White House Plugs 10 Commandments Displays

[Errantry]

Who added that? Eisenhower?

 

The only problem with it is that it refers to religions that have exactly one god. Therefore, it cannot refer to Buddhism (no god, remember), Shinto, could barely be passed off for Taoism (one all-encompassing entity), and definitely could not include Hindu, which has three main gods (Shiva/Siva, Brahman/Brahma, and Vishnu - destruction, creation, and preservation, respectively), and a multitude of minor gods.

[kumquatq3]

To answer the question, but doesn't want to get to off topic:

 

Short history of the authors of and the pledge itself, with a religious slant for obvious reasons:

 

Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.

 

Later in 1923, "to the flag" was changed to "to the flag of The United States of America". Bellamy did not like the change, but his protests were ignored.

 

In Bellamy's retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

 

Then in 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. 62 years after it was written, under protest of the family of the author, their protest were also ignored. Bellamy was dead at that point.

[Dakoth]

excellent point, which is something I did not think of

 

In those cases, maybe there should be public monuments allowed.

 

I'm sure you can see how that would be different than: "I want a monument, because..."

 

Yes I do but it still goes to show you are not against having religious monuments or displays on public ground, just the ones you deem inappropriate.

 

It is placed there is celebration of a religious holiday that not everyone believes in.

 

You could argue the purpose of it, but needless to say, it's not the same thing as say a X-mas tree. imo.

 

Here is a point for debate, would there be christmas vacation or spring break if not for christianity in the US? Remeber spring brake used to be called easter vacation.

 

Your walking a dangerous path when you allow the wants of the many to overrule the rights of the few.

 

So it is al right for the rights of the few to trample the rights of the majority? Just curious Why there can not be middle ground found for this argument.

 

I think the issue was the type of firearm, not that he had one, iirc

 

No it was a legal hand gun that he had a permit for, the city just arrested him because he wasn't supposed to have a firearm in the city limits. Later after threats of law suits and public out cry all charges were dropped. Also in the city of Chicago how do you get a firearm to your dwelling if you can not carry it in the open or conceal it?

 

I see where my example failed

 

The key difference is a pharmascist can't be fired for religious beliefs, or even practicing them to a degree. He is doing a job in the private sector.

 

A civil servant, on the other hand, must serve all the people. Hence why they must stick close to their job description and the laws of the land.

 

I knew what you meant but here is a question if a state road worker wears a shirt that references religion to work does he get reprimanded for it? He is technically a civil servant. Where does the job end and the person begin.

 

No, it doesn't nessasarily make them wrong. Thats why we don't have to argue that murder is wrong, etc. Because morality exist out side of religion.

 

But when it comes to something like abortion, and you are against it because your religion tells you to be against it, then you need to not transfer that over to work if your a civil servant. Not that it is "wrong" to believe that, but others should not have to face penalties because of your religious beliefs.

 

Do you see the difference?

 

But this isn't really the arguement, the arguement is about putting a monument to your religion out on public land ( a court house).

 

I never said morality couldn't exist with out religion, I just tried to show you that the religions you were bashing hold the same type of moral values that you appearantly do. You see it is not all religious people that give religion a bad name it is the zealots, just like it is not all atheists that attack religion usually it is just the ones with something to prove.

[kumquatq3]

Yes I do but it still goes to show you are not against having religious monuments or displays on public ground, just the ones you deem inappropriate.

 

First, I said "maybe" we should, not that I'll start the groundbreaking myself

 

Second, are you then arguing that all religious monuments should be allowed, regardless?

 

Third, and most importantly, Odds are that the land for the monument would be donated (tax free) to the group in question. Much like your churches. So, it would not be a public land, and more importantly, it would not be a religious monument on public land designated for something else.

 

See the difference?

 

I suggested that I wouldn't mind a religious group using a park for a fair or something, because a park isn't a police office, court, or goverment office.

 

See the difference?

 

I'm not unreasonable, I don't think, but if you force me to choose your way or public use being banned outright....I'll take outright.

 

I hope that clears up my position.

 

Here is a point for debate, would there be christmas vacation or spring break if not for christianity in the US? Remeber spring brake used to be called easter vacation.

 

There would be some type of break, like most other countries, I'm sure. Don't understand why you asked tho, just for kicks?

 

So it is al right for the rights of the few to trample the rights of the majority? Just curious Why there can not be middle ground found for this argument.

 

No, that is not all right at allb but that is obviously not what I'm arguing. You don't have the right to use a court house to display a religious monument. Thats what you want. Rights and Wants are very different.

 

No it was a legal hand gun that he had a permit for, the city just arrested him because he wasn't supposed to have a firearm in the city limits. Later after threats of law suits and public out cry all charges were dropped. Also in the city of Chicago how do you get a firearm to your dwelling if you can not carry it in the open or conceal it?

 

I looked it up. It was a banned type of hand gun:

 

Officials in this suburb north of Chicago are searching for new ways to make it difficult to own a gun after Illinois lawmakers overwhelmingly voted to give new legal protection to homeowners who use a [U]banned handgun [/U] to shoot burglars.

 

Link

 

O, and I'm sure your legally allowed to bring a gun home that you purchase, maybe you have to mail it or something, dunno.

 

 

I knew what you meant but here is a question if a state road worker wears a shirt that references religion to work does he get reprimanded for it? He is technically a civil servant. Where does the job end and the person begin.

 

Interesting. First, I sure you can see the difference between a street and sanitation guy wearing a shirt (tho it is almost certain that there is a uniform or reflection vest to wear over said shirt) and a cop or judge wearing one.

 

I suppose I'd have to see the shirt. If it was just a shirt or something meant to send a message.

 

But, for the record, I don't mind things like crosses or head dressings.

 

THo again, if you want to say "say he's being selective", I think I'm being reasonable. If you pushed me to go one way or another, I'd say ban it outright on public jobs.

 

I never said morality couldn't exist with out religion, I just tried to show you that the religions you were bashing hold the same type of moral values that you appearantly do. You see it is not all religious people that give religion a bad name it is the zealots, just like it is not all atheists that attack religion usually it is just the ones with something to prove.

 

1. Please, point to a single thing I said that was "religion bashing"

 

2. I never, I don't think, suggested that (other than this one judge, who was found in violation of the law) any religious person was doing anything particulary wrong.

 

3. I don't think I attacked religion, please reference if I did

 

4. Your right, I suppose, that I have something to prove. That is, why I think Church and Goverment should remain seperate.....including religious monuments on public land.

 

5. Lets not make this personal

[Dakoth]

First, I said "maybe" we should, not that I'll start the groundbreaking myself

 

Second, are you then arguing that all religious monuments should be allowed, regardless?

 

Third, and most importantly, Odds are that the land for the monument would be donated (tax free) to the group in question. Much like your churches. So, it would not be a public land, and more importantly, it would not be a religious monument on public land designated for something else.

 

See the difference?

 

I suggested that I wouldn't mind a religious group using a park for a fair or something, because a park isn't a police office, court, or goverment office.

 

See the difference?

 

I'm not unreasonable, I don't think, but if you force me to choose your way or public use being banned outright....I'll take outright.

 

I hope that clears up my position.

 

Once again it is monuments you deem appropriate that would even have the chance. The way I see it is this don't put anything new in public buildings or sights, but if it is a long standing tradition or has been there for more than say 20 years why attack it and cause this division. As for the Native Americans heh there land stretched across the US in parks, private residences, and more than likely some key government instilations so who picks what gets donated?

 

There would be some type of break, like most other countries, I'm sure. Don't understand why you asked tho, just for kicks?

 

For the most part yes for kicks to see what your answer would be. Now I don't know much about Asia, or the USSR, but at one point if not still today didn't Europe have a majority of christians also?

 

I looked it up. It was a banned type of hand gun:

 

O, and I'm sure your legally allowed to bring a gun home that you purchase, maybe you have to mail it or something, dunno.

 

Associated Press

 

WILMETTE, Ill. - Officials in this suburb north of Chicago are searching for new ways to make it difficult to own a gun after Illinois lawmakers overwhelmingly voted to give new legal protection to homeowners who use a banned handgun to shoot burglars

 

Because Wilmette operates under home rule, the Village Board might adopt a local ordinance exempting the community from the law, which went into effect Tuesday, village attorney Timothy Frenzer said Wednesday.

 

Under the new state law, someone who shoots an intruder on his or her property could not be convicted of violating a local gun ban. The new law does not, however, prevent state charges if prosecutors believe the shooting itself was a crime

 

The bill's supporters saw it as a statement of support for the basic concept that people should be able to defend themselves in their own homes. Opponents viewed it as an attempt to undercut local gun laws.

 

"The point, I think, was to do a favor for the gun lobby," Frenzer said.

 

It was inspired by the case of Hale DeMar, a Wilmette restaurant owner who shot a burglar who had broken into his home twice. County prosecutors declined to press charges for the shooting, but Wilmette officials charged DeMar with breaking the city's ban on handguns

 

Gov. Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill earlier this year, arguing it would encourage people to defy local gun laws. But House lawmakers were able to override the veto with a 85-30 vote.

 

Wilmette Village President Nancy Canafax said she was not surprised by the House's action.

 

"It's just always frustrating and aggravating that Springfield can decide a very local issue like this," Canafax said. "We don't impose our laws on handguns anywhere else."

 

Felt I needed to bring this in to try and show you. It was not a submachinegun, or an assault rifle it was a hand gun. Notice the bold underlined portion it basically said we don't care about your constitutional rights because owning a gun is wrong in our eyes. As for the second quote I never seen any exemptions if you put the fire arm in a carrying case you are technically concealling it and I don't know about FedEx and UPS after 9-11 but it is illegal to mail firearms through the Post Office.

 

Interesting. First, I sure you can see the difference between a street and sanitation guy wearing a shirt (tho it is almost certain that there is a uniform or reflection vest to wear over said shirt) and a cop or judge wearing one.

 

I suppose I'd have to see the shirt. If it was just a shirt or something meant to send a message.

 

But, for the record, I don't mind things like crosses or head dressings.

 

THo again, if you want to say "say he's being selective", I think I'm being reasonable. If you pushed me to go one way or another, I'd say ban it outright on public jobs.

 

Yes I do unfortunatly your argument was for the total removal of anything religious from the government and they are government workers.

 

1. Please, point to a single thing I said that was "religion bashing

 

You know what I am going to appologise for that because I really don't recall you bashing religion. It was hold over from a previous thread.

 

2. I never, I don't think, suggested that (other than this one judge, who was found in violation of the law) any religious person was doing anything particulary wrong.

 

You are right about that although I have a felling the reason he fought it so hard was he felt it was a personal attack against his religion.

 

4. Your right, I suppose, that I have something to prove. That is, why I think Church and Goverment should remain seperate.....including religious monuments on public land.

 

I guess what I have tried to show is that it is public land just as much anyone elses as yours so there will be dissent and arguements on this, why can there not be a compromise found. If it is a long standing tradition why go through all of it and alienate at least half the community for your vindication. While I am being the counter point to this arguement I would never rush to the defense of that type of thing in my community because it is really not that important to me.

 

5. Lets not make this personal

 

As I said I am sorry I never meant to.

[kumquatq3]

No problem

 

anyways, I think we both have gotten are respective points and views across, so unless there was anything in particular you would like me address: It was a fun debate