Alan Smithee wrote:

W2L, I could be wrong, but I don't think Shale or at least any of us other non-believers who've never tried to force our beliefs on anyone, have a problem with what you suggest. In fact, I've taken one or two of those classes and found them very interesting. But teaching those classes isn't promoting any particular religion and despite the coming denial of those believers here, posting the ten commandments in Chris' hypothetical setting IS promoting certain religions above others.

I find it interesting that people who complain that not allowing religious displays on public/government property is at the expense of their freedom when in reality, it's for the preservation of their freedom. This country was settled in no small part by a group that was trying to escape religious intolerance at the hands of a state sanctioned religion. By prohibiting federal, state and local governments from even brushing up against religion, it prevents those same authorities from coming into the believer's houses of worship and telling them what to do. Oh I know. The trifling act of posting a religious doctrine in public schools and courtrooms or setting up manger scenes in town squares every December could never lead to that kind of government intrusion. Maybe not overnight but the fact that you don't think it could ever happen means that it certainly could.

Well, maybe another idea is the all or nothing approach--Either post nothing at all, for any of the belief systems out there, or post the 10 Commandments, post all the Buddah stuff, Islamic stuff, etc., all right there next to each other.

That way, everyone has their own thing and can read whichever one that suits their fancy. And if all the others offend you, then too bad--STFU because yours is up there too, and is probably offending someone else.

Hyacinth Girl wrote:

Well, maybe another idea is the all or nothing approach--Either post nothing at all, for any of the belief systems out there, or post the 10 Commandments, post all the Buddah stuff, Islamic stuff, etc., all right there next to each other.

That way, everyone has their own thing and can read whichever one that suits their fancy. And if all the others offend you, then too bad--STFU because yours is up there too, and is probably offending someone else.

Can you please quote which one of "mine" you're refering too?

Alan Smithee wrote:

Can you please quote which one of "mine" you're refering too?

I didn't mean you, personally--that was a generalization. If there were things posted for all the belief systems, then it stands to reason that one or more of those is meant to appease each person. Whichever one or ones people subscribe to, individually, constitues "theirs", and it's assumed that the ones they don't gravitate towards are meant for someone else. Hence, everyone gets their own thing hung up, but in doing so, they need to keep in mind that everyone else also gets theirs posted, too, and if they don't like it, then they also need to keep in mind that "theirs" may also be ruffling someone else's feathers.

So in other words, post 'em all and play nice in the sandbox, or nothing gets posted at all.

Opa Shale wrote:

Posting nothing at all works

Nystyle709 wrote:

No dear....marijuana is not a drug. It's a PLANT. It grows like that. Your Holy God is the one who put it here. Just because somebody decided to label it s drug doesn't make it so.

Well, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you over the definition of "drugs" but marijuana is a plant that is processed into a drug-form when you light it up and smoke it, hence it's presence on our Drugs of Abuse panel at work. Just like you can extract opium from poppies, and digitalis from foxglove, which are also drugs from plants, and even penicillin from mold. My Holy God put all those plants and a lot more on this Earth, but it's how humans choose to use them is what defines whether or not the drugs are therapeutic or recreational, but they're all still drugs regardless.

I say that if the community wants them there, put them there.

The Ten Commandments should be kept out of schools.The separation of church and state must be maintained.
Religious teaching should be done at home and or in church.

Hyacinth Girl wrote:

I didn't mean you, personally--that was a generalization. If there were things posted for all the belief systems, then it stands to reason that one or more of those is meant to appease each person. Whichever one or ones people subscribe to, individually, constitues "theirs", and it's assumed that the ones they don't gravitate towards are meant for someone else. Hence, everyone gets their own thing hung up, but in doing so, they need to keep in mind that everyone else also gets theirs posted, too, and if they don't like it, then they also need to keep in mind that "theirs" may also be ruffling someone else's feathers.

So in other words, post 'em all and play nice in the sandbox, or nothing gets posted at all.

I didn't take it that you meant me personally. I was asking for examples of the public display of belief systems other than Judeo-Christian that (I think) you were claiming. No one is preventing the private display (for all to see) of the pro-religous point of view.




No atheists protested for the removal of these. But put up something like this and you get death threats



or the vandalism of private property

I think this issue should actually be a states rights issue. Govt closest to the people that allow the people of the state to decide what it wants. If you live in texas for example, the topic in question would be acceptable, people would be toting guns, and the death penalty would be common place. If you want gay marriage, pro-choice, and other liberal ideals you move to California.

The point is that the people of the individual state would have the ability to either change the lows that govern them, or move. This does not have to be a flat across the board issue.

wants2laugh wrote:

I think this issue should actually be a states rights issue. Govt closest to the people that allow the people of the state to decide what it wants. If you live in texas for example, the topic in question would be acceptable, people would be toting guns, and the death penalty would be common place. If you want gay marriage, pro-choice, and other liberal ideals you move to California.

The point is that the people of the individual state would have the ability to either change the lows that govern them, or move. This does not have to be a flat across the board issue.

Sorry W2L but No, No, No. Maybe by now Mississippi, et al would have become enlightened enough to do away with the Jim Crow laws without federal court intervention but I'm more comfortable knowing that they didn't have a choice. Some rules need to be universal. Religion is one of them.

Opa Shale wrote:

Not everyone has the option to move to another state. The will of the majority should not infringe upon the civil rights of the minority. This was tried in the old confederate states in the '50s and the Feds used force to stop it.

And to ensure that all these United States have some semblance of unity the Federal Constitution guarantees that people are not forced to endure another's religious beliefs.

Alan Smithee wrote:

Sorry W2L but No, No, No. Maybe by now Mississippi, et al would have become enlightened enough to do away with the Jim Crow laws without federal court intervention but I'm more comfortable knowing that they didn't have a choice. Some rules need to be universal. Religion is one of them.

Post the US Constitution instead.

Alan Smithee wrote:

Some rules need to be universal. Religion is one of them.

Yeah, here's a universal religious law: Government backs the hell off from it. So if a community wants to put up a Ten Commandments display, government can look the other way.

The separation of Church and State was always meant to protect religion from government, not government from religion. Ironic that now, the total opposite seems to be the case. Government can bully religion but if religion dares have any foot in government, the atheists and lukewarm religious throw a fit.

Alan Smithee wrote:

I didn't take it that you meant me personally. I was asking for examples of the public display of belief systems other than Judeo-Christian that (I think) you were claiming. No one is preventing the private display (for all to see) of the pro-religous point of view.

Public display? Well, posting in a public forum constitutes putting it out there for all to see, so if you read many of Shale's posts on this topic that are filled with scathing hatred at times, then there's your exaple right there.

wants2laugh wrote:

I see no harm in having the 10 commandments in school--- especially since the most religious nation in the country--- a whopping 75% polled claim to be religious, mostly of judeo-christian descent is the USA.

Unfortunately wants2laugh, if 75% of people polled claim to be of Judeo-Christian, and I'm not sure exactly where these poll numbers come from but let's just assume it's true for a moment, and while we're at it, let's also assume that this 75% is actually practicing/devout members of their religion (just for shits and giggles), that means that at least 25% of people polled are NOT of Judeo-Christian consent. And as long as that's the case, its kind of difficult to use that as an argument for disregarding the First Ammendment of the US Constitution (which very clearly states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion). Just because the majority claims to be of a certain religion doesn't mean that the government should endorse that particular religious belief at the expense of the minority. Doing so completely defies the intent of the First Ammendment. The fact that there are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and non-religious children that go to public schools is reason enough not to have a Judeo-Christian based religious doctrine shoved down their throats.

wants2laugh wrote:

I also believe that kids should have religious classes taught sort of like a sociology elective. Teach about the various religions and regions of the world. Why people believe what they do and the various customs of the world---promote tolerance and understanding, rather than division.

I have no problem with that, but somehow I think that you'll find a lot of Christian parents upset about a public school teaching their child about Islam and "pagan" religions that contradict their Christian principles.

wants2laugh wrote:

There is a public school, i believe in NC, that is among the highest tested school in the nation that allows prayer--- not out loud spoken prayer, but moments of silent meditation throughout the day. There is less violence, better grades, and higher test scores. Coincidence?

I don't think that ANYBODY is arguing against silent prayer/silence for anyone who wants to partake in it. But that's not the same thing as having religious teachings (from one particular religion) posted on the walls of the school. That is a public display whereas a silent prayer is very personal.

Hyacinth Girl wrote:

Public display? Well, posting in a public forum constitutes putting it out there for all to see, so if you read many of Shale's posts on this topic that are filled with scathing hatred at times, then there's your exaple right there.

Sorry but that is NOT a valid comparrison at all! Are you honestly comparing an internet chat forum with a display on Government property? Shale's posts are consistent with "freedom of speech". Posting the ten commandments in a government building is consistent with "government endorsement of religion". Not even in the same ballpark! Try again...

Opa Shale wrote:

Should differentiate between a "Public Display on a Private Forum Board" from a "Public Display on Public/Gov't Supported Venue."

And, feel free to disagree with my scathing hatred of organized religion. It's not like we are in the dark ages where the religious can burn heretics alive, but the church is still free to dissent.

Well, I don't think that those religious zealots who burned heretics and other people who they didn't like, were necessarily acting upon the wishes of God, so much as they were pushing their own agendas under the banner of Christianity--they saw it as a good scapegoat to rid themselves of all sorts of undesirables. Blame it on God, so they don't have to take the responsibility, and in doing so, they gave Christianity a bad name.

A true Christian does not act like that. Yes we have opinions, because we are also human, too, but rightfully the Christian faith should take the "Love the sinner, hate the sin" stance. We all have things in our lives that may be undesirable in God's eyes, but unless one is perfectly without blame, then they should not throw stones, hence the verse about seeing the splinter in your neighbors eye yet failing to see the plank in your own.

Personally, I too, have things in my life that I work on, and I don't agree with many of the organized religions out there because they take Scripture out of context and twist it to suit what they want it to say, and in doing so, confuse the masses to the point where it becomes just the very turn off that you feel, Shale.

But, just because I try my best to take my life right from the Bible and eliminate all the trappings of what man adds to it, doesn't mean I don't have a viewpoint or an opinion, or will not stand up for my beliefs and offer as much proof/examples as I can in support of the points I attempt to make. In other words, it's possible to be a Christian, yet still have a backbone and some teeth.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Yeah, here's a universal religious law: Government backs the hell off from it. So if a community wants to put up a Ten Commandments display, government can look the other way.

Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about here so let me educate you on how it ACTUALLY works (and why your post is such a contradiction to itself).


Government funded public schools (regardless of what kind of community they are in) is still government property! That means that it doesn't matter if the community wants to put religious displays up because the government is supposed to abide by the constitution. By ignoring the constitution and complying with the demands of "the community" it is making the assumption that EVERYONE in that community is indeed of the same faith and therefore wants the same thing. BIG ASSUMPTION. Religious people in a community can put up religious displays on PRIVATE PROPERTY all day long, then the government can "look the other way" because that doesn't concern the government. But by allowing religious displays on public property now the government is not "backing the hell off from it" but in fact publically endorsing religion.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

The separation of Church and State was always meant to protect religion from government, not government from religion. Ironic that now, the total opposite seems to be the case. Government can bully religion but if religion dares have any foot in government, the atheists and lukewarm religious throw a fit.

First of all, that isn't even true because according to the Supreme court (whose job it is to intepret the constitution) Seperation of Church and State means BOTH, not one or the other. Secondly, what's ironic is the fact that you can't see that by the government choosing to endorse Judeo-Christian displays, it is essentially abandoned it's protection of other religions. Here is a question that you probably won't answer, but for the benefit of others I'll ask it anyway: IF the government in a local community decided that it was okay for a public school to display the first three verses of the Qur'an on the walls of every school entrance, what do you think public reaction would be like? You think that'd be okay?