The men who ran the Confederacy were standing up for their belief in slavery when they seceded. Hitler stood up for his beliefs… as did Osama Bin Laden… and countless other men whose actions have caused massive death and destruction. Now, I think that Judge Roy Moore’s actions can hardly be compared to the stuff done by Hitler and Bin Laden and others, but if you admire Roy Moore simply because he stood up for what he believed in, then you should admire Hitler and Bin Laden and others for standing up for what they believed in. In fact, you should admire them more, because they really stood up for their beliefs, flying against popular notions of morality and humanity. Unless the reason you admire Roy Moore is because you partially agree with him or disagreed with the government’s actions, and don’t agree with Hitler/Bin Laden/etc., but then it wouldn’t only be about standing up for beliefs.
As far as citing the Constitution or state constitutions to prove or disprove that the Founders intended or didn’t intend that the federal government or states or whoever would have power over separation of church and state… well, believing in the Constitution or state constitutions in a strict sense is a little like believing in Santa Klaus. See, American government and the American legal system has been shaped by the different opinions of countless people over the centuries; you only need to study American history to see how inconstant and changing our government has really been. American democracy is more like a religion of shared values than it is an actual government. All Americans basically agree that our government should be based on a number of values, but we all disagree fiercely about what these values mean. This Judge Roy Moore thing is a perfect example. We all believe in ‘Freedom of Religion’ and ‘Separation of Church and State’; however, some of us believe that that means that religion can’t be endorsed at the local, state, or federal level, while others believe that freedom of religion means that, say, a judge should be allowed to put a copy of the Ten Commandments on the front step of his courthouse. Another example would be school vouchers: some say its freedom of religion, others say its not. Or, the debate about whether or not affirmative action promotes equality or if its the opposite of equality. We all agree on the need for equality; we disagree about the ways that equality should be created in a society. Don’t look to a strict or literal or technical interpretation of the Constitution for your guide. Look instead to the basic values of America(as said in the Bill of Rights), and use your own judgement as to how those values should be implemented. Most people in this thread probably already do that.
Whoa whoa whoa…easy there, Curtis. I agree that his methods went over the line. Certainly not to the extent of Hitler or Stalin or bin Laden, but over the line nonetheless. You can’t go against rules and laws, be they written or simply understood by civilized peoples (such as, say, mass murder of Jews) without facing consequences. Moore is facing those right now. Don’t take my admiration as meaning I endorse all that he did.
As for using the Constitution as a guide…well, let’s just say I understand political matters more than I venture most do. I understand how complex all that can be, but I also understand that sometimes taking things literally is the ONLY way to do it. Otherwise you could probably find (or create) a loophole in just about every article and section. I agree that to a degree, it’s up to interpritation. But only to a degree. You have to have SOME uniformity or else serious problems can arise.
That said, I need sleep. I’m trying to remember why I’m still up and am having trouble remembering basic information, like my name. Sleeeeeeeeeeeep…
Originally posted by Dark Paladin I think the only reason people have problem with the Ten Commandments being displayed anywhere is that it resembles Christianity, the (supposedly) largest religion. If people are upset about that, why not the deities that decorate the walls of courthouses, like Lady Justice?
Not really. I don’t like them because they tell me I can’t go around fornicating with my neighbors’ wives, and I don’t like that restriction one bit, nosirree-bob. I’m also not going to keep some day “holy” for what I think of as an imaginary being.
As for Lady Justice and such, you just don’t mess with art. She, and other things like her, represent classical ideals. That’s why people are willing to let others get away with the Ten Commandments being shown in a mural along with the Code of Hammurabi and other similar historical things, but not on a two ton sculpture whose purpose is to emphasize that the things stated on it should be laws of the land.
When you take away all the hypocrites and the nominal Christians, Christianity is actually a very small religion.
And you can’t really be sure those are accurate because of the methods they choose to perform these statistics. They usually do it by ethnic heritage and location (i.e. the entire population of Spain, France, and Italy are counted as Catholic, Germany and Scandinavia are counted as Protestant, countries on the Arabian peninsula are all counted as Muslim, etc.). Ever wonder why the percent of Americans who are Christian is the same as the number of whites? (They usually assume the Christians of other races will account for the whites who aren’t).
Originally posted by RoguePaladinTrian I don’t like them because they tell me I can’t go around fornicating with my neighbors’ wives, and I don’t like that restriction one bit, nosirree-bob.
…
Conversely, DP, there are probably many Muslims (or Hindus, or Jews, or Zoroasters, or Sikhs) that do not expressly follow “their” religion but are counted as among its rank. We can’t just go and decide that they are not true in their faith and should be lumped as Undecided or something. If people call themselves Christian, then fine, they’re Christian and should count as part of the Christian population. They just may not be born-again or part of the Elect or some such terminology.
Nope, it’s first.