http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-...ourt-says/

The Christian Right is having a really bad week.

Those evil commandments.

(06-30-2015 08:13 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Those evil commandments.

You'd be cool with the 5 Pillars of Islam, though, right?

(06-30-2015 08:13 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Those evil commandments.

The OK constitution is pretty clear. Regarding the 10 commandments being a foundation to Western Law... Weak argument. Less than half of them are actual laws on the books (don't kill, don't steal, don't bear false witness). Rest are about worshiping God, honoring parents, no adultery and don't covet.

Somewhere Okladixie is off having an emotional breakdown.

Oh darn

(06-30-2015 08:16 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 08:13 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Those evil commandments.

You'd be cool with the 5 Pillars of Islam, though, right?

Sure. Put them all up. Devil worship, too.

The attack on Christianity continues.

(06-30-2015 10:18 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  The attack on Christianity continues.

How so?

(06-30-2015 09:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Somewhere Okladixie is off having an emotional breakdown.

Yep....and eating a large plate of crow. He said it would never happen.

(06-30-2015 10:18 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  The attack on Christianity continues.

Hogwash in this regard.

(06-30-2015 10:18 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  The attack on Christianity continues.

Yep, just like how they're burning churches, banning bibles, and banning Christians from owning businesses.

Oh wait, those would be examples of actual attacks.

(06-30-2015 10:18 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  The attack on Christianity continues.

This particular monument actually looks Jewish as it has several Stars of David on it.

I've rarely seen those free-standing monuments. Most of the complaints I've seen are related to the friezes on most Greek Revival building with depict Moses with the Commandants. In those instances though it is typically about the lawbringers as the normally have Hammurabi as well.

This type of stuff is meaningless.

It simply doesn't matter at all.

It amazes me that there are people out there whose soul purpose is to sue to tear down monuments.

(06-30-2015 10:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 10:18 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  The attack on Christianity continues.

Yep, just like how they're burning churches, banning bibles, and banning Christians from owning businesses.

Oh wait, those would be examples of actual attacks.

I agree that removing the 10 commandments monument doesn't constitute any kind of real "attack" on Judaism or Christianity. But on the other hand, if the monument were allowed to stand, it would be equally silly to call that an "actual establishment" of religion either.

The notion that monuments of these kinds constitutionally must come down because they violate Oklahoma's or the USA's Establishment clauses is a silly liberal-justice view. To those who wrote the first amendment, "establishment" meant real, tangible impositions of religion such as forced tithing, forced membership in a particular faith, forced prayer or acknowledgment of a deity, etc. Not this symbolic stuff that only has possible psychological harm, e.g. "hurts the dignity" or "harms the sense of inclusiveness" of non-believers.

The vast majority of founders, e.g., would have been aghast at the 1963 Warren court ruling against prayer in schools and would have had no problem at all with monuments of these kinds on public property. Only liberal justices do.

Kind of silly what people choose to fight about.

(07-01-2015 07:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 10:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 10:18 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  The attack on Christianity continues.

Yep, just like how they're burning churches, banning bibles, and banning Christians from owning businesses.

Oh wait, those would be examples of actual attacks.

I agree that removing the 10 commandments monument doesn't constitute any kind of real "attack" on Judaism or Christianity. But on the other hand, if the monument were allowed to stand, it would be equally silly to call that an "actual establishment" of religion either.

The notion that monuments of these kinds constitutionally must come down because they violate Oklahoma's or the USA's Establishment clauses is a silly liberal-justice view. To those who wrote the first amendment, "establishment" meant real, tangible impositions of religion such as forced tithing, forced membership in a particular faith, etc. Not this symbolic stuff that only has possible psychological harm, e.g. "hurts the dignity" or "harms the sense of inclusiveness" of non-believers.

The vast majority of founders, e.g., would have been aghast at the 1963 Warren court ruling against prayer in schools and would have had no problem at all with monuments of these kinds on public property. Only liberal justices do.

Are you sure about that?

I did a search for the word 'God' in the U.S. Constitution, and no references were found. No deity was found in the entire document.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charter...nscription

"In God we Trust" was not put on the coinage until 1861 during the Civil War. Of particular interest is that it was a plea brought about by a pastor from PA.

http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/...trust.aspx

Quote:The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read:

It didn't hit the paper currency until the 1950s

Quote:A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto entered circulation on October 1, 1957. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) was converting to the dry intaglio printing process. During this conversion, it gradually included IN GOD WE TRUST in the back design of all classes and denominations of currency.

And of course most of us already know about the Pledge of Allegiance. Originally it was written without out any reference to God. However, in the 1950s God was added to the pledge as a reaction to communism.

http://www.usflag.org/history/pledgeofallegiance.html

Quote:The original Pledge of Allegiance (1892)

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands- one nation indivisible-with liberty and justice for all."

When you look at these instances, you can see what the original intents were and how religion - Christianity in particular - has worked it's way into various facets of the country for which it was not originally intended to be included. Did you know that the original motto of the U.S. was E Pluribus Unim? It was later changed to "In God We Trust" because of the cold war.

I do not believe the founding fathers would be aghast over the Warren Court ruling against school prayer. IMHO, they would be aghast over the Christian references that have been worked into what was supposed to be a secular gov't.

It's stupid to say that the Founders were immensely influenced by Christian theology when writing the early documents.

It's also stupid to say that the Founders were not at all influenced by Christian theology when writing the early documents.