Main > Everything Else
This is more than a little scary
Ravant:
--- Quote from: fredster on February 04, 2005, 08:56:03 am ---Where is it in the Consitution? Show me.
--- End quote ---
It's not directly in the Constitution, but corrupt political authorities, in conjunction with lawyers have twisted the words of the Constitution to meet their own needs. The Religious Freedom clause in the Constitution was set up to protect our government from the Pope. At the time, the Pope was the most powerful man in the world. We didn't want to be under his power. Protestants from Europe established the nation, and therefore wanted to keep the Catholic Church from meddling in governmental affairs. Also, by keeping religion out of the government, the Constitution effectively destroys the "ruling by devine right" excuse.
Here's a quick example of how badly politicians skew the Constitution. (Mind you, the following example has NOTHING to do with what I'm ranting about, it's just a simplified example.)
public void showStupidity(String name1, String name2)
{
name1: Cows produce methane gas. Methane gas contributes to the hole in the Ozone layer of the Earth. Therefore, cows are contributing to the hole in the Ozone layer of the earth.
name2: This just in, name1 is on a relentless vendetta against all cows. He said that cows are contributing to the hole in the Ozone layer of the Earth, therefore changing their national image, and is making people hate cows so they would kill them.
}//End example.
Above was an example of what politicians MIGHT do in that situation to bolster their own public image. The politician will also use his ties with the media and other connections to have Scientist Pete silenced, so the Politician's vendetta against polluting cars can continue.
In the terms of the Constitution, while separating church and state, people tend to view this as "Abandon religion at all costs" and therefore make every effort to have any religious symbols from any religion deleted from anywhere within, or around any governmental establishment. Our major laws revolve around the 10 commandments and the 7 Pilars of Islam, and more. Are we to do away with all laws and become a complete anarchy because we follow some morality within two or three religions?
shmokes:
That's totally bogus. How long has it been, exactly, since you've actually read the 10 commandments? Here they are for your enjoyment:
1: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
2: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
3: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
4: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
5: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
6: 'You shall not murder.'
7: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
8: 'You shall not steal.'
9: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
10: 'You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbour's.'
You have to go to #5 before you get anything even resembling what might have made it into our lawbooks. #6 is the first commandment with an outright correstponding law and is joined only by #8. #6 and #8 are the only ones with outright laws. You could possibly suggest that libel and slander are related to #9 and that legal guardian stuff applies to #5. But it's certainly not against the law to talk back to your parents or tell them that you have no respect for them.
The 10 Commandments do not form the pillar of our laws. Our laws do not "revolve" around the 10 commandments. We live in a society. The benefits to society at large of having no murder or theft are pretty self-evident. I'll go out on a limb, in fact, and suggest that people were likely pretty keen about not being murdered BEFORE old Moses came down the mountain with his tablet.
Ravant:
Well, first, #9 can be associated with purgery. That said, lemme make a point. Our laws are following half of the 10 commandments. So sue me, I made a generalized statement. And because 6 & 8 are actual laws, why not do away with all laws regarding murder and theft, because they're in the 10 commandments? If we're supposed to eliminate all remnants of religion within government, removing laws surrounding murder and theft would be the only logical way of *completely* ridding the government of religion.
Besides, you missed the point of my post. My post was focusing more on how skewed the Constitution's meaning has become compliments of corrupt scumbags that human stupidity allows in office. Anyone who wins an election, should probably not hold that office.
mr.Curmudgeon:
--- Quote from: fredster on February 04, 2005, 12:42:08 pm ---So you prove my Point.
--- End quote ---
The point is, the language is neutral...for a reason. You can no more drop a ten-ton monument of the ten commandments in a court house, than you can have a teacher tell a Muslim that there religion is inferior by hanging only a crucifix in homeroom.
I don't understand why it's so hard for religious folk to understand that to have a public institution acknowledge their 'one true religion', is to ignore everyone else. Neutrality is the only acceptable way to allow these ideologies to co-exist in locations we all equally share, and pay for.
If religious people didn't come across as so fanatical about it, I'd have no problem with my kid taking a social studies class that incorporated into their curriculum, a multi-week course on all the various religions of the world. In fact, I think it would broaden our children's understanding and acceptance of others. I don't think that would ever be allowed to happen however, as it seems inherent in every single religion the idea that everyone else is wrong.
To me, the separation of Church/State has never been about disregard, or lack of respect for religion (even though I have my own philosophy anathema to this)...it's a matter of exclusion vs. inclusion.
mrC
ChadTower:
--- Quote from: mr.Curmudgeon on February 04, 2005, 01:41:50 pm ---You can no more drop a ten-ton monument of the ten commandments in a court house, than you can have a teacher tell a Muslim that there religion is inferior by hanging only a crucifix in homeroom.
--- End quote ---
The only reason a child would think that is because someone like you would tell them it says Islam is inferior. The concept of universal exclusion to prevent potential offense is flawed. It screws everyone and benefits no one. Let's just bring us all to the lowest common denominator of nothingness, shall we? That way NO ONE gets to celebrate.
We're looking at a case where nearly all of the religious students in our state would fall somewhere under that crucifix. The ones that don't have no reason to be offended by it. They should simply be able to request a Star of David, or mathematically less likely, whatever the Islamic equivalent symbol is. In other words, we should be including everyone present, not excluding everyone.