It shows you what our country is becoming. A judge has no freedom of speech or religion. Same with the school system. Kids aren't allowed to say God. They're thinking of banning the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE because it says GOD in it. THAT'S CRAP! Our country was built so that you can say whatever you want in public, about anything you want. That's GONE now.
~Squeek
crap way of looking at it squeek.
The judge can have the ten commandments all over his house.. he can have them in his wallet. He can have his mom stitch them onto his underwear.. but the ten commandments have absolutely no place in a courtroom.
Imagine a judge who is supposed to look at the law making LEGAL judgements from the standpoint of honor they father and mother, thou shall not worship any false gods.. etc. etc.. what if a jewish person is on trial.
COMPLETE separation of church and state. That is what our country was founded on in order to prevent persecution of the pilgrims by their government and any other group by a different religious organization. If this guy cannot obey a court decision what is he doing acting as a judge. would you want to go into his court if lets say you were a homosexual who was beaten because you were one? Especially knowing this person thinks the ten commandments and christian doctrine is equal with the law?
What if a person who practices magick or lets say has multiple books on Astral projection and other things typically looked at as evil by the church. Lets say they got fired on the job for having such books and was taking it to court. could you be confident he wouldnt be looking at your case from the ten commandment (false gods) instead of the law?
A person like that does not need to be judge. You have freedom of speech in everyday life.. but a judge's duty is to look at the law without prejudice and the biggest prejudice in the past was religious. If a judge was on the bench saying he hates blacks could he still be a judge? Especially since african americans might.. hmm be in the judicial system? But that's freedom of speech right?
Only in alabama.
btw crap way to me means wrong way. I know someone might take offense.
But they can have a statue of a blindfolded person holding a scale... How does having 10 rules outside your courtroom offend? You're a judge. You punish those that break the rules. These are just 10 rules that the judge will punish you for.
~Squeek
Judges have to go by the law, not just what they feel like doing. Those ten 'rules' were the commandments that God supposedly gave Moses. They promote Christianity and could alienate non-Christians, which is illegal.
Hey!
May I remind you that everyone until Jesus was Jewish, Jesus was Jewish, and the Ten Commandments were given to Moses, WHO IS JEWISH!
The Ten Commandments are imprinted on the ark with the torah in our temple. Are you guys seeing my point?
I'm getting the feeling people dont fully understand the theory behind our judicial system.
Squeek are you serious? You just see them at ten more rules the judge can send people to jail for? You're old enough to know what a judge's role is in our system aren't you? They dont make up law as they go along they represent and enforce the law. Even judge's have rules they have to go by. Im thinking his defense is his rulings have nothing to do with the commandments and he still rules by the law. Which is questionable when a person is a fanatic.
I hope you were joking by your post squeek because if you believe he has the right to enforce the ten commandments in his rulings then I think our school systems arent getting across how our judicial system works.
BTW the blindfolded statue. Thats blind justice.. meaning a person's religion, color etc (even though it doesn't always work that way) wont be looked at when a judge who is enforcing the law (justice) makes a decision. I dont understand what point you were trying to make bringing that statue up. He is in a different position than most of us he has the power to rule on other people. With that position comes different rules.. and he cant suddenly decide he's going to punish a person for not honoring the sabbath.
Sorry sorry. Sheesh. It's just a reference. Our laws are so close to the last 4-10 anyway, so it's just another way of expressing the law. Don't kill, don't steal, etc. This is not any different from making a statue of the US CONSTITUTION.
We have a courtroom in DC that has the two stone tablets in it as well. Apparently it hasn't been a problem until now. How very odd.
If the world were truly free with a basic set of laws for humanity this wouldn't even make headline news.
~Squeek
Yeah, I think MouseMan has a point. The fact is, there not ENDORSING religion, there just a tribute to where our law system came from.
Finally someone understands me!!! Thanks for summing up my thoughts exactly shadow :)
~Squeek
I must agree with no_leaf_clover and goingslow. The government is suppose to remain separate from religion. By displaying religious rules they are endorsing a certain religion. Though many of those rules are common sense rules (do not steal, do not kill, etc) others are clearly religious in nature. Not only is one religious in nature, it flat out states that this religion is THE religion and that no other ideas are allowed, Thou shall have no other gods before me. That statement right there is rather offense to anyone that does not agree with this religion. The US government is not suppose to alienate any of its citizens. It is there for everyone. As the statue mentioned, it is there to blindly serve the people reguardless of their race, sex, or religion. So basicly this judge is trying to force his views on everyone else by displaying this on a government building. He is free to do so on his own property, like everyone else. He is free to stand on the corner and preach all day long. But he represents the government when he is a judge and must obey the laws of the government he represents.
How would you feel if this judge was Hindu, and was putting up idols of his god all over the government building and putting up religious Hindu text? Ask yourself, why do you support his actions? Is it because you agree with his religion, or his actions?
" I must agree with no_leaf_clover and goingslow. The government is suppose to remain separate from religion."
No where in the Constitution does it say seperation of church and state. The constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." For 150 years it meant the government cannot dictate what religion you must adhere to. Then all of a sudden, someone with an agenda decides it means religion has no place in government. BS! No matter what your religious beliefs, this country was founded on Christian principles with government and religion existing together. To me it means, plain and simple, that the government can't tell me what religion to follow or interfere with my worship. That's it.
Could someone explain to me what this is all about?
I gather it has something to do with the actions of a judge? Did he put up a copy of the 10Cs in his court room?
That sounds quite mad to be honest! Everyone has a right to their own beliefs but they shouldnt start mixing law with religion, that's where the trouble starts. Over here in the UK, there is still such a throwback in that witnesses place their hand on the bible and swear to tell the whole truth, but that is more tradition than anything.
Also you have the option to refuse the bible and swear in a secular fashion ie 'I swear to tell the whole truth...' thats it!
It's not the first time there has been controvesy in the US about this however. Was it not George Bush senior that said that athiests shouldnt be citizens as the constitution states 'all are equal under GOD'? He seemed to take it that those who did not believe in god shoudnt be entitled to the same rights... mind you thats republicans for you!
Douglas
Douglas-
Yes there is a judge in the southern US who was recently 'promoted'. Prior to this position, he was known to be very fond of the ten commandments (forget the details). But from the one article I read, he wanted to place a stone statue of the ten commandments inside the courthouse he was now working out of. The request was denied (for the reasons stated by No Leaf and Going Slow).
However, in the middle of the night, he had some people come and put it in (that's what the article said that I had read). Now if its true, that in itself doesn't sound very law-biding, particularly for a judge. He has now refused to remove them. As a result, there have been a lot of christian groups rallying to support his decision.
That's where this issue stands as of two or three weeks ago, although I haven't followed it since then.
I completely agree with No Leaf and Goingslow on this issue.
Traveler I understand what you are saying regarding the actual wording of the constitution. However, I think the impression that the commandment statue gives in this particular situation is that all decisions regarding court cases brought before this judge will be colored by his religous views. Thus his rulings will reflect his religous views and interpretations instead of the law. ANd in some circumstances (the homosexuality example above would be one) what the law may state in this case will probably be different than what the ten commandments (and the bible) suggest to be 'the law'.
One of my thoughts in this is that if they allow this to happen, it could pave the way for others to 'push further' and then have a statue of the bible or of Jesus, or some other religous icon within the court. Where do you draw the line and enforce it? IMO, in order to avoid this type of 'grey area' this statue should be removed.
And the whole suggestion by Bush that marriage should be stated to be only between a man and woman..............again, we have religious views trying to be imposed on something that really should have nothing to do with law. I understand for some legal reasons (taxes, inheritance, estate planning, etc) that the legal system needs to recognize marriage. However, the law currently does recognize marriage (for most of the states anyway). Bush isn't addressing recognizing marriage so much as defining who is allowed be legally be married.
The government has no business mandating rules that outline what marriage is. There are churches that conduct same sex marriage ceremonies. What gives the government the right to step in and say that this church is wrong in its definition of marriage? Wouldn't this then lead to further infringements upon the rights of others based on Christian (or other religous) views?
I didn't vote for Bush. But my reasons for not voting for him then were completely different to why I really don't like him as a president now. I have issues with many of his decisions. ANd my fear is that his stance on things like this are 'bleeding' into other areas of government (including this judge).
Sorry for the lengthy reply. I didn't mean to turn this into a political debate. I apologize. Anyways, that's the background on this judge....an my personal views on related issues (not that you asked).[:I]
Novice,
I see your point. Towards your point, Judges, and for that matter, lawyers are supposed to lay aside personal feelings and deal only with the word of the law. Does that happen all the time? No. I personally see no problem with something in his chambers but I feel it's inappropriate in the courtroom. I believe we cannot legislate morality hence my stance against making abortion illegal (its a moral issue and another can-o-worms I don't want to open right now). If the 10C are this judge's moral compass then he should be allowed to have them. Its a two edged sword. That's another form of religious descrimination. We have to rely on the rules that govern him while performing his duties to conduct those duties appropriately. That's life, we have to trust those with the responsibility and if they abuse it, remove them from the position. Just because the potential exists does not mean others can infringe on his rights. Where do we draw the line?
quote:
Originally posted by Traveler
The constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
To me, by the government having religious monuments it is "respecting an establishment or religion" or promoting it. To me this part of the Constitution says that the government cannot promote any religion. So what this judge is doing is wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Traveler
No matter what your religious beliefs, this country was founded on Christian principles with government and religion existing together.
If the founders of the US wanted government and religion to co-exist then they would have stated that the US was a Christian government and nation. Instead they clearly did not want the two to mix by stating "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...". If they wanted the government and religion to mix, why then did they state that no laws shall be made respecting any religion?
quote:
Originally posted by Traveler
" Then all of a sudden, someone with an agenda decides it means religion has no place in government. BS! No matter what your religious beliefs, this country was founded on Christian principles with government and religion existing together. To me it means, plain and simple, that the government can't tell me what religion to follow or interfere with my worship. That's it.
You're confusing christian beliefs with basic morality. Thats a common trend among christians. It is why they often fear athiests because if they're not getting "thou shall not kill" from the bible whats to stop them from killing.
They are not the same. And it was not founded on christian beliefs.. look at the people who drew up the constitution and how religious they were.
Another thing you should think about is the fact not everyone will always agree with a court decision. Think as a judge he will always make decisions others agree with? No, but as regular citizens we have no choice but to follow a court's decision or we are in contempt and will be sent to jail. But here is a judge who will have the power of the law at his side saying refusing to respect the court.
For the last time no one is saying he cant believe in the bible.. he does not own his building he works for the government and like all of us there are rules. I would guess most judges are probably christian.. has anyone ever told them to suddenly change faith? So why are so many of you saying "no one will tell me what religion I can be" etc.. its not logical and not the point.
BTW I'd like to remind you all again there are different standards for judges.. take the good with the bad. No 10 commandments in the courtroom. But there are perks. They represent the law and if you call them an moron you do jail time and pay a fine. If you even raise your voice at them you go to jail and/or pay a fine.
You say "id like to see that judge dead" or attempt to kill a judge you get a very substantial jail sentence much more than if you say it to joe blow.
So take the good with the bad. With that much power you have more responsibility. One is not alienating non christians just because you got an appointment and you are a fanatic.
fallen,
I see, you see "respecting an establishment of religion" as "paying homage to" or "Congress shall make no law honoring an establishment of religion". I see it as "Congress shall make no law concerning an establishment of religion". This is the meaning I have always gone by because it makes more sense to me in the context of the document. If they had intended the way you're saying why did they hold prayer sessions during congress on numererous occassions? The evidence is in congress' own records which are available to the public. A lot of the founders were Christian. Though they weren't perfect, they held a vision that those to come after them would be better. The sticking point seems to be the context definition of "Respecting". I do see where you're coming from now but I still stand by my view. Any english teacher's here?
An aftertought, "respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion" not "respecting a religion". To me it still doesn't fit. Establishment of religion = officially sanctioned religion (for lack of better words).
A basic assumption is that Christians are perfect and don't make mistakes. They are not. They make mistakes and go through troubling times. They have problems and bad habits. Just because you do wrong does not mean you're no longer Christian. It just means satan got the best of you that time. Fact is Christians grow spiritually at different rates just like anyone else and none are infailable.
Whats funny is none of you would be complaining or saying how wrong it is if he had muslim scripts and religious icons all over the place. Not one of you. But you're christian and christianity should be everywhere shouldnt it?
Fallenangel made a point none of you have answered. Would you feel the same if it was another religion. AND he was making decisions based on religion.
The constitution has no more christian principles than it does any other religious MORAL principles. P oint to one principle in the constititution that is strictly christian.? Thou shall not steal? Thou shall not murder?
Look into the actual history of the constitution and look at the beliefs of the people who wrote it up. I feel you all are repeating what the person said behind you... They didnt use the exact words separation of church and state so im gonna pretend it isnt in there and our government doesn't separate the two.
get real
quote:
Hasn't the controversy around the commandments in that court been around for a while? I think the judge in question should resign and join the 700 Club.. If he was truly meant to be a judge, he would understand not everyone in America is Christian and not everyone in America would be comfortable with those commandments. He shouldn't taken the hint when it first became and issue and just taken it down instead of decided to be a hero for the church. The United States, unfortunately enough for this judge, has to recognize everyone's constitutional freedom of religion and right not to be alienated. I just thought I should share.
Your thoughts on this situation?
This country was founded by Christians and taking down the commandments will invoke the wrath of God.
quote:
Originally posted by Traveler
A basic assumption is that Christians are perfect and don't make mistakes. They are not. They make mistakes and go through troubling times. They have problems and bad habits. Just because you do wrong does not mean you're no longer Christian. It just means satan got the best of you that time. Fact is Christians grow spiritually at different rates just like anyone else and none are infailable.
Basic assumption of whom? other christians? They make mistakes too?? You're kidding or at least exaggerating.
I probably wont read this topic anymore its getting on my nerves. All the christians coming out saying how its big brother and the rest of us are sheep? Then one even talks about them allowing muslims to build on government land somewhere like we should all be up in arms. We're sheep? just like others toe party lines most christians just follow the christian line.
I see little hypocricy to the extreme I see among good christians and what it means to be good christians. There is no bigger group of biggots than most christians in the bible belt alabama. But they accept christ so they're free thinking people right. It disgusts me. And we're sheep for thinking differently.. take the bible out of your back pocket and think for yourself
see you on other topics.
quote:
take the bible out of your back pocket and think for yourself
I would rather take God's Word on things.
We could ignore the whole religious issue and look at the other things this judge has done. He asked if he could put up this monument, he was told no yet he does it anyway. I wonder what kind of judge breaks the laws just to please himself. Next, did he get a building permit to erect this monument? hmm ... Then, this is public property not his own, so why is it that he gets to put whatever he wants on it reguardless of what those above him says? This is his place of work. If I should go to work and put up something that those above me have told me not too I might be lucky to have a job the next day, but you can be sure that whatever it is I put up would be gone.
quote:
We could ignore the whole religious issue and look at the other things this judge has done. He asked if he could put up this monument, he was told no yet he does it anyway. I wonder what kind of judge breaks the laws just to please himself. Next, did he get a building permit to erect this monument? hmm ... Then, this is public property not his own, so why is it that he gets to put whatever he wants on it reguardless of what those above him says? This is his place of work. If I should go to work and put up something that those above me have told me not too I might be lucky to have a job the next day, but you can be sure that whatever it is I put up would be gone.
The judge is trying to answer to a higher authority which is God. He will be rewarded for his testimony and action.
quote:
The judge is trying to answer to a higher authority which is God. He will be rewarded for his testimony and action.
No one knows if there even is a God, Allanon, and you aren't anyone so special that you can tell us yourself, or else you would be known the world over.
What's going to happen is the coast guard for that state is going to be sent in to see to it that the monuments and commandments are removed without much fuss, and the judge probably won't be judging much longer. I don't think the government is going to be pushed around much longer.
This is a sensitive and hot button for me too.
The christian's word's and actions are put under a microscope. The foul things that can be said about the christian faith is awful.
Many outside of christianity are quick to call out hypocrocity about the faith and faithful. Hypocrocity is just as evil whether your a christian or not.
Those who choose to not recognize God is one thing. Those who prey upon the believers of God are something else. Allanon is correct about the wrath of God.
The bible is a tool to teach one how to think for oneself. Believers are extremely underestimated. And....God will not be mocked.
If only more people can understand the awesome power of God!
A copcat action is taking place in my state by the ACLU regarding the removal of the ten commandments in the same manner. I feel the evil in this whole thing!
According to the Christain Bible Jesus said to obey the government authorities that rule over you. So really this judge is going against the word of God that he claims to believe in and is not doing the right thing for anyone. In which case it seems that he is only after attention and nothing more, which from an article I read awhile back is not uncommon for this man. If this is something that he truly wishes to do, then he should work within the law to accomplish it.
I have read the Christain Bible many times. [;)]
quote:
This is a sensitive and hot button for me too.
The christian's word's and actions are put under a microscope. The foul things that can be said about the christian faith is awful.
Many outside of christianity are quick to call out hypocrocity about the faith and faithful. Hypocrocity is just as evil whether your a christian or not.
Those who choose to not recognize God is one thing. Those who prey upon the believers of God are something else. Allanon is correct about the wrath of God.
The bible is a tool to teach one how to think for oneself. Believers are extremely underestimated. And....God will not be mocked.
If only more people can understand the awesome power of God!
A copcat action is taking place in my state by the ACLU regarding the removal of the ten commandments in the same manner. I feel the evil in this whole thing!
Nice Reply. The Lord keep you.
goingslow,
If it were another religion it would not be an issue and it wouldn't be a news item.
There are biggots and hippocrites in all religions, it's not just a christian thing, it's human nature. You seem bent on blaming Christians for everything. I stay in church and follow christianity because the root of Christ's teaching is love. It's also the reason I'm interested in the astral. I don't let people get in the way of my spiritual growth. I understand people leave the church and christianity because someone treated them in a way they shouldn't have been. I've seen it, it's happened where I attend. You have to step back and realize their heart ain't right (the offender) and move on. Love them anyway.
Hmm, interesting turn here. I actually disagree with the last two posts. I personally would not want any icon from any religion within a courthouse. It doesn't matter to me if its the 10 commandments, the Gita, or some other religous text. I would hope that the government would do its best to treat all religions equally. And I do realize that this is a bit of an idealistic hope.
The fact is that we are all human, and thus are all fallable. And while the legal system is far from perfect, it does try to establish an unbiased justice system. However, the people involved in upholding as well as ruling on legal matters are all human as well. And their judgements, regardless of how hard they try (or don't try) to be unbiased, will to some extent be colored based on their own personality/beliefs/experiences. I don't see how you can get around that. (actually I think I may be reiterating what someone earlier posted -- sorry if I am).
But I also don't believe that the government, as a body, should encourage that this take place. My only suggestion here is that by allowing any specific religious icon (be it figure, text, whatever) within a government building gives the impression of favoritism towards that particular religion. Whether that impression is correct or not is a seperate question. In order for the judicial system to treat all people fairly and equally, the representatives of it (like this judge) should do their best to interpret the law without viewing it through 'christian glasses' (or any other religion).
Of course you can then bring up the whole "swearing on the bible" while in court. And barring saying its a remnant from the founding fathers, I have nothing else with which to support its presence there. ANd I think Gandalf mentioned this issue in the UK as well.
My ultimate hope is that in some future time individual religions will fall away and all of humanity will have one universal 'religion' (for lack of a better word). Whether you want to view it as no religion but rather individual spiritual practices or a unifying religion to which all the world belongs is irrelevant to me. So much of this bickering and fighting and segregation is focused on religion. Its a bit ironic if you were to look at the very core or bases of most religions. They all pretty much preach love. But people get so consumed with the differences between the practices, that they "can't see the forest for the trees." If we could just get past this point, imagine what the world would be like then.........
quote:
Originally posted by greatoutdoors
American politicians seem to be declaring war on Christianity and I can't figure out why. It's scary!
When I was a Christian I thought the same thing. Now that I am no longer one I see things differently. It has nothing to do with any hatred or dislike with Christianity. I just have a broader view now than I once did. I think this idea stems from what most are taught in church, that it is the world against the Christians. For some reason Christians (and I use this in general terms so no offense to anyone) seem to have this desire to have their symbols posted all over, as if they need to mark their territory or something. Any threat to those symbols they take personally as if the person, organization, etc is attacking Christianity and the person. I see now that this is not true. The government is not waging a war against any religion, but instead it is trying to keep equality between them. Some religions such as Christianity have a very out there approach while others are more laid back and do not practice "recruiting". This being the case, Christianity comes up more in the news and such. Christianity and Christians have a lot of freedoms, you just see the negative because that is what is put in the news because that is what sells.
hmmmmm. This is all very interesting. I have friends not christian and they tell me none of this christian ten commandments bother them. One of my friends is polytheistic, so she just changes the pledge to accomodate that.
Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, even if they tear the statue of the commmandments down does that mean the judge will stop ruling by them? I'm not saying it's right to hold a bias; for a judge or anyone. I know that I would feel horribly hopeless if I was tried by a judge who held their religious beliefs against me.
I don't think it matters whether it's up or down, the judge or jury could still be influenced by it.
I don't think freedom of speech has anything to do with it. In the U.S. we still have it, but people tend not to abide by it because of society. Somewhere along our line of history society decided that, say, this group can say this, but that group can't.
Most of the reason is,yes, our country was founded on christianity. For instance in India their country is based on hindu and that religion is everywhere. I wouldn't will them to give it up lightly and I don't expect the U.S will either.
I say; let them stay up because they've been up for a while without a fuss. I think people just want attention so they bring up something like this. Just give it a few days and it'll probably simm down :D
quote:
When I was a Christian I thought the same thing. Now that I am no longer one I see things differently. It has nothing to do with any hatred or dislike with Christianity.
9"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
Just to let those who might want to know, I just saw on the news that they removed the monument today.
The news also showed how different the commandments can be between the religions that use it. Like for the Jews, they said that the first commandment says nothing about "having no other gods" only "I am your Lord God that brought you out of Egypt", or something like that. The Christian divisions they showed all had the "no other gods" clause.
quote:
Why is it so easy to find things to argue about and so hard to find ways to get along with each other!?
Well on a message board opposing views tend to keep it alive with discussion. For me nothing I post is intended to be taken as arguing. So I hope no takes my posts as such. I like to discuss issues, and sometimes I will bring up things just to make people think. Everyone has the right to their own opinion and I respect everyone for that. I hope I come off as such.
Sorry to bring this up again. I read an article about this in the paper today, and then I started thinking about the irony of the situation.
In the Christian Bible where the Ten Commandments are listed it states:
quote:
Exodus 20
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
This is part of the longer version of the second commandment, a part which is usually left off of displays. But it clearly states not to have idols, or in other places and translations graven images. What about this monument that has brought up such controversy. Is it not being made into an idol by placing such importants on the physical object instead of placing concern on keeping the commandments? Which do you think God felt was important when these were written, the people following the commanments or the tablets that they were written on. It just seems ironic to me when here and throughout the Bible it is made clear not to place importance upon physical objects but on the spiritual and your actions, yet the issue is over a rock, a phycial object.
quote:
This is part of the longer version of the second commandment, a part which is usually left off of displays. But it clearly states not to have idols, or in other places and translations graven images. What about this monument that has brought up such controversy. Is it not being made into an idol by placing such importants on the physical object instead of placing concern on keeping the commandments? Which do you think God felt was important when these were written, the people following the commanments or the tablets that they were written on. It just seems ironic to me when here and throughout the Bible it is made clear not to place importance upon physical objects but on the spiritual and your actions, yet the issue is over a rock, a phycial object.
EXCELLENT REPLY. VERY GOOD POINT!!!! I HAD NOT THOUGH OF THAT. IT REALLY IS PUTTING THE STONE IN IMPORTANCE OVER FOLLOWING THE LAW!!!
Funny, every time my boyfriend tries to trump my arguments against mixing religion and state by announcing "The country was founded on Christian principles" (which is actually kind of an ingorant thing to say, sorry) I remind him that the founding fathers were Masons. Yes, they were occult practitioners. Look at the occult imagery on the dollar bill! Does that mean, following such warped logic, that the rest of us have to be masons? Occultists?
Shuts him right up. But then again he never wins a political argument with me.
By the way, the masonic lodge in D.C. is beautiful. Next time you visit you can learn all about the "founding fathers!"
quote:
Funny, every time my boyfriend tries to trump my arguments against mixing religion and state by announcing "The country was founded on Christian principles"
This country WAS founded by Christians and this IS a Christian country at heart. You may choose to follow idols and worship nature but the fact remains that our President and most Presidents of this country throw thier hat in with Christ. Whether they follow the principles of the Bible to the best of thier abilities I do not know.
The promotion of freedom to worship as you please is fine but sooner or later people are going to realize that WE ALL need Christ.
I've been following that story from our local news station, and all I can say is.... [}:)][xx(]
Hasn't the controversy around the commandments in that court been around for a while? I think the judge in question should resign and join the 700 Club.. If he was truly meant to be a judge, he would understand not everyone in America is Christian and not everyone in America would be comfortable with those commandments. He shouldn't taken the hint when it first became and issue and just taken it down instead of decided to be a hero for the church. The United States, unfortunately enough for this judge, has to recognize everyone's constitutional freedom of religion and right not to be alienated. I just thought I should share.
Your thoughts on this situation?