithe. But churches still exist, and they are consist mainly of people. Actual people inside actual churches talking about things. What I find so strange is that in the case of the Crusades, or the Inquisition, you see a direct relationship between Catholicism and the actions carried out by its (purported) adherents; but with Civil Rights you don't see any relationship between Baptism and the actual people who filled Baptist churches. You say these meetings just happened to take place there. Well it wasn't for the air conditioning, those Southern Baptist churches were hot.
Because the Inquisition and the Crusades were carried out under religious authority, to bring glory to God and God-Appointed King and Country.

The civil rights movement wasn't carried out for the glory of God. It wasn't carried out by the Anointed. SOME of its organizing happened to take place in churches, by church leaders. A great deal of it was accomplished outside of religious authorities and groups.

Can you find the atheist contingent in the Inquisition?

It's called faith, Oops, and once people have it, it's supposed to make all the difference. And personally it's always been my largest weakpoint with religion... I have trouble handing myself over to something I can't fully explain with my five sense. As for calling a religious experience dillusion, well that's your opinion. If religion did not require faith, and spiritual dieties regularly appeared to "promote" themselves, then there would be no point in debating which religion is the truth, because then it would be obvious which ones were false and which were not. Free will would be an after-thought.

If religion didn't require faith it would be pointless debating it? So, it's pointless debating who is correct in any other non-faith field too?

-- caitlin (wpsal...), August 28th, 2003.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No Caitlin... but f Buddha came to earth right now and he was 100 feet tall and weighed several thousand tons, then proceeded to sit his ass down on a Methodist Church and began to summon the faithful towards him so they can start meditating, don't you think that would answer the question for a lot of people which faiths are real and which are simply just... beliefs?

Main Entry: faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF

I'm not at all, Dan. I'm asking why is there this thing, and why does it only involve this one area of life?

The answer to your question is, "Because that's the way it is."

I'm sorry that you find the answer shitty, but it's kind of spelled out in the definition I posted. The concept of religion cannot be seperated from the concept of faith and people who say "Prove it!" are pretty much missing the entire point. (Conversely, people who claim they can prove it are also missing the entire point.)

The concept of religion cannot be seperated from the concept of faith and people who say "Prove it!" are pretty much missing the entire point.

Pretty convenient, huh?

Remember kiddies...don't be fooled by the 'Fun' in 'Fundamentalist'... be more worried about the 'mentalist' part.

Pretty convenient, huh?

Isn't it convenient that two plus two equals four?

There's a long history since the day I was born of my mother coming through for me. After a certain many times of her NOT coming through, I will lose my trust in her.

(xp)

Because 'four' is the word we use to denote that amount of apples. I can do this little apple experiment over and over and still get four apples. Anyone else who does it in any part of the world will still get four apples.

but does math accurately describe the universe?

I know you are far too clever to be hoodwinked by the Christian conspiracy of irrationality, but I think it's important you understand that for a lot of people the point of the Christian church is not miracles or supernatural occurrences or unproveable deity, but meditation on the nature of love—as filtered through a particular set of more or less culturally relevant texts—and what actions should result. I think it's extremely valuable that there's at least a day every week for people to gather and think about these things. It's like the "Central Park" of society. I know you find it all profoundly unconvincing next to mind-blowing truths like "2 + 2 = 4" but show me a mathematical school or a secular philosophy that draws the kinds of crowds Churches pack in every Sunday. Again, the hatas refuse to engage with why people might engage in these rituals, other than that these people are profoundly illogical or delusional or just sheep who go along.

(confidential to Bertrand Russell: if there's any religious organization that could claim to speak for all US denominations it's the National Council of Churches, who have offices in what they affectionately call "The God Box" on New York's Upper-West Side. Despite the protestations of fringe weirdos like these Alabamians, Pat Robertson, et al, the NCC speaks for the majority of its constituents. In addition to healthcare lobbying, "ecological justice" projects, education projects, equal rights for women, and other initiatives, they were against both Gulf Wars.)

The key part of religion, that which seperates it from philosophy, is the devotion to a supernatural deity. If I started a club that meditated on love and togetherness it wouldn't be called a religion.

(btw, the 'ooh, you think you're so much cleverer than everyone else' shit is pretty stale)

oops, the category of "world religion" contains an astonishing diversity of viewpoints and rituals, even within one congregation on the South Side of Chicago. People have different opinions about what their faith means to them, and different ways they use religion in their lives. But you seem just as hell-bent as milo on sticking all "religions" into this retardo box: "supernatural deities."

Start your fucking club, oops. Really. See who shows up.

1 a : the state of a religious (a nun in her 20th year of religion) b (1) : the service and worship of God or the SUPERNATURAL (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

If religion is so diverse and there's no common thing that ties them all together and simultaneously seperates them from philosophy, then the term in meaningless. Thus, can we just stick to those religions whose defining characteristic is the belief in a deity or deities since 95% of all that has been classified as religion throughout history has been this type? You're criticizing me for focusing on the supernatural aspects when that is precisely the thing I have a problem with, and, therefore am focusing on it.

Thinking one aspect of something is bullocks doesn't mean you don't have respect for all the other aspects. I think religion is a good thing overall. If everyone followed religious teachings properly the world would most surely be a better place to live. I just don't see why there needs to be a supernatural aspect to it.

We're jumping all over here. I started out asking why there is faith in the supernatural, and now you say that is irrelevant.

I'm guessing that the concept of the supernatural doesn't bother oops in the everyday course of his or her life. But as this is something of a discussion on religion, and religious beliefs and so on, the supernatural is a rather important topic.

But as you brought it up again, why should I grant religion any more respect than I grant people who call psychic hotlines?

Do you, Dan Perry, treat Christians and Buddhists and so on the same as you treat those who base their life on astrology? On tarot card readings?

You'll honestly state that you see no difference in being a mainstream Christian, and a member of the Branch Dividians or Heaven's Gate?

At what point do you get to disrespect someone's beliefs? Are racist, sexist, homophobic beliefs just as valid as anti-racist/anti-sexist/anti-homophobic beliefs?

But I still find this "basic respect" stuff a bit of a put on, given your comments about 'abject morons' earlier in this thread. If I have to 'respect' the beliefs of anyone and everyone simply for them existing, shouldn't you 'respect' the views those 'abject morons' hold of MLK?

Religion is not comprised solely of intangible beliefs. It is manifested in physical ritual and congregation. Astrology fanatics don't have this. That's why I don't call myself a Christian, because I don't go to church or participate in any of the rituals: these are key to religious practice. BEING AROUND OTHER PEOPLE and doing things with them are key to religious practice. Without this: no religion, at least not as we know it.

oops I never claimed a belief system is legitimate just because lots of people believe in it. Look at Fascism. The point that I've been trying to make, fruitlessly, is that religion can be a positive aspect in society at large. I've presented mountains of evidence to back that up. That this is true doesn't really depend on whether you, milo or oops, believe in God or not! But it's harder to be a positive force in society if you just started your little group from scratch yesterday in your own back yard, since you need people, and you need ritual. oops you've fantasized about doing this at least twice on this thread, so maybe you really should give it a shot, although I think any leader who preaches about love and forgiveness but shows as little humility and respect and open-mindedness as you have here will have a hard time attracting a following.

Yes, probably they did.

Why is this all about milo and myself and how close-minded and disrespectful we are, rather than why religion needs a supernatural element? I find this aspect ridiculous and unworthy of respect. Like I said before, this does not mean I think religion as a whole is ridiculous and unworthy of respect.

I'm not denying that religion can be a positive influence but it can also be a negative influence. How many times do I have to tell you you can't have it both ways. You take the good, you take the bad, and there you have the facts of life. The facts of life.

I dislike stupidity and willful ignorance intensely. It blinds my objectivity. Anyone who willfully ignores the gigantic impact MLK had on the secular world and says, "Oh, a Baptist minister" when they see a statue of him is stupid.

I giggle at Ms Cleo callers because it is baldly stated all over the Ms Cleo ads that the readings aren't real, ergo calling Ms Cleo and thinkiing you're going to get a real psychic is stupid. Rinse, lather, repeat.

I make a distinction between mainstream Christians and the Heaven's Gate folks because the average mainstream Christian is a nice person who wants everyone around them to get along and be happy while the Heaven's Gate folks wanted so badly to escape everyday life they killed themselves. I don't know anything about the Branch Davidians other than that they had their roots in Seventh-Day Adventism.

Finally, people are by nature contradictory and inconsistent; deal with it.

I'm not denying that religion can be a positive influence but it can also be a negative influence.

Milo is denying that religion can be a positive influence, which is why this entire debate has gone on for as long as it has.

I used to be very disdainful of all forms of religion/mysticism/etc. I stopped when I realized that my disdain wasn't actually doing anything positive for me.

>>Yes, probably they did.

As individuals. Not as part of an organization capable of mass mobilization, like a church. That's my whole point.

>>> "there's nothing unique to religion that prevents other, non-religious groups to do similar positive things for society"

Who do you think would have an easier time speaking to a crowd of coal miners, a Communist Party leader or a minister for the Baptist Church? Even if their speeches were exactly the same? Why do you think that is?

(xp)

I don't know!

Genuine questions in response to this post:

1. 'Meditation on the nature of love' is an activity one can take part in regardless of religious belief. In fact - aside from supernatural occurences - there is nothing that concerns theology that does not also concern literature, art, philosophy, etc. What makes one define oneself as, for instance, Christian, just because one is interested in such contemplation?

2. Are you saying that 'for a lot of people' (Christian people, presumably), the Bible's worth is not dependent on its being authored by people in direct contact with the divine? (Or at least authored by people who knew people who had heard of people with such contact.)

3. If not, what leads you to believe that the authors had such contact?

4. Or, if so, are there particular sections that you feel, above all other literature, are more instructive in the ways we should live, how we should cope, and why we have to live at all?

5. How can they be distinguished from similar sections in my favourite books? Is it only a question of taste?

6. If Jesus, of all people whose words are recorded, had the most important things to say, in your opinion, why were his words not more accurately recorded?

I giggle at Ms Cleo callers because it is baldly stated all over the Ms Cleo ads that the readings aren't real, ergo calling Ms Cleo and thinkiing you're going to get a real psychic is stupid. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Legal protections, obviously. The gummint's out to get her, as her followers would claim, so she has to cover her ass.

So belief in Ms. Cleo's psychic powers is an unacceptable supernatural belief, but White Guy in the Sky is an acceptable supernatural belief?

By what distinction? How is one more outlandish or unlikely than the other?

I make a distinction between mainstream Christians and the Heaven's Gate folks because the average mainstream Christian is a nice person who wants everyone around them to get along and be happy while the Heaven's Gate folks wanted so badly to escape everyday life they killed themselves. I don't know anything about the Branch Davidians other than that they had their roots in Seventh-Day Adventism.
But that has nothing to do with religion. I know "mainstream Christians" who have tried to commit suicide. There are depressed, despondent people in every group.

So what's the difference in Heaven's Gate beliefs and mainstream Christianity?

Why can I not take umbrage at one and not the other?

Finally, people are by nature contradictory and inconsistent; deal with it.
IOW "Yes, I'm a hypocrite on this whole respect thing, and I just don't like criticism of religion in general."

Milo is denying that religion can be a positive influence, which is why this entire debate has gone on for as long as it has.
Where have I denied that "religion can be a positive influence"?

I haven't. I said it has done more harm than good throughout history. I said that religion's positive effects are also found in secular beliefsets.

But feel free to make up stuff for me.

I used to be very disdainful of all forms of religion/mysticism/etc. I stopped when I realized that my disdain wasn't actually doing anything positive for me.
Good for you, don't be disdainful.

But don't tell me I can't be disdainful. Don't be a hypocrite about the legitimacy of beliefs when you tell me that. Don't start calling anyone who has a different viewpoint than yourself a "moron" and their beliefs and statements "fatuously stupid," while claiming that we have to have "basic respect" for religious beliefs, just 'cuz.

Because one goes to church and performs rituals alongside others who share many of your beliefs in common. If you were Jewish you'd go to synagogue. If you were Muslim you'd go to mosque. If you were just some freelancer interested in meditating on love you'd take yoga or something, I don't know.

>>>2. Are you saying that 'for a lot of people' (Christian people, presumably), the Bible's worth is not dependent on its being authored by people in direct contact with the divine? (Or at least authored by people who knew people who had heard of people with such contact.)

I believe that we're all in direct contact with the Divine on a daily basis, or we can choose to be. So in this respect the Bible would be no different than a Chinese takeout menu, except that groups of people over time have found the Bible more powerful and more useful to them in their daily lives than Chinese takeout menus, and have instituted an entire sprawling heterogeneous network of congregations.

>>>3. If not, what leads you to believe that the authors had such contact?

See above.

>>>4. Or, if so, are there particular sections that you feel, above all other literature, are more instructive in the ways we should live, how we should cope, and why we have to live at all?

Not above all other literature. I haven't find a church that teaches Chekhov and Epictetus yet. It doesn't mean in can't happen, even within the context of American Protestantism.

>>>5. How can they be distinguished from similar sections in my favourite books? Is it only a question of taste?

No, it's a question of going to church!

>>>6. If Jesus, of all people whose words are recorded, had the most important things to say, in your opinion, why were his words not more accurately recorded?

The tape ran out?

I'm curious as to what Tep would say about this.

I believe that we're all in direct contact with the Divine on a daily basis, or we can choose to be.

Why?

So in this respect the Bible would be no different than a Chinese takeout menu, except that groups of people over time have found the Bible more powerful and more useful to them in their daily lives than Chinese takeout menus

Does that mean the value of the Bible is dependent on the amount of people who believe in it and are helped by it? If everyone became Buddhist and no one thought the Bible had any place in their lives, would that mean the Bible was no longer the word of God? A religion is made more legitimate not by the inherent truth and universalness of its ideas, but by the amount of people who believe in it and how many buildings these followers erect in its name?

Followers of Zoroaster to thread!

• "There are two kinds of people in the world...Heroic and perfect partisans of purity and light such as US...and horrible, degenerate crack-smoking satanists like THEM."
  
• "There are only two paths: Our sacred and holy path towards grace and enlightenment...and corrupt and depraved path toward filth and damnation."

*Note: This can applies to some political ideologies as well

The political ideologies bit is the key there, though: dualism is an instance of polygenesis. It's attested cross-culturally, in ways which can't be explained by contact with Zoroastrianism.

I'd argue that the "there being two paths means one of them is wrong and must be eliminated" reading of dualism is actually the result of a separate metameme, and isn't integral to dualism itself -- there are flavors of so-called gnosticism which don't adhere to it, for example, and in Christianity it survives more as an ironic borrowing of Marcion's ideas than anything else. (Marcion was one of those sympathetic to the idea that the God who was the Father of Christ was not the God of the Old Testament who created the universe; and that the OT God was evil, depraved, etc., and Christianity must necessarily reject Judaism rather than adapt it -- the Catholic canon is a product of arguments against him, but by the same token he managed to popularize the idea of there being equal-or-nearly-equal forces of good and evil in the supernatural world, and of the necessity of choosing one over the other. It's certainly likely that he was influenced, directly or indirectly, by Zoroastrianism, given time and geography).

... THAT was a long parenthetical ...

Anyway -- points being, first, that I don't think the value judgment which sometimes attaches to dualism is actually native to it; and that I think a lot of the harm caused by religious institutions is inherent to the institutions part of the phrase, not the religious part (as other people argued upthread).

You can argue that the presence of women in the world contributes to straight men having sex. You can't argue that eliminating women would stop those men from having sex. They'd just have different sex. They'd fuck each other. They'd fuck sheep. They'd fuck watermelons. Whatever. Men are inherently sexual; the shape of their sex is influenced by other factors, but the fact of their sex isn't.

Heaven's Gate to thread

Isn't religion minus congregations and prayer and ritual just philosophy?

and if there was, I'm sure you'd have to pay to see it.

You're forgetting minus mythology.

Isn't religion minus congregations and prayer and ritual just philosophy?

And I haven't been arguing with you cause I'm not sure of the best way to do so. I can't decide for myself whether religion could both begin and survive without supportive institutions -- Judaism has no centralized ecclesiastical power, but it did for a long time and much of what led to modern-day Judaism developed as a reaction to the loss of the Temple; proto-Christianity was practiced in unorganized groups over a surprisingly broad area, in more forms than it is today, but I wouldn't argue that it would still be around if not for the formalization of a Catholic Church.

So, I don't know if you can separate religion from its institutions -- but more to the point, I know that if I argued you could, I'd be arguing as me, because I consider myself religious and I see religious institutions as the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity. I wouldn't be arguing as a student of religious studies. I'm too invested in it.

Whether or not you can separate them, though, I think it's still important to look at the damage done by religious institutions -- and sure, the good done by them too, I guess; again, I have a bias there -- as a product of the "institutions" part of the equation, not the "religious" part.

Wait, hang on --

Isn't religion minus congregations and prayer and ritual just philosophy?

Unless I typed something I forgot, I wasn't separating out prayer and ritual (I do separate them in my personal life, but I don't think you were intuiting that :)). I'm not talking about religious institutions in the sense of "established practices," but simply congregations, groups with relatively static laws and doctrines, etc.

Don't like it when you preach one thing and your hypocrisy gets pointed out?

Tough shit, babe.

Which has been the question with Dan all along - why should I treat mainstream religion with one iota of respect more than I treat cults, haunted houses and psychic phenomena. He admits that he doesn't - Heaven's Gaters are loons and psychic hotline callers are morons.

So he doesn't treat their beliefs with any sort of "basic respect," how can he argue that I need to treat mainstream religion with that "basic respect"?

As for the ten commandments, all bar the honour the fictitious beardy character one, they are all ways of saying thou shalt not be a cunt unto another human being. Or the first priciple of humanity as I like to call it. Couching it in the language that was dictated to some mad hippy by a burning bush is clearly going to cause problems. Scratch out the ten commandments and replace them with "Don't be a cunt to other people" or even better "Be excellent to each other". And fire the judge who clearly has no right to be one, the whole not obeying the rule o law thing is clearly not cool for m'learned Friends.

okay at texas state capital: (ruling just issued, link as I can find it)