PNUT:

That was one of the best explanations of religion/God's Will that I have seen!

I consider myself an agnostic. Until God/Jesus/Allah makes an appearance on 20/20 with Barbara Walters, I have a hard time believing he/she/it exhists.

My undergraduate degree is Biology w/Zoology emphasis. So until I have hard evidence of heis/her/it's exhistence I have a hard time "wrapping my head" around this whole religion thing.

I was baptized Catholic and confirmed Luthren. As I get older and especially after the birth of my daughter, I find myself wondering if I should be more of a God fearing person.

The thing that keeps me from embracing religion is that every time I get close, some religious faction does something that would be totally against what I would think a god would accept. Or a favorite relative is stricken with cancer or some terrible event happens that further shakes my beliefs.

I'll quit rambling.

I know you think this sucks but you have to remember;

1. It looks as if many folks in Alabama support this cause.

2. In most cases majority rules in this country. If the majority of Alabama does not agree with the decision, based on their opinion that the interpretation of the law is wrong, they can oppose the decision in this case.

3. Alabama can use their sovereignty as a state to oppose a federal injunction.

4. The judge, is one person and subject to human mistakes. That's why our constitution has checks and balances.

5. Although not necessarily applicable in this situation, remember a judge is only an interpreter of the law and makes decisions. A judge is not above a legislative branch of the government.

Now, MBFlyerfan, I think the fact that you are an atheist allows you the least biased opinion in this thread. I believe your interpretation of the law is dead on and you are absolutely correct! At least that's my opinion. Although, I will add that the law of this land does not support those who take offense about anything.

Let's see how this all plays out.

I believe Pnut and Off2cjb explained it pretty clearly. I do not understand how a God of love could lay down such a harsh punishment, but as they explained, its possibly part of a larger puzzle and its tough love to drive in a point.

I do not have any children of my own, so I cannot relate on what it must be like to consider a harsh punish for my children. Maybe someday I will.

That was one of the best explanations of the correct interpretation I have read on this board. And coming from an athiest makes it an even stronger statement.

Andre the Giant's question is also a good post as well. Are the 10 commandments religion? Are they a historical document of laws? Both are true.

I don't like the term "God Fearing Person". God has many attributes - Love, all knowing, Righteous, omnipresent, eternal, etc... Fear is such a negative term. How about changin it to a "God Loving Person"?

I think one of the problems comes from the English language. There is only one word for "Fear". Whereas in the Chinese language (for example) there are two words for fear. One is a "good fear" or a fear of respect and submission.(like how you fear your parents when you are little kid) the other is a "bad fear" and that is a fear of control, or of power of something unknown. (like the fear of the bully at school, who will kick your a** for milk money.)

That was a poor choice of words, but that is how it is usually stated.

Maybe God knowing person would be better.

PNUT says: I'm behind him 100%. It saddens me to see the general direction the country is headed in.... elimination of any mention of the Bible or Biblical text in schools or government buildings, legal gay marriages, legal gambling, prostitution, etc.

At least in Nevada we don't have to worry about any of that crap...

HAHAHA...

KJ_Dragon, in my interpretation, this wording of fear does mean utter respect. It also means obedience. I get this by analyzing and reading all accounts where the "fear of God" is stated in the scriptures.

Some Christian religions interpret fear the way you stated as a more "bad fear" or I would say negative fear. Good point to bring that up.

Back to the original topic...the Judge.

OK, he has his convictions. I can't fault him for having them (regardless of whether I agree or not).

BUT...let's put forth a hypothetical situation. If a family that follow the Jehovah's Witnesses has a kid that dies because he didn't get the medical treatment he could have used, would this judge find for or against them if brought up with charges?

Really a catch-22 for him, isn't it?

What about a death penalty case? I may be mistaken, but the commandment doesn't have any conditional pieces - Thou Shalt Not Kill.

At this point, he's damned if does, damned if he doesn't (figuratively speaking, of course. )

Moby, I really don't think you can compare those two at all. They may be both based on religion, but that is as far as it goes. Now if the judge belonged to the same denomination and church, then that would create quite a predicament.

I don't think the judges denomination or church membership has anything to do with it. There are probably zillions of judges out there who'd rather not sentence anyone to death due to their own personal convictions. They do it anyway, based on evidence, the suspect's attitude, and the results of the case. It doesn't mean they don't go home, pour themselves a tall snort of whiskey, sit back in that deep leather chair, and ask God to give them some reasoning about why he had to do it.

Moby, you can't possibly be suggesting that you wouldn't want him on the bench because he believes in a respects the 10 commandments, do you? I don't know about the man's court record but I'm sure the press would have had a field day with it if he had a lopsided or unfair decision record...

I believe the problem he has with the removal of the monument is that it represents a further removal of God-like or Christian principals from a place of justice. Its the same way my mom felt when she found out that our prayer group couldn't meet on school grounds anymore, but gay-rights clubs could. Not that the gay students shouldn't be allowed to meet, but it seemed like a deliberate attempt to hide or remove the option for Christianity.

My old company wouldn't give us a conference room to use at lunch for a men's prayer group, but they let literally hundreds of muslims drag their prayer mats around the building, wash their feet in the breakroom, and kneel and pray to mecca in the cafeteria, hallways, and any empty room they could find. Explain that. They want to be politically correct, but have no tolerance for Judeo-Christian beliefs?

My friends Dawn and Lee just bought a new house in a neighborhood where it turns out they're in the middle of a gay community. When their neighbors discovered that they were a straight married couple who attend church frequently, they were labelled, "Bible Thumpers" and everyone around them avoids them and their house like the plague. Why? They haven't attempted to convert anyone or condem them. Why are people afraid of Christians and what they stand for? Its not like they have a reputation or penchant for partying late, having sex and drug parties, letting their property fall apart or commit henious neighborhood crimes. They might bring you cookies or invite you to come to church with them at Christmas... is that a crime?

No, no. I have no problem with him having respect for them. But he seems to be putting his spiritual convictions above his duty to the letter of the law. That's why I bring up the Jehovah's thing, and why it's a catch-22. If he sides with the state, then apparently he is sending the message that the Jehovah's spiritual convictions should take a back seat to the law. Is that right? Dunno. Catch-22.

Quote:

I believe the problem he has with the removal of the monument is that it represents a further removal of God-like or Christian principals from a place of justice.

but I think that's where he's mistaken. Taking away a physical item shouldn't have any bearing on his Christian principals.

Quote:

Its the same way my mom felt when she found out that our prayer group couldn't meet on school grounds anymore, but gay-rights clubs could. Not that the gay students shouldn't be allowed to meet, but it seemed like a deliberate attempt to hide or remove the option for Christianity.

But how can you compare the two? A gay student meeting has nothing to do with religion. An at this point, religious groups (of any kind) can't have gatherings on school grounds (I know it's been challenged...not sure of the outcome). So the two can't really be compared.

Quote:

My old company wouldn't give us a conference room to use at lunch for a men's prayer group, but they let literally hundreds of muslims drag their prayer mats around the building, wash their feet in the breakroom, and kneel and pray to mecca in the cafeteria, hallways, and any empty room they could find. Explain that. They want to be politically correct, but have no tolerance for Judeo-Christian beliefs?

No, that I agree with you. They should be letting both do what they want to do (provided it doesn't take away from productivity). Well, that or not letting either. But treat them the same.

Quote:

My friends Dawn and Lee just bought a new house in a neighborhood where it turns out they're in the middle of a gay community. When their neighbors discovered that they were a straight married couple who attend church frequently, they were labelled, "Bible Thumpers" and everyone around them avoids them and their house like the plague. Why? They haven't attempted to convert anyone or condem them. Why are people afraid of Christians and what they stand for? Its not like they have a reputation or penchant for partying late, having sex and drug parties, letting their property fall apart or commit henious neighborhood crimes. They might bring you cookies or invite you to come to church with them at Christmas... is that a crime?

Prejudice comes in all flavors. Their neighbors are doing exactly what they are always perceiving people do to them. Someone needs to smack them upside the head and show them their hypocritical attitudes.

Good point Moby. I totally have no problem with prayer in school. The only problem is here in good ole Oklahoma prayer is fine as long as it is the right kind of prayer. If it was meditaion of a Buhdist or Muslim prayer there would be a huge outcry and possible violence. In OKC there have been several issues involving Mosques.

Not a whole lot of "Christians" fear for their lives anymore in this country. Sure, you can't have a lunch-hour prayer room . . . so sad . . .

Ask Matthew Sheppard and the thousands and thousands of other gay-bashing victims why they avoid "Bible thumpers" . . .

Not saying your friends' neighbors aren't being a little hypocritical . . . but sometimes it's just safer to avoid people and be wrong about them, thean to embrace them and be violently wrong about them . . .

A couple of questions for all you guy's:

This judge keeps referring to the court house as his. Didn't the tax payers of Alabama pay for the court house? Who paid for the monument anyway?

What right did this judge have sneaking this monument (in the middle of the night) and placing it in a PUBLIC building? Why didn't he just put it in his yard?

I guess some people have nothing better going on in their lives other than pushing religion on the rest of the population.

:rolleyes:

You show your ignorance my making an insulting, blanket, stereotypical statement like that. Are all Californians ignorant in light of Gray Davis? No. Or in your case, are all communists ignorant in light of Stalin? No.

The main point is that it serves no point. There is nothing served by having this monument there..the only thing taking place is taxpayer dollars flying out the window prosecuting and defending this. The monument should not have to be there for someone to have their convictions. It's just like everything else in this state...you're not true to something until you try to shove it down someone else's throat, mainly religion.

It figures you would listen to NPR (Leftism on the taxpayers dime).

There is a lot of wrong statements in this thread.

I will give anyone every cent I am worth if they can find anywhere in the U.S. Constitution that has the phrase "Separation of Church and State".

The Federal government is not allowed to establish a religion. They are also forbidden from dis-establishing any religion.

The judge in Alabama is 100% correct.

When the hell are we going to get away from this judicial tyranny that is creeping into this country. Judges (primarily Federal judges) seem to interpret the constitution any way they see fit. This is wrong and these judges should be impeached. They are violating their oaths (which ironically they swore upon the bible and before "GOD").

The term "Separation of Church and State" was invented by liberals and leftists just like the guy that started this thread. The minions of idiots that have heard it over and over again throughout the years somehow seem to have been programmed to think that this is the law. It is NOT.

This whole issue is a State of Alabama issue. No federal judge has any business sticking his nose into this matter whatsoever.

We are loosing this country to leftist radicals in robes who legislate from the bench. Our government was not designed this way and it is cracking apart and will self destruct.

Actually it was invented by Thomas Jefferson:

Believing 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 (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).

Yea in 1802. In a letter. I will say it again, it says nothing in the constitution about seperation of church and state.

"Thus building a WALL OF SEPERATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE" Jefferson did not mean that there should be no religion in government. He was merely stating that the two should have no influence on each other. Our government could be made up of entirely fundamentalist muslims and that would be ok. As long as they did nothing to impede the religions of others, or force others to become muslims. Or make laws based on muslim only beliefs.
Even as an atheist I am sick and tired of this blatant fear of christianity and judaism that seems to be rampant in liberal thinking these days.
That being said.

The judge broke the law. Was it a good law? No.

But the bottom line is until the law is changed, he should fight within the system to change it. The commandments should never have had to be removed, but the law stated they had to be.

It has nothing to do with a fear of christianity an judaism. If the judge was muslim, and put in something from the Koran, it should be removed.

No it should not. Only if you could prove that it was somehow giving preferential treatment to muslims. Words on a wall do no such thing. Now if it said, "All ye who enter here should be muslim or they will not be judged fairly under our law." Then it would need to be taken down. Then the government would be establishing that muslims will get preferential treatment.

In terms of the commandments, you cannot prove that having them there establishes preferential treatment for those that believe in the judeo-christian religion. You cannot prove that buddhists or muslims will be treated any less fairly.

Regardless of what all these so called scholars think, this is what the founding fathers meant when they wrote that ammendment. That being a certain religion would not get you treated more fairly than another. Its not all that complicated.

Of course you can't prove it gives preferential treatment.

What it does do is gives implicit endorsement of a certain religious belief. Maybe not to you. But to some it does.

If he had it in his private chamber, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Quote:

Regardless of what all these so called scholars think, this is what the founding fathers meant when they wrote that ammendment. That being a certain religion would not get you treated more fairly than another. Its not all that complicated.

But how do you know? That is, how is your interpretation better than others?

I personally view the "separation" that Jefferson spoke of meant that religion has no business in government, and government has no business in religion. (That's not to say my interpretation is better...just different.)

This doesn't mean that government should stay out of whether the block should be in the courthouse or not. It means the block should never have been there in the first place.

(I must say I do find it ironic (and amusing) that you are an atheist arguing it doesn't matter if it's there, and I, as a Catholic (and thereby a Christian - though not by Off2's standards), am saying it shouldn't be there. )

Hey Moby and MBFlyerfan,

I posted the info about Thomas Jefferson on page one of this thread, so don't you two go taking credit for it!!!! :p