The latest in the "Jesus, save me from Your followers" category

[kellinator]

In which a bunch of misguided loonies camp out in Alabama to attempt to defend their Ten Commandments monument to the death, or at least until Pat Robertson tells them to go pray for some liberal to die. Because heaven knows THAT'S a really Christian thing to do.

Wow, it's great to know that with the economy in the crapper, these folks have time to go protest over an unconstitutional monument. What do you think would happen if I went and pointed out to these folks that the Ten Commandments were a part of Judaism thousands of years before Christianity even existed?

That reminds me, there was this guy once who had some things to say about rendering Caesar's things to Caesar. He was a itinerant preacher without a penny to his name who never sat on tradition if it was hurting someone. He occasionally enjoyed a glass of wine with his friends, even if they were tax collectors and prostitutes. What he didn't enjoy included those in Big Business who cheated the common man, those who exploited the innocent, and perhaps most of all those who made a big deal about their piety in an attempt to impress people with how "good" they were while secretly not caring about anyone but themselves and how "right" they were.

His name was Jesus Christ and I am proud to be one of His followers, but man am I embarrassed by the foolishness modern-day Pharisees cook up in His name.

To those people sitting around whining about this monument, I'd like to say, take out your Bibles and actually read them, think about what Jesus had to say for yourself instead of swallowing whatever the Religious Reich's line is this week. I believe in my heart that if Jesus came down to see you, He'd say, "Put up your protest signs and go feed the hungry, visit the sick, reach out to the people you think you're better than, and QUIT EMBARRASSING ME!!"

Comments

[dwivian]

[ we declare ]

III. That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.

-=-=-
None of which prohibit putting up a graven image...er... carved rendition of the commandments, along with other texts, about the foundations of law....

Which is his point, though, as you say, eight other justices disagree.

And, the election thing is important, because it means he'll stay in power, BECAUSE of this grandstanding.... *sigh*

[sujata.livejournal.com]

Ah, but one of the reasons why the personal correspondence of Thomas Jefferson was cited as authority to establish "separation of church and state" (albeit it's already implied by the U.S. Constitution), was because it's all too easy to enshrine one particular faith as a state-supported religion -- even while giving lip service to the notion that doing so doesn't discriminate against other religions. Part of the problem, by way of example, is that if I could afford to do it and wanted to, I sincerely doubt I'd be allowed to erect a statue of Buddha in the rotunda of Alabama's supreme court. Would a Wiccan be allowed to set up a shrine to the God and Goddess? How about letting a Satanist put up a pentagram?

That's the test I would like to see in action right now. Is the Chief Justice willing to extend the same loopholes of which you spoke, to practitioners of other faiths, or merely to his own?

But the worst isn't that he'll be re-elected due to his grandstanding. The worst is that he may be given more power than ever because of it! :-(

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

To answer one of your questions, no. According to one article at CNN.com, someone asked Chief Asswipe if he would put up a momument to the Koran and he started bitching about how America wasn't founded on Islam. I don't suppose he's aware that a significant number of Founding Fathers identified as Deists rather than Christians...

[sujata.livejournal.com]

Mmmpf. Now why doesn't that surprise me? *wry grin* ;-)

[dwivian]

Ah, but the rub is this -- nobody has erected a crucifix, or kneeling bench, at all. Objects of worship or veneration are not allowed....

...the exemption is that the Ten Commandments, like the Code of Hammurabi, are parts of the foundation of our law. That's different, in a technicality sense....

[sujata.livejournal.com]

Happily, I'm able to reassure you that foundations of our law, such as the Ten Commandments (and thank goodness not very much of the Code of Hammurabi), are collectively known as "common law" -- and when any other law conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, it is superceded by that estimable document. Unhappily, examples of cases in which that supercedence failed to be respected are legion.

But technically the Chief Justice of Alabama cannot rely upon the influence of the Ten Commandments on our common law, as justification for displaying a monument thereof on public property. It conflicts with the separation of church and state implied in the Constitution and explicitly stated in Thomas Jefferson's correspondence on the subject, so it's a no-no.

Whether the Constitution's implications will ultimately be respected or disregarded, of course, we can only wait to see. :-/

[dwivian]

You and I both know that other writings by the Founding Fathers, while nice to read, have no merit as argument in law, and we've definately drifted far from the direction OTHER fathers wanted in the seperation clause. In fact, Jefferson himself didn't suggest that the church take no interest in government, but that the government not be seen to make a statement for ONE tradition as a state one.

Well, the 10 commandments are in the foundation of three seperate traditions, all at conflict, so they don't promote one faith. And, putting statements of law (common, or otherwise) in a courthouse is acceptable, in the right context (case law supports this). The problem is when you put JUST the commandments, as then the overtone of religion can't be avoided. That's got LOTS of case law opposing it, and thus it was right to remove the monument.

I'm just happy of the irony of making a graven image of something on the earth (the commandments), which lots of people were seen to be bowing down in front of (even if ostensibly in worship of the God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and Ishmael)... I find it terribly amusing that none of them "got" that....