The Woman who stood up to Judge Roy Moore

and the death threats she now recieves from "so called" religionists.

When the case went to trial in October 2001, Maddox came home to 72 messages on her answering machine. “They were about how I should be run out of town and didn’t deserve to live with decent, God-fearing people,” she says. “There were calls to my mom and dad about how they should be ashamed for raising a heathen.”
Maddox’ side won the case, but that only heightened the animosity against her. One of 38 attorneys in Brewton (and the only woman among them), she saw her once-robust practice dry up. Clients worried that if her name appeared on an appeal, they would automatically lose. She lost her race for county commissioner. Voters said they couldn’t support a woman who took on such a good, God-fearing man as Judge Moore. “You’re fighting the wrong battle,” they told her.

Maddox closed her Brewton office last month and moved with her husband to Mobile, Ala., a city where she has some anonymity. ” nobody has called and said, ‘You should die’,” she says.<snip>



http://www.msnbc.com/news/956098.asp?cp1=1

But, really, some God that is so insecure that he gets a large case of the chapped ass if some imperfect creature doesn’t kiss his ass enough. Kind of doesn’t make sense?

Can anyone please tell me why on earth Democrats are allowing themselves to be on the wrong side the 'God' issue??? Most Democrats I know are religious good people. All we need is to be known as the party that 'wants to get rid of God'. Couple this with the growing perception that we are somehow anti-defense and anti-patriotism.
The vast majority of us aren't like this. Why are we allowing those who are to make these decisions for us?

or lack of beliefs, for that matter.

But, and I want to try to be delicate here, keep your god THE FUCK out of my government and I'll keep mine out too. Is that fair enough?

Welcome to Democratic Underground.

of others' right to belief in God. As my mother said, watch what a person does rather than what he says. Smart woman, she.

Let's dispense with mom. I'm sure she's a wonderful person, but that's not what we're talking about here.

Would you mind explaining to me how it is that I don't sound tolerant of others' religious beliefs? Need I point out that my argument was an issue of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, and not an issue of advocacy or demonization of any particular religion?

I'm very excited about hearing your well-reasoned answer.

Or are we basing everything on how the situation "feels" to you? This would be akin to looking into Vladimir Putin's eyes and seeing into his soul.

sweetcakes. I'll try to make it clear to you.
Our country was founded by Christians. Most of the inhabitants of our country were Christians. Having references to our heritage is not an official endorsement of the precepts of Christianity, however. You just don't airbrush all traces of our history off every government edifice or inscription. Aside from the fact that the 10 Commandments are time-tested precepts of how to live and a good thing for our citizens to read, it is our country's heritage.

Jefferson was the first and only non-Christian president of this country. He was a Deist.

Franklin was a founding member of the Hell Fire Club.

Washington refused communion and despised the Episcopal church.

And only two of the commandments have any relevence to the law, the one about theft and the one about murder. You cannot name a single society that does not condemn those acts so those being a part of the law is societal in nature, not religious.

Keep yourr religion out of my face and don't make me pay for it.

what you REALLY want is welfare for churches, enforced religion, and ultimately theocracy.

You are the reason why I cannot respect Christianity.

I don't see where I said ALL our country's founders were Christian, but of course your silly citings about Washington and Franklin hardly prove they weren't Christian.......As for keeping my religion out of your face, you are, indeed, free not to read the references to our country's religious heritage, whether they be on money or buildings. If you choose not to follow tried-and-true precepts of how to live a happy and fulfilling life, that is up to you.
All I ask from you is that you please keep your hands off reminders of our country's religious heritage. Please allow others to benefit from them even if you choose not to. Thanks.

It'sw a wotrthless piece of shit and needs to be removed NOW.

It's illegal and I despise any fuck who wants to cram a desopicable and sick religion down my throat.

You know, the ironic thing here, is that as I get older, I think of Jesus as a pretty righteous (in more than one way) individual. I am a spiritual person. I'm quite certain that I've read a good deal more on religion (from Thomas Aquinas to Joseph Campbell to Elaine Pagels) than most of the backwards inbred fuckheads who support this 2-ton abortion.

Anyway, I like Jesus. I think he was telling us to find the "Christ" in all of ourselves, which is the same as finding the "Buddha-nature" in oneself. I think Jesus had some wonderful things to say, and I think he left us some pretty profound clues about the divinity each of us posesses. But that's the last thing that the Six Flags Over Jesus crowd would ever get from the words of Christ. I really think that Jesus would vomit over what some of his twisted supporters are doing in his name.

There are many parallels that can be drawn between what the religious right has done in this country (look at the recent history of the S. Baptist church) and what the GOP is doing to this country. Of course, they've teamed up now to become my worst-case-scenario nightmare. There's no real functional difference between religious fundamentalists in the Middle-East and in the United States.

Anyway, thanks for your posts. It sucks to have to man the battle stations in the place you call home, but the cretins are crawliing out of the woodwork lately. Give 'em hell, Walt.

You seem to have found the laughing Jesus.

It's closer to Budhism than the abortions called Christian denominations in so many places these days.

Now don't get me wrong, not all denominations are abortions, just the ones that support the racist fuck who wants to establish Christian Identity as the official state relgion. His name is Moore.

I was very taken with the Gnostic Gospels, however...

I'm destined to never be one religion or another. I'm too fascinated with (and too disgusted with) several of the world's religions. If used properly, they're just a tool anyway, pointing to the transcendant, that which cannot be described.

I think Buddhism is closer than any other religion I know of to "getting it right".

'fuckheads'? Yes, I can see you are indeed a spiritual person--one who's views are to be taken seriously as you describe the profound effect of Jesus has on you. I am wondering if Jesus would tell you to 'give hell to the cretin fuckheads'.

Can I give you a word of advice, friend. You can use vile language about those who disagree with you.....or you can ruminate piously about your spirituality.....But please don't mix the two. It has the unsavory effect of illuminating you as a bigoted bore.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

honey....I just simply will not stand still for people gratituitously bashing Christians or religion...all out of simple unadulterated hatred and bigotry. I just won't do it. I know you all want to me to meekly fade away and agree with you just to fit it, but my mama didn't raise her son to be no whipping boy for godless bigots.

So go look for another patsy.

A. My name isn't honey

B. No one here is gratuitous, nor is anyone bashing christians or religion. Telling you you're wrong about the information you posted is not bashing.

C. We're not godless, nor are we bigots.

Of course, you have retreated into the only corner available to people like you whose brains have been blown out by christian fundamentalism: when people call you on the accuracy of your history, you immediately fire the "they're just godless, christian-bashing bigots." Sheesh. What a maroon.

Oh, and one more thing: YOU posted this nonsense to begin with, so take that martyr cape off right now. You're not anyone's "whipping boy." You're just ignorant of history, the constitution, and anything that even remotely resembles lovingkindness.

sweetcakes. I am a Catholic. Could we please get this straight? I am one of many Catholic Democrats who are SICK and TIRED of you anti-life, anti-religion extremists who keep losing us elections because of their vile hatred. This is my first night here, and I absolutely
cannot believe the vile hatred I have seen here towards organized religion. The most vile and hideous words you can use..have been used here. I had no idea the extremists were this bad. I tell you, they are burying this party. I just pray these people are not representative of very many. I feel certain they are not. These people are so extreme, they force me to go against them just to defend decency. Let's hope control of the Democratic Party returns to the hands of the NORMAL people and not these ranting freaking fanatic kooks.

Did the monument contain the Catholic version of the 10 Commandments, the Protestant version, or the Jewish version? They're all slightly different from each other.

Since this was Alabama, most likely it was the Protestant version, which means it wasn't just establishing Judeo-Christianity as the state religion, but the Protestant version of Christianity as the state religion. It was an insult to Catholics and Jews, as well as all non-Protestants in the state of Alabama.

Now that's a good one - a Catholic calling someone else "anti-life".

Let's see - how many deaths is the Catholic Church responsible for. Gee, where should we begin. The Crusades? Joan of Arc? The Inquisition? Or just talk about all those Catholic leaders who refuse to support condom usage, thinking that it's preferable for people to die rather than to practice safe sex. Or maybe look at this Church's insistance on the importance of an "afterlife" which so often allows it to ignore big problems happening in THIS life (which many believe may be the ONLY one that we've got).

I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to come up with many more examples of how the Catholic Church is "anti-life". Just because this Church dreamed up the phrase "pro-life" to as a fig leaf to cover their assault on women's reproductive freedom does not mean this Church is in any way actually pro-life.

I've got news for you, Monocaque - there is a large body of commentary out there that regularly ridicules the Catholic Church as being one of the most anti-life organizations in the history of the world. You don't sound too bright when you call critics of the Catholic Church anti-life.

"I am one of many Catholic Democrats who are SICK and TIRED of you anti-life, anti-religion extremists who keep losing us elections because of their vile hatred. This is my first night here, and I absolutely cannot believe the vile hatred I have seen here towards organized religion. The most vile and hideous words you can use..have been used here. I had no idea the extremists were this bad."

I was just remarking in another thread how I'd bet our friend here (who claimed to have no knowledge of the Christian Identity movement) was more familiar with the Catholic Defence (Defense) League (Catholic Anti-Defamation League, Catholic Civil Rights League ...).

His ploy is straight out of their play book. If you disagree with them, you are bashing them. If you object to their attempts to impose their beliefs on public policy, you are bigoted against them. If you write commentaries, or produce artistic works, that critically examine their beliefs and activities, you are fostering hatred against them. If you promote inclusionary policies for the benefit of vulnerable individuals or groups whom they seek to have excluded, you are discriminating against them.

Me, me, me. It just sounds so ... unloving. So ... uncharitable. So ... UNchristian.

Heck, I thought Christians were supposed to expect to be persecuted, and enjoy it as evidence of what a good job they were doing, or something. So I guess that if they're not being persecuted enough, then they just have to invent something to get "persecuted" about.

;)

Uh oh!

You can go ahead and worship the Ten Commandments all you want.

I just do not think it would be fair for you to use taxpayer money to pay to have those Ten Commandments endorsed by our government.

You devalue your religion when you let the government start helping it out like this.

Religion is a private matter and it is not ethical to use taxpayer money to endorse any particular religion.

YOU started an argument saying that YOU thought it was a good idea for OTHER PEOPLE to pay taxes to display the tenets of YOUR religion on government property.

People told you to butt out and deal with your own private life yourself, and YOU start getting all victimized and martyred on them, trying to say that YOU'RE getting bashed.

You're the one who started the bashing honey, by having the nerve (or just the ignorance) to suggest that you think it would be cool for US to give OUR tax dollars to display YOUR religion's rules on PUBLIC property.

If you can't see why that got people tee'd off with you, then you deserve to be called an idiot or something worse.

Well, I suppose that makes us even. Between your religious intolerance and that picture of the aging snapping turtle you have as an avatar, I can't decide whether you're tragic or comic.

It was something from the island of Glastonbury, one of the most sacred sites in Celtic Paganism and Celtic Wicca. It was said that during the time of his life that the Bible skips over, he went to Glastonbury to learn of the lore and mysteries that the Druids knew, then went back to spread the word. The idea of finding inner peace and connection with oneself and the world is also something that is prominent in what the Druids taught as well.

BushCo. and the Saudis get along so well...

:puke:

I proved you wrong, this country was founded by a diverse set of men.

I wasn't aware Native Americans were Christian. Ya learn something new everyday. ;-)

The religious heritage of hanging people who were accused of witchcraft and the religious heritage of looking for gold in places where there was none. The REAL religious heritage of this country is that of the 500 Nations, but I doubt you would be willing to admit that.

Get an encyclopedia and look up Enlightenment. It will explain a great deal to you.

Maybe you should quit listening so much to the "history" that is being funneled down your throat on all of those Montgomery religious radio stations.

Educate yourself before you come to DU in your Democrat cloak and try to start shit. Believe me, there are many people here much more educated on issues and history than YOU appear to be.

Go crawl back under that rock you are trying to protect.

"All I ask from you is that you please keep your hands off reminders of our country's religious heritage. Please allow others to benefit from them even if you choose not to. Thanks."

Last time I checked, you can remind yourself of our countries alleged religious heritage all you want.... In your home, in your church, in your office.. pretty much anywhere exepct Taxpayer funded locations. Enjoy. Thanks.

Our country was founded on a principle of the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court has already ruled that displays of heritage (such as the one on the frieze of the SC building, which displays the 10C's, along with other historical items)...they've ruled that these displays are fine, so long as the religious message is not exclusive.

This case wasn't even close. It's not about religious freedom; it's not about burying anyone's heritage. It's clearly about the separation of church and state. Even the rest of the right-wing justices on the Alabama Supreme Court found this to be a reasonable ruling. It's only the religiously-insane whack-jobs (mostly outsiders, I understand) who support such a dangerous precedent.

By the way, shut your fucking mouth with the sweetcakes bullshit, lest I give you the nickname you so richly deserve.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Hmmm. Does that have any place in a courthouse? Now back to the Taliban with you.

a woman uses the 'F' word. It just exudes class.

It makes me want to commit adultery all day and all night.

MMMmmmmmmm Adultery.

I covet my neighbor's wife and fuck my bastard of a father.

I built an altar and put a statue of my representation of The Goddess on it last Sunday, then I worked on my fence.

Yahweh sucks donkey dicks.

I want that TV set I saqw in my neighbor's house tonight too.

BTW, somehere in here, I've told a lie.

Gonna put me in jhail over me breaking "heritage" laws?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

when a guy does it, too.

It seems that your perceptions about religion are aligned with your perception about what sex I am. You can't get anything right tonight, can you?

Maybe you should pray about it.

Also, I don't much give a flying fuck what you think about my language, my class, or anything else. What I'm concerned with is that you haven't yet answered my question. Now I understand that you don't feel very self-confident about your religion, but you did bring it up, so you'll need to finish what you started.

I guess you just sounded effeminate. Honest mistake.

Women can say fuck here all they want. What does that have to do with class?

FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK...and I AM a woman. Does that turn your stomach???

Classlessness is being exuded by you, who comes here to disperse your shallow version of Christianity. It aint workin', neighbor.

For the next time he so intelligently puts his foot in his mouth.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

at a large university. I also teach college for a living (gasp...liberal professors corrupting our children!). And I live in a very spacious log cabin in the woods that I built! Amazed! Lots of time I eat with ALL of my teeth--the full set--the steaks and wonderful meals that my boyfriend, with whom I fornicate, cooks. And, further, he stays home to take care of domestic chores while I earn our living. That scares you, doesn't it!

Are you repulsed enough yet? I could go on...

Damn, you are just FULL of stereotypes and prejudices, aren't you!

You ARE an arrogant prick! I thought so! Tell me, oh lord and master of the universe, how is it that you are so ignorant in the ways of human nature and the laws of this nation?

They live in a pristine dreamworld and wonder why we liberals have fucked it up. This guy came here for no other reason but to stir shit up about Roy "Give me that old time religion" Moore. Do a search on his post history...NADA if it isn't on this topic.

Methinks Brother Tim Wildmon has dispatched one of his fundie flock to bring us to the light! Nothing this guy has posted convinces me that he is NOT a republican. He's as puke as they come.

I can see you're running out of relevant arguments Monocaque, and now you have to critique people for using the 'F' word.

It's a pretty good word and there's nothing wrong with someone using it. Even a woman, I might remind you.

How about responding to the content of some of these comments, Monocaque, instead of taking the usual conservative approach of trying to attack something irrelevant such as style.

Give us some reasons why my tax dollars should go towards advertising YOUR religion on government property.

Monocoque wrote: "Our country was founded by Christians."

This is simply not true.

The original settlers were certainly Christians, but the country was not founded by them. Settling the land (which then belonged to Britain) is not the same as founding a country. And the Founders were not Christian. They were Enlightenment secular humanists and Deists.

Anyone who has read the writings of Jefferson, Madison and Franklin knows that these men were vehemently opposed to the Christian Church. Jefferson wrote over and over again in his private correspondence that his primary goal in the setting up of the new government was to eradicate the influence of "clerics", whom he considered to be the vilest tyrants on Earth. Very strong language, that.

Without Tom Paine, there would have been no Revolution. His pamphlet "Common Sense" was the foremost document used to stir the people up against England. Paine was an atheist.

When Patrick Henry suggested in the Convention that Christianity be given a prominent place in the new Constitution, he was resoundingly voted down.

Regardless of what the original populace may have believed, the government was set up in such a way that no particular religion would be given preference over any other. In signing a treaty with Muslim Libya, Madison stated explicitly that America was not to be construed as a "Christian Nation", but that people of all faiths were welcome here, to practice however they wished. Anyone who truly believes in freedom and in the values America was founded on rejoices in this tolerance. Those who don't believe in these things seek to promote their religion above all others.

I wonder where Moore stands on this?

...right about now. :evilgrin:

Paine was raised as a Quaker in England, but became a deist later in live, not an atheist. Much of what he believed, such as being anti-slavery, and some concepts of liberty, came directly from Quaker Advices and Queries. Of course, the term "deist" was likely invented because atheism was as abhorrent to those Christian founders back then as it is to many today, so we don't really know a lot about what they really thought. Quite a few practicing Quakers today would be considered "deists."

While several of his works were seminal to the revolutionary spirit, he became known as a crank later on, and his religious views caused him vast amounts of problems with the majority of Christians who actually did start the government we now have. Jefferson had some of the same problems, and kind of laid low about religion at times.

Paine was considered persona non grata by most of the country upon his return to the US at Jefferson's invitation, and died alone and scorned.

Other than that, it is true that the country was set up to have a secular govenrnment. The framers were well aware that the Ottomans often were far more liberal in accepting other faiths than the Europeans were, and many had personal experience with the problems of European state religions. They could have done little else than create a secular state, particularly since there was no royalty to set the religion.

Except for the few "deists" and Haym Solomon and a few other Jews, they were overwhelmingly Christian, however. And most of those were rather conservatively Protestant. I don't think they thought much about the rights of Muslims, Hindus, animists, atheists, or even Jews and Catholics.

I disagree. Paine was certainly persecuted when he returned from self-exile in France, but this was as much for his continuing radical political views as for whatever religious ideas he may have espoused. Many historians prefer to think of him as an agnostic, but from what I've read (including Howard Zinn) I think he qualified as an atheist. His early religious education means little on this score--I was raised a Methodist, and am not a Christian today.

It seems to me that statements like Monocoque's are meant to imply that, because Christianity was the de facto religion of the time, it should remain so today. I think that's not only illogical thinking, but a totally unreasonable stance for a rationally enlightened man or woman to take. The Constitution clearly sets forth a secular government, and it does so because the primary framers--Jefferson and Madison--understood the dangers of a theocratic state. To give in to the demands of people like Moore is to undermine freedom of religion for everyone, including Christians.

That's something an awful lot of Christians in our country just don't seem to understand.

or lack of it, and it probably makes little difference. He never, AFIK, declared himself to be an atheist, though. Which is kind of my point-- that it was dangerous to be an atheist back then.

Moncoque's statements do seem to imply that, but don't really go that far. I think Mono's getting a bit of excessive flaming, and does have a point about some people being a bit overboard while slamming religion.

because they are in no way similar. Maybe closer to agnostic, but definitely not atheistic.

but as I have noted, it was not too smart to espouse atheism in the 18th century.

It was easier to lie about it.

the crown (and historians still debate whether it was radical or to preserve their own interests) were too timid to assert their atheism, so they called themselves "deists?"

I don't buy it, not from the primary documents written by TJ that I have read.

And the first of them, called the First Amendment, starts out this way:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

There are two clauses here, known as the "establishment" clause and the "free exercise" clause.

The establishment clause provides that government, or agents of government (and this applies to state government through the 14th Amendment; ask if you need that explained) may not coerce citizens to accept any religious doctrine or practice; nor may taxpayer dollars be used to support a religion, nor may government (including state government) show favoritism to one religion over another.

The free exercise clause provides that government (including state government) may not interfere in the free exercise of religion of individual citizens.

So, the First Amendment provides that the government may not prevent you, as a citizen, from worshiping at the church/temple/synagogue or following the spiritual path of your choice.

However, the First Amendment also provides that people who are in service to government may not use their powers of office to impose their particular religious beliefs, spend taxpayer dollars promoting their particular religious beliefs, or show favoritism for one religious tradition over others. It also provides that religious factions, even if they are a majority, may not use government to promote or enforce their particular religious beliefs on the minority.

It is NOT TRUE that the Founders thought it was OK for government to promote or favor Christianity over other religions. For example, as Thomas Jefferson wrote in his autobiography,

The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it's protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.

Jefferson was talking about the The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom, but the First Amendment was written (by James Madison) based on the concepts in the Virginia Act.

The Democrats are on the RIGHT side, which is the side of the Bill of Rights.

I could care less if my next-door neighboor worshipped the slime on a rock in his backyard so long as he does not use the government to impose that belief on me. That is the point of seperation of Church and State is that the two should be chained facing opposite directions at opposing ends of a football field and are not to look at eachother, yell at eachother, even make funny faces or gestures at eachother. Accomodation doesn't work, seperation does.

They are anti God in government unlike the repugs and repug lites. Glad you like Lieberman, the guy who agrees with Bush on tons of issues. Don't you think we should take a clear opposite approach to everthing the Bush admin. does instead of being just like them?

And religion is a private matter, no matter how much the fundies try to shove it down everyone's throats. The majority of Americans think people should keep it to themselves. Hence your arguments are moot.

So John Kerry is anti-defense? HE at least SERVED his country, unlike the AWOL asshole in chief.

Only means the govt cannot endorse one particular religion.

So I hope you would also get upset at a state of Buddha being put up in the courthouse too.

to a more appropriate spot. The difference is that the fundies would help carry him out.

edit: spelling

None of the brilliant men who thought up this republic were Buddhists. But they were Christians. Christianity is part of our heritage. Having a symbol or reference around is not the same as an endorsement.

OK, point taken, the founders/framers weren't Buddhists.

But I'll bet good money that ALL of the Founding Fathers masturbated now and again. Don't you think that, for the sake of our heritage, we should put a big dick-and-hand statue in courthouses all across the country?

It's not an endorsement of masturbation, you understand. It's just an acknowledgement of our dolphin-flogging heritage.

Absurd? Of course. And it's also completely in line and parallel with your ridiculous assertions. Keep your hateful God out of the courthouses in my country. I like my God much better, and my God has no desire to be commemorated in a courthouse. My God understands what subjectivity and poetic language are about. My God isn't literalist or legalistic. My God is confident enough not to have his/her acolytes try to shove their beliefs into everyone else's face because of their own insecurities.

You don't have to like my God or even believe in my God. By the same token, I can sneer at your limited view of God. But I sure as hell don't want that limited and immature concept of God codified in our laws or otherwise put on display in my public buildings.

Do you not understand that the issue is just too subjective? You're not on the same page I'm on, with your Waffle House God, and I want no part.

Capisce?

silly example comparing masturbation to something as revered as time-tested precepts for living a happy life reflects your lack of capacity to discuss this issue in a meaningful way.
And as for 'your' God and 'my' God, He, of course is one and the same. Whether or not you believe it is immaterial; Case in point; You are free to not believe in the law of gravity, but if you slip on a banana peel, you still fall on your ass.
So disparage God at your own peril, friend. You have that freedom.....at least until the moment of your death.

I like what I follow MUCH better for living a happy life. A list of "thou shalt nots" seems like too much of an invitation to me to break them, knowing human nature. If you want to rain down fire and brimstone on me for disagreeing with you, go right ahead, I dare you. But you should remember that the God of the New Testament is merciful and forgiving, unlike the God of the Old who was vengeful and full of wrath. I should warn you though, Arawn is not nice if you piss Him off. Threaten me with hell and you will get nothing but a big fat finger.

but life really isn't the land of do as you please. When you grow up you'll find that out real quick. There are standards you have to stick to, not because somebody says to, but because they are shown to WORK in human nature. When you grow up, you'll realize rules are not made to give someone their jollies, the ones that have been around a long time are in place because they lead to the most positive outcome possible. This way you do not keep on having to invent the wheel, finding out the hard way what does and does not lead to good results.
Now hopefully you'll get through this little rebellion period and start acting like a mature person. Comprende?

I guess you never grew out being an arrogant prick that you are acting like right now. I kind of realize that this country's NOT about "do as you please," in fact I never even insinuated that it WAS. By trying to shove words in my mouth you are attemtping to dodge the fact that you are an arrogant prick that doesn't know what he is talking about. You do realize that part of human nature is if you tell someone NOT to do something WITHOUT giving a good reason not to they are more likely to do it anyway? Sorry laddy boy, but there are more than a few parts of the 10 that are, unfortunately for you, irrelevant in modern America. If you want to talk about immaturity, your unwarranted and ignorant arrogance is a sign that you have no maturity of your own to speak of. Besides, how old would you be willing to wager I am anyway? Some have said 35, others have said 16 and everything inbetween. Based on how you talk, I would say you sound like an arrogant jock who still is in High School who has yet to play an actual game of football and talks a whole lot of smack. Then again, maybe that's just your mental age.

" the ones that have been around a long time are in place because they lead to the most positive outcome possible."

Right.. and the ones against murder and theft pre-date the OT by several thousand years, so your commandments are really just rehasings of previous laws.

If it says thou shalt not kill, then why do people wipe out entire populations in the name of god? Wouldn't that be blaphsemy of the worst kind?

I generally chalk it up to most Christians™ only paying attention to the parts of the bible that give them that warm-fuzzy feeling... almost like Levitcus and Deuteronomy don't even exist..

After hearing about all their ranting about the evils of pornography and hearing about some parts of Leviticus that are downright erotic.

Let's get back to the original article that started this thread. Do you think that the people who threatened this woman and harassed her family are mature? Aren't they violating the "rules?"

GASP! A Xian saying a dirty word!

A COURT BUILDING IS NOT THE PLACE FOR A HERITAGE SYMBOL! (Could you hear THAT?) Put any symbol up you want to in your own home -- no one's stopping you. But a separatist "symbol" has no place in a government building.

Oh, and from which university did you receive your doctorate in American History?

If he does, then that college needs to be shut down, because he learned NOTHING.

That's as big of a lie as him claiming he's a democrat. He's probably a fundy republican wage laborer (nothing wrong with being a wage laborer:-) ) who received his historical knowledge from Rush and Hannity.

You need to read more before making such broad statements about the meaning of our country's heritage, Monocoque.




“They all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion.”

Alexis de Toqueville from "Democracy in America"



"The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment'"

James Madison on vetoing as unconstitutional another bill passed by Congress. February 27, 1811, Writings, 8:133).



". . . I should suppose the Catholic portion of the people, as least, as a small & even unpopular sect in the U.S., would rally, as they did in Virga when religious liberty was a Legislative topic, to its broadest principle. Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Govt & Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst. And in a Govt of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; And that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the declaration of Independence, has shewn that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent Country. If a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States, which have abolished their religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virginia where it is impossible to deny that Religion prevails with more zeal, and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronised by Public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt"

James Madison, July 10, 1822, Writings, 9:101-103).

Several of them didn't accept the doctrine of Trinity or the divinity of Christ. They were "deists," meaning they believed in God, but you can only call them "Christians" by stretching the definition of "Christian" quite a bit.

as you call them. I am a Catholic Democrat. Not a fundie. Not a right winger. And another thing.....nobody 'forces' religion on people. It's like saying you force air or water or freedom on people.

and it was very unpleasant. I was required to take an active part in the Christmas play; not a fun experience, really.

I hated being in the Christmas plays too. but mine was more a case of stage fright.

to be sick, depraved, and overall an abhorent religion on its face.

I have that right and I also have the right not to be forced into the despicable religion by those who wish to cram their bullshit religion down my throat.

being in the Christmas play was rather distasteful. I kept wondering what kind of people worshipped a grimy plastic doll. You never know what a seven year old is going to learn when you try to force your religion on them. Maybe someone who isn't Christian will walk into that courthouse and wonder why the Christians are so insecure that they need to have a HUGE monument in a secular building where everyone can see it. They are my commandments, too but I wouldn't dream of insisting that everyone worship them.

My problem was the requirement for human sacrifice and worshipping a corpse nailed to a tree.

That imagery always sickened me and is why I find the very basis of Christianity sick and depraved.

I can think of nothing more pornographic than sacrificing a human and then worshipping the dead man.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

and I get to believe what I want. What you do is fine with me, and I expect you to feel the same about me. Deal?


And by the way, I feel like I am a good person. Sometimes feel I am maybe better than some who profess to talk with God and never seem to hear him say, "hey, how about those kids that are going to bed hungry tonight, because you are cheating thier parents and not paying them a living wage."

for allowing me to believe what I want. And I believe I want to allow references to our country's founding roots, references that have been around for decades or centuries.....to remain intact...without some godless person FORCING their removal. So.....thanks a bunch. I like your idea!

for decades or centuries? Please confine ten-ton religious references to places of worship so that the rest of us, GODLESS OR NOT, do not have to force their removal.

It cannot be considered heritage. It was put there to establish an official state religion. Moore even admits it.

The religion that the fuck is attempting to establish is called Christian Identity.

Google it to find the real agenda here.

I wonder if there is anything concrete that ties Moore to that bunch of fundie skinheads. I think that sort of shoots down the idea he did it out "desire to preserve religious heritage."

Good idea? I'm a Catholic Democrat too. And that is the exact reason I know for a fact we need to keep religion out of government.

Fundmentalists hate Catholics. Have you not seen the beautifully drawn cartoon booklets callling us the Whore of Babylon? It's people just like Moore that believes that kind of crap, no matter what they say to your face.

Democrats are on the right side of religion. We want to make sure everyone can worship in peace. My husband knows what it's like to be beaten up on the way home from Catholic School. I was spared that growing up, but I have just recently begun to know what it's like to live in a town with an unusually high number of Catholic haters. And we're only 45.

Catholics don't worship the Bible. Fundamentalists not only put the Bible over Jesus, they now want to put the Bible over the Constitution. Moore said he told the commission that he upheld his oath of office by acknowledging God. A judges job is to uphold the Constitution which has nothing to do with God.

"'We hold you, Judge Thompson, and the United States Supreme Court in contempt of God's law,' said Flip Benham, director of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue."

Do you see that? These people want us to live under their interpretation of God's Law, not the law as decided by the USSC.

Democrats are on the right side of this issue and I think most people know it, regardless of what they might say on the street.

though they disagree with some Catholic precepts, see themselves far more as allies than adversaries with Catholics when comparing us with the godless people who want to strip our culture of every last trace of a reference to Christianity. We were founded by Christians. Christianity is our heritage and history. You can't just airbrush it off everything. It's as absurd as school districts banning mention and references to 'Christmas'.

There's a friendly alliance on abortion and gays, but as soon as they win those, they'll turn on Catholics. And anybody else who doesn't believe exactly like they do.

So you're fooling yourself. But you're not fooling me because I believe it's highly unlikely you're a Catholic or a Democrat.

As we say in Oregon "Welcome. Enjoy your visit." (Now go home)

honey? Just because I refuse to stand still for all the bigoted religion bashing, I am seeing? How does that not square with being a Democrat or Catholic? Democrats, as you know, are against bigoted intolerance. And Catholics are Christians who of course don't like to be bashed by hateful bigots.....So please tell me how you arrived at your conclusion.

This statement shows up in just about every other post that you make. Funny how it was Christ himself who came and bestowed lovingkindness and showed deepest compassion for the "godless people". It wasn't they whom he smote!

You want to talk about history? Look for yourself at the time of Christ and the established, orthodox religion of his time and geography. Remember the Scribes and Pharisees? If I'm right, it was Jesus Christ who stood up against these "Godful" people and held up the "Godless" prostitutes and cripples. Do you not see the parallels between the establishment religion of 2,000 years ago and "Christianity" of today?

Unfortunately, the so-called "Christians" of today are still fighting their "holy war" against the "Godless people", when, if Christ were here today it would be the fundies (and those who rail against the "godless people") that he would rebuke.

They started out with white slaves, then switched to black slaves, but they were always rich. Religion had very little to do with the founding. It was and always has been about property. I was reared Catholic and then S.Baptist. Never once did I hear a priest or preacher talk about fairness for the working class. All I heard was about how we needed to be happy when we picked Mr. Charlie's cotton. Just so you know, I am not black, but someday, the white and black working class will come together and then there will not be enough lamppost. As Jesus said it is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven. So go and sell you goods and give to the poor and take up and follow me.

Since most of us, black and white came to this country as slaves to the well healed. We were not seeking some religious experience unless us consider getting you ass beat daily for not doing the requisite amount of work some form of redeming act.

helpt your religious beliefs? I thought one of the strictures in those ten alleged commandments were to not make any graven image.

The refrigerator rock is most certainly a graven image, and the way people have been worshipping the rock shows they are all idolators.

precepts that should be followed to live a happy life. Nobody worships the rock itself. Lord have mercy.

FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

I have yet to find a single church in this coutnry that actually posts the fucking tripe anyway.

in Hebrew, which I can't read anyway.

at my local court house either.

And a Synagogue is not a church in the Christian sense. ;)

the Yellow Pages in the South and the Midwest list synagogues under Churches, Jewish. ;-)

ace....So how would you know what they have posted?

ARE worshipping the hunk of rock.

8 out of ten are bullshit anyway and every fucking society on the planet practices the other two without reading about it in a 2000 year old piece of shit book.

ace? Which of the eight have to sidestepped in order to reach your state of obvious spirituality?

I'm fairly sure that Walt is a Wiccan, based on his posts and the big pentacle he uses for an Avatar (then again, I am too), so:

1.) Thou shalt not take any other god before me

We don't worship the Christian God, we worship (if you can call it that, more like respect and revere, not fall on your knees worship), we follow the God and the Goddess and the Great Spirit/the All/Ea/etc.

2.) Thou shalt not make a graven image

Part of a Wiccan altar is to have some kind of statue, or icon, or image of the God and the Goddess.

3.) Thou shalt take thy lord's name in vain

The God and the Goddess don't care if we do that, I know that I do it quite a bit, I'm pretty sure that Walt probably does to.

4.) Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy

We don't acknowledge the Sabbath in our belief system. 'Nuf said.

5.) Honour thy father and thy mother

I know I've broken this one, as I'm asuming it refers to your parents in flesh and blood terms, and I know that this one is nearly impossible to keep because of how "honour" is defined in context with this one.

6.) Thou shalt not kill

We don't, that would be in total violation of the Rede like nothing else.

7.) Thou shalt not commit adultery

I'm not old enough to have done that yet, but if adultery is going on than that would imply that there is no love in the marriage that is involved with the adultery, so the way I see it such a union should cease if adultery is going on because that would imply that the love is not true.

8.) Thou shalt not steal

I don't, there aren't many Wiccans I know that do. It is more trouble than it is worth to steal anyway, although it does depend on the situation and if I have to to survive, I will, and I'm sure any other follower of the Old Ways would do the same.

9.) Thou shalt not bear false witness

Lying is something that just about every Wiccan I have met and talked to will not do except in extreme circumstances, like a life-or-death type of situation. Honour is something big to most Wiccans I know though.

10.) Thou shalt not covet

Well gee, I'm pretty sure that there isn't ANYONE that HASN'T broken that one just based on human nature by itself.

Did I get it just about right Walt?

The godless just kicked your fundamentalist dumb ass all over the state of Alabama.


I have some good advice....

GET OVER IT!!!

Looks like your God lost all of his appeals. Your god is looking pretty damned weak if you ask me. Why don't you get him to send a lightning bolt at the Supreme Court? Or at me, for that matter. By the way, why does your god choose sub-morons to represent him here on earth?



Disclaimer for rational beings who read this: I have no problem with God...this is aimed directly at this person's obvious intolerance of any other beliefs.

an admonition against graven images. You suppose that means all things cut into stone. That it is not good to revere those things that are not God. It makes me wonder if God would get pissed at putting so much emphasis on a hunk of rock. Wouldn't it be better to live the walk than just talk the talk.

the flaming going on later in this thread, this is a good question.

In the streets, arguments over religion can't be avoided, although they probably should be.

In politics, and public discourse, it always has to be remembered that the vast majority of the country considers itself Christian, and most of those are Protestants. It never pays to insult or piss off that many people.

I think Moore and his supporters are just plain nuts, and very, very, wrong. Confronting them head on, though, is just looking for war. It has, unfortunately, already come to that and due almost entirely to Moore and his buddies insisting on defiance.

However, attacking him on any other than strictly legal grounds simply inflames the passions. The legal grounds are already well established, and he has no argument. Arguing about his concept of religion simply adds unnecessary fuel to the fire.

It should be possible to argue this case without arguing over religion, atheism, or whatever, and bringing up divisive side issues.

Who else but someone who is anti-God would make such an effort to mock his teachings as often as possible?

I am not anti-God or anti-Christian.

I just want Republican psychos like you to realize that yours is not the only religion.

And I sure as hell don't want the Ten Commandments to be written as law, nor do I want judges using them as a basis for their decision.

side of the "God" issue. Democrats are for the separation of Church and State as opposed to Republicans, who are are now run lock stock and barrel by the pseudo-Christian religiously insane and are using the "god" issue to divide America and win votes at the ballot box.

It is right to stand on the side of the majority who believe in personal religious liberty - those who tolerate the right of anyone to believe or to NOT believe or to believe differently - against those who would cram their idea of their personal "god" onto the rest of us.

What is amazing about the Alabama flap is the fact that the Ten Commandments are in fact Ancient Hebrew law and it is really Judaism they are supporting and not the teachings of Jesus, who is supposed to be the foundation of their belief system. The Beatitudes or the Sermon on the Mount would be more appropriate for what they are professing to be.

I don't want these ignorant people pushing Yaweh or any other ancient "god" down my throat by making him the "official god" of America.

Or don't you understand what is at stake? I'll bet if I wanted you to register your gun you would be hollering about constitutional rights. God ~ Guns they kinda go together don't they? :crazy:

Please stop pretending that "Democrats are trying to toss out God."

Democrats are not trying to do any such thing. They are trying to maintain the separation between Church and State.

Do you really want to have a state religion? This could be a problem, if it doesn't happen to be YOUR religion.

Of course, you're quite confident that if America HAD a state religion, it would be the Christian religion. And you're saying that since you're a Christian, that would be fine and dandy with you!

Wow. What a selfish viewpoint. I guess you the Jews and Muslims and Hindus who DON'T get the benefits of a state-supported religion would just have to tough it out?

Which shows the brilliance of the founding fathers' insistence of separation between Church and State. Religion is a PRIVATE or SPIRITUAL affair, not a GOVERNMENTAL affair.

Can you understand how this benefits ALL religions, including Christianity?

Again, please stop saying that Democrats are "against religion". They are just against letting the US Govermnent officially play favorites for one religion - and in the end this benefits ALL religions in America.

Maybe she should move to a progressive state??

re-taking a state bar exam. Her license is a major problem to relocating out of state.

I would move into obscurity out of state ASAP.

It's her country. It's her state. It's her Constitution.

Jesus paid taxes and socialized with tax collectors...rendering to Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is God's.

Jesus was tolerant and hated religiosity...

Does Jesus sound like a Republican to you?
Do the policies (for lack of a better word) sound like Republican policies?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Why wouldn't Jesus have socialized with homosexuals?

As far as I know, Jesus only showed anger at the religious right of the day, the money-changers in the temple. Can you cite any other intolerances of Jesus?

didn't include him interacting with homosexuals. Clearly the author(s) was/were homophobic bigots.

I have never stated that you drive an automobile.
Therefore, you have never driven an automobile.


The Gospels never talk about Jesus associating with homosexuals.
Therefore, he never associated with homosexuals.


Can you spell 'absurdity'? It's easier than Lieberman.

I mean no offense if you believe them. To each his own.

does that have to do with anything?

Btw, do you not know how to spell Lieberman?

hung around with a whole bunch of guys.

180

that he was a heterosexual. Please refer me to any NT passages which indicate that he was "into girls"?

couldn't marry a sinful mortal.

Asking for evidence of heterosexuality.

I'll try to rephrase it...

where in the Bible does it say that Christ was heterosexual?

Not asking about whether he was married or if you believe he ever got any- (besides, he could've been knocking it out steadily during the missing 18 years but that's irrelevant to this conversation)

Your stated logic in #12, now deleted, was that since there was no Biblical reference to Jesus associating with gays, then he didn't; ergo.
My argument, using your logic, is that if the Bible doesn't mention his heterosexuality then you're assuming an awful lot.

and had no interest one way or another. Does that mean that no other humans should ever have a sexual relationship? It never said he did so therefore he was none of the above.

(Good to see you, Comsymp!)

Because the pen-holders at the council of Antioch in 150 AD didn't WANT any mention of that kind of thing. You have to remember that that book wasn't compiled until nearly 150 years after the subject of half of it allegedly died, so I'm fairly sure it went through a lot of editing in those 150 or so years.

both those who were "made" (castrated) and "born from their mothers' wombs" (innately homosexual). Check out the book of Matthew (19th chapter, I think) for this. Jesus hated any kind of exclusionary practices, and the people he most detested most resemble the religious right today.

Oh, and what about that "thorn in the side" of Paul? Many christian scholars and historians of homosexuality indeed believe that Paul was battling with his homosexuality--which was his thorn.

Seriously, this is Christianity today. Thay have taken over the term and there is no reclaiming.

CChristianity is associated with hatred forever in my mind. Flame away, but until those who call themselves Christian decide to reclaim the term from these assholes, that's the way I feel about it.

...theocracy proponent. There is no dialogue with religious fanatics: they just keep spouting their beliefs oblivious to anything. Is the alert link malfunctioning again?

breaking commandments

If someone is challenging some bigoted beliefs, you'd better put the alert on his ass. We can't have that. We can't have a strong Catholic Democrat who will not stand still for religion -hating bigots. You've got to do something quick. Coz that one guy is making everybody look real bad. Quick. Get the host. Get the moderator. Get somebody.

It's obvious that you're just a right-winger here to stir up trouble. Take your stupid religious delusions and leave, kay? Thanks.

who despises religious bigotry. You people give the Democratic Party a bad name. It is no damned wonder we are losing everything in sight. Let's see...this is how it goes "Religion is bad...adultery and abortion are good" See what I mean? Normal people don't go along with these twisted upside-down views. Heaven help us.

You do NOT even come close to believing in the same principles that I believe in, those being tolerance, compassion and a love of my fellow man (Christian, Buddhist, Wiccan, etc...)

"Religion is bad...adultery and abortion are good" (Your judgement of 'other' Democrats)

As a true Catholic Democrat, this is what I believe:
FORCED religion is bad, such as what Justice Moore is attempting in AL., and you have the FREEDOM to decide for yourself (not me) if adultery and abortion are good.

BTW......I am a 'normal' person who spent my entire life in Catholic Schools and the Catholic Church, so DO NOT attempt to speak to MY beliefs as a Catholic OR a Democrat.

-chef-

Oh, wait, maybe we need to post pictures so you can figure out what we're saying.

Let me try this:

fundy x-ian + closed mind + ignorance of history - ability to reason = FACISM.

But, I guess that's too subtle for you, hmmm?

hate-filled terms down, honey. Is this what the religion-hating site teach you?

You are being such an ignorant arrogant prick it is unfuckingbelieveable. If you want to refer to someone in a post, it is generaly POLITE to refer to them by their SCREENAME, but I guess you would have a hard time understanding netiquette.

"Get your head out of your ass"

You are being such an ignorant arrogant prick it is unfuckingbelieveable. If you want to refer to someone in a post, it is generaly POLITE to refer to them by their SCREENAME, but I guess you would have a hard time understanding netiquette.


Head out of ass, then arrogant prick, polite in bold, netiquette. LOL


DWolfman

nt

< this is Frederick Douglass, not me.

It's folks like yourself who invoke religion and condescending terms that piss off people all over the world -- in the name of God.

Ace? I haven't seen you espouse a single one on this thread. However, I HAVE seen a bunch of very un-Christian condenscension from yout.

You arrive on a thread about a woman who stood up to religious bigotry and rather than dealing with the difficulties of her situation, you use the occasion to call everyone on this site Godless bigots, religion-hating, the enemy of all that's decent, etc.... You call people you don't know, ace, honey and sweetcheeks and then you claim that you are the only one here who is standing up for religion and God and you say that in a very condescending manner and you accuse others of religion-bashing when they don't agree with your every word. And then you wonder why people are hostile towards you. Didn't your mother teach you any manners? We are not interested in your ideas of how to be a good Democrat. You can leave any time.

The people who have been criticizing Monocaque's desire to use public funds to display religious texts are not "religion-hating bigots".

They have repeatedly stated that they do NOT have objection's to Monocaque's personal devotion to religion. They just don't want to have to PAY for it.

Monocaque, please tell us why you think YOUR religion's beliefs should be carved in stone in OUR courthouses and not just in YOUR church.

That is the question here, and you keep dancing around it and failing to answer it. You keep saying that the people who disagree with you are "anti-religion" or "religion-hating", and you should know that is a big fat LIE. Don't you realize that by keeping ONE religion off the courthouse walls, you do a favor to ALL religions by allowing them to flourish on their own?

Now answer the question: Why do you think that EVERYONE should chip in to carve the Protestant (or Catholic, or Jewish) Ten Commandments in stone on a GOVERNMENT COURTHOUSE?

That is the QUESTION you brought up, and which has been rebutted several times by people pointing out how UNFAIR it is to just pick on religion and decide to let IT be the only one that gets government subsidies.

Face it, you're wrong, so why don't you just admit it and stop wasting everybody's time on this non-issue? It might have seemed like a cool idea to get all the taxpayers to chip in and put up a slab supporting YOUR religion, but if you think about it, this can cause problems for the other religions because it isn't quite fair. And just picking a particular religion because it's somehow more "popular" (more adherents? longer history?) isn't going to make things better for all the religions that got left out.

So how about we just agree on something? You can post YOUR religious tenets in YOUR Church on YOUR own dime. You CAN'T force the entire citizenry at large to pay to post YOUR religious tenets in EVERYBODY'S courthouse. OK? Do you still want to argue this simple point? Did I bash you? Did I say I'm against religion? I'm going to write it one more time so we can be sure you get it:

You can post YOUR religious tenets in YOUR Church on YOUR own dime. You CAN'T force the entire citizenry at large to pay to post YOUR religious tenets in EVERYBODY'S courthouse. OK?

If you insist on continuing to post on this topic, please post on THIS TOPIC: The issue of whether WE should have to pay to post YOUR religion's tenets in OUR government buildings. DON'T lie and say you're being attacked by "anti-religious bigots" because we're not. We are not anti-religion - we are against the government PAYING to support ONE religion.

Do you finally understand the point we are debating here? Do I have to say it one more time that Democratics are not anti-religion! Democrats just want to keep government out of religion

If a person who is not themselves a follower of Jesus, of any of the diverse and multiple denominations, states simply that they do not belive in god and that their beliefs are equally valid WITHOUT MAKING ANY VALUE JUDGEMENTS WHATSOEVER do some people jump all over them claiming that they are bigoted hatemongers?

Put another way: Assume that I am a Republican. Suppose you were to say that you aren't a Republican and that you voted for someone other than George W Bush. I, as a George fearing Republican now prepare to jump down your throat and cry foul. Oh NOOOOO! Some nasty old Democrat isn't letting me be a Republican! HEEEEELP! This country is a REPUBLIC!!! How dare those anti-Republicans bash my Republicanism! Oh NOOOOOOO! We have to pass a law requiring the display of elephants and George's picture everywhere. Otherwise --horrors!-- people will think we're a DEMOCRACY! Run by DEMOCRATS!!!!

(Republican sarcasm mode off)

I have yet to see Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, and others behaving this way. My non-Christian friends are fine with my Christian friends' Christianity. But it's only been certain Christians getting defensive when someone mentions that they aren't Christians.

Most Christians I know are not this insecure.

Dialogue will NEVER happen with these people. Heil Hitler! Er, um, I mean, praise god.

This is not meant to be an anti south comment, but these fanatic right wingers want to turn all of America into what some areas in the south are. Scary.

LOL!

Too bad there are so many right wingers there to ruin it for everyone else. :)

But get it out of the government's courthouse!

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Render unto God what is God's."

Why is is this such an impossible concept for the Christian Taliban to understand?

and mine are wrong, beyond the shadow of a doubt? Will he want to turn a bunch of copperheads and rattlesnakes loose in the courtrooms next if he gets away with this? Would you want a nutcase like Moore deciding your fate? God sez, "Leave the judging of your fellow man to me, I'll do All the Sorting!"

People came to America to escape oppressive bible bangers and a church that dictated!(bloody Church Of England) Some groups then split and went their seperate ways after arriving on the continent, because they couldn't agree on what the Bible really means and they still fight over what it means today! Gawd is not an exact science, and the Bible has been rewritten and transcribed untill, it's like the story that starts out one way at the end of a long line and ends up totally different at the other end!

The founding fathers had the evil things Gawd's people had done to other people, fresh in their minds when they wrote our constitution. The founding fathers remembered things like the MORAVIAN MASSACRE.................................

snip

The Christian Indians were informed that they must die. To the protestations of innocence and prayers for mercy the black-hearted and enraged borderers turned an ear of stone. The condemned saw that their doom was fixed. Faithful even in death to the religion which had involved them in such suffering; which, while it had opened their eyes to the truth, had only led them into an unending career of misery, they begged a short respite in which they might make a last sad preparation for death. The request was granted. Asking pardon for whatever offense they had given of grief they had occasioned, they kneeled down, offering fervent prayers to God, and kissing one another under a flood of tears, they commended their souls to the Savior, their great exemplar in suffering.

A farewell song, which they had been singing, was scarcely finished, when one of the murderers picked up a cooper's mallet. "This," said he, "will exactly suit out purpose." A deadly hatred glittering his unfeeling eye. With a hasty stride forward he dashed out the brains of the nearest Indian, whose eyes were closed and hands uplifted, as he still knelt in prayer. Not an Indian stirred as the murder proceeded down the line. Again and again he performed the act of murder, until a row of fourteen ghastly corpses marked his bloody path. Breathless with the awful work, he tossed the mallet to a companion, saying, "Go on with the glorious work. I have done pretty well."

This was but the opening scene in the tragedy. The flood-gates of murder were open. The tide would have its way. Old men and young men, loving mothers, gentle maidens, and unconscious babes, innocent in the sight of earth and heaven, meek and unresisting as lambs led to the slaughter, were massacred outright. Ninety persons were put to death within half an hour. Sixty-two of the number were grown persons, the remainder laughing bright-eyed children. Only two captives escaped the massacre. One crept under a plank in the floor, and lay concealed, while the blood of his companions dripped through the open cracks upon his face. The other, though knocked down and scalped, was not killed. After nightfall, he crept through a small window and stole away. Another boy was unable to get out at the window, on account of his size, and was left imprisoned until the building was fired and the crackling flames released his soul from earth

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/topic/colonial/pioneer/chap16.html

John Lennon was right about one thing when he said, "God is a concept by which we measure our pain!"

The last I heard public buildings were Caesar’s.

it takes courage to stand up for your convictions in a place where almost 90% of the population is against you.

and thought it would die into the archives...

what a surprise.

anyway, my mom is a Catholic, and shes 76 years old...she is furious that the Rock of Alabama is the Protestant version of the 10 Cs, which tickles the hell out of me


More on the 10Cs and a little more to ponder
3 versions
http://www.uctaa.org/Essays/reflections/commandments/versions.html

is the US a christian nation?

http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.html

You're right, of course. It's amazing that of the few who commented on the topic, some were NOT sympathetic to this brave lady, who needs the support of Liberals, not snide and unsympathetic remarks.

M's initial point was that the Democratic Party is doomed to failure at the polls if it is perceived as "anti-God" by an electorate which is overwhelmingly religious (mostly Christian). That's the very point I document fully at http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/graphs .

Although a handful of rather Conservative Catholics here at DU perceive me as "anti-Catholic" simply and solely because I point out how conservative (and corrupt) their hieararchy tends to be, I believe Democrats need to embrace Catholics like M, rather than alienate them, and encourage them to resist the more conservative tendancies of their hierarchy in the hope of getting more John XXIII types rather than the Pius IX,X,XI, XII and Paul VI & John Paul II types who have opposed Liberalism at almost every turn.

Monocoque, I agree entirely with your original point, and although I don't agree with some of your more Conservative points, over all I believe you have been more rational and certainly more civil than several of your opponents in this thread.

I believe much of the animosity directed at you is really directed at your avatar. As the MOST Conservative of the Democratic contenders, Joe Lieberman is disliked INTENSELY here at Liberal DU. By identifying with Joe, you are in effect doing what you recommend that Democrats avoid, i.e. identifying with something that dooms your cause IN THIS (i.e. the DU) environment. I hope that you will stay with DU, where you will find many decent and civil friends, providing you don't continue to alienate them with the face of someone who is disliked here almost as much as W, before you even open you mouth.


at http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/Democrats .

See what Christ might say about the "Christian Coalition" & "Religious Right" imposters.

I have to disagree with you about M. He/she has declared that his/her mission here is to do battle with the "anti-life" folks here at DU. DUers can't be faulted for rising to the challenge. These crusaders against reproductive rights are not here to reason, they are here to somehow persuade us to allow them to impose their religious vision on the rest of us. Moore's monument, and Moore himself, are a reflection of a similoar mission. I'm with the posters who do their best to point out how ridiculous positions like M's and Moore's are.

"M. He/she has declared that his/her mission here is to do battle with the "anti-life" folks here at DU."

I've done a search of all of M's posts and there's only one offhand reference to the "life" issue, and I don't recall M's critics arguing the "life" issue much either. To be fair, I think M. declared his/her mission here in their first post and his/her critics pounced on M. as though M. was a Conservative/fundamentalist for which there was no evidence. M. was then forced into defending positions forced on him/her by mericless and mean critics much more like Freepers than anything I perceived in M.

"I am a Catholic. Could we please get this straight? I am one of many Catholic Democrats who are SICK and TIRED of you anti-life, anti-religion extremists who keep losing us elections because of their vile hatred. This is my first night here, and I absolutely
cannot believe the vile hatred I have seen here towards organized religion. The most vile and hideous words you can use..have been used here. I had no idea the extremists were this bad. I tell you, they are burying this party. I just pray these people are not representative of very many. I feel certain they are not. These people are so extreme, they force me to go against them just to defend decency. Let's hope control of the Democratic Party returns to the hands of the NORMAL people and not these ranting freaking fanatic kooks."

I think it's critical for this party to continue to fight for reproductive rights--which in M's book makes me an "anti-life" extremist, a vile hater. M declares him/herself "forced to go against" us because we're unacquainted with decency and are abnormal, ranting, freaking, fanatic kooks. I'd say M opened the door to merciless and mean on his/her own. I know I'm offended.

There are lots of Catholic Democrats who have expressed conservative pro-life views here at DU and I've been surprised at how few eyebrows have been raised about them. The rules don't allow me to "call them out" since they aren't posting in this thread, but some of them are rather obnoxious compared to Monocoque, who has been very mature and intelligent, in contrast to some of her critics.
I really don't understand all the anger towards Monocoque. Once again, I don't see that HE/SHE has made a big deal over the issue of choice.

Actually, if DU really cares about Catholic opposition to choice, why are so many DUers, including the admins telling me to lay off the Catholic hierarchy? THEY are the ones LEADING the opposition to choice!

... to the forces of ignorance? Are you saying, "Well, OK, there's this First Amendment thing, but so many people don't understand it and we have to be careful not to upset them?"

I hope you aren't saying that.

...to make some unusually obscure point with the pretense? You said that you've done a search of all of M's posts: can you quote directly any of it's actual opinions and positions that you consider to be liberal and not pure freepshit? Actual opinions and positions means: excluding the intentionally lame, smirking "I'm a Democrat" disclaimer. I challenge you...

You demanded of me,"Are you really that clueless or are you just pretending and trying to make some unusually obscure point with the pretense? You said that you've done a search of all of M's posts: can you quote directly any of it's actual opinions and positions that you consider to be liberal and not pure freepshit?"

All you have to do is read M's very first post, which reads:

2. "Tossing out God is bad politics

Can anyone please tell me why on earth Democrats are allowing themselves to be on the wrong side the 'God' issue??? Most Democrats I know are religious good people. All we need is to be known as the party that 'wants to get rid of God'. Couple this with the growing perception that we are somehow anti-defense and anti-patriotism.
The vast majority of us aren't like this. Why are we allowing those who are to make these decisions for us?"
and M's signature quotes our first President:

"Should our nation abridge the God who inspired her, her destiny as a nation is imperiled." --George Washington

If Democrats want to win elections in which 80% of the voters identify themselves as "Christians", they are damned fools if they will can do without HIDING if not actually disowning people like the DUers around here who speak as follows: (from this thread):

DisgustipatedinCA
post 3:
"But, and I want to try to be delicate here, keep your god THE FUCK out of my government and I'll keep mine out too. Is that fair enough?"
post 16:
Would you mind explaining to me how it is that I don't sound tolerant of others' religious beliefs? Need I point out that my argument was an issue of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, and not an issue of advocacy or demonization of any particular religion?

57. Thank you, Walt Starr
I am a spiritual person. I'm quite certain that I've read a good deal more on religion ... than most of the backwards inbred fuckheads who support this 2-ton abortion." (10 commandments monument)

Walt Starr:
49. If I had my way, that piece of shit rock would be blown up

It's a wotrthless piece of shit and needs to be removed NOW. It's illegal and I despise any fuck who wants to cram a desopicable and sick religion down my throat.
Post #40:
My problem with it is I find the very basis of Christianity
to be sick, depraved, and overall an abhorent religion on its face. I have that right and I also have the right not to be forced into the despicable religion by those who wish to cram their bullshit religion down my throat.

Post 43:
My problem was the requirement for human sacrifice and worshipping a corpse nailed to a tree.

That imagery always sickened me and is why I find the very basis of Christianity sick and depraved.

I can think of nothing more pornographic than sacrificing a human and then worshipping the dead man.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

45. THEN PUT THE FUCKING HUNK OF ROCK OUTSIDE A CHURCH

FOR FUCK'S SAKE! I have yet to find a single church in this coutnry that actually posts the fucking tripe anyway.
46. BTW, as far as I'm concerned, the fucks protesting

ARE worshipping the hunk of rock. 8 out of ten are bullshit anyway and every fucking society on the planet practices the other two without reading about it in a 2000 year old piece of shit book.

knight_of_the_star Sat Aug-23-03 04:07 AM Response to Reply #98
112. Get your head out of your ass
You are being such an ignorant arrogant prick it is unfuckingbelieveable. If you want to refer to someone in a post, it is generaly POLITE to refer to them by their SCREENAME, but I guess you would have a hard time understanding netiquette.

...where The Tombstoned One left it, claiming that if you're not allowed to mix your religion with government and force it on everyone, it's "Tossing out God". It's getting quite tedious...

Monocock is a DEAD FREEPER:



His works showed his dumb Freeper Ass for what it was.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Let's steer this discussion back to a rational discourse and away from name calling.

The history surrounding the Establishment Clause firmly supports the notion that no particular religion is to be favored. But the extreme idea that neither the State or Federal government may make reference to God or to acknowledge God as the source of our rights (and therefor our laws) has no basis in our history.


Since Everson vs. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court has relied on James Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance and Thomas Jefferson’s Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom as the best evidence regarding the meaning of the Establishment Clause.
Both Madison and Jefferson rely on “the Creator” and “God Almighty” respectively as the very foundation of the authority of these legislative acts. It makes no logical sense to try to stretch the doctrine of Separation of Church and State so far as to claim that those legislative acts initiated by Madison and Jefferson against Religious Establishments were actually impermissible establishments of religion (since both explicitly proclaim God Almighty as the source of their authority).

It should be noted that the monument in question has no reference to a particular religion - there is no Cross, no Star of David, nor any declaration that any particluar religion (Baptist, Episcipalian, Orthodox Jewish, Catholic, Hindu, or other) is the official (Established)religion of the State of Alabama. The idea that somehow our nation's reliance on the notion that law and rights are dervived from a power higher than humanity (be it "God Almighty", "Natures God", the "Creator", or simply the Judeo/Christian tradition) is actually a "church" from which the governments must be separated cannot be squared with a reading of our history.

A clever right-winger might one day place a monument to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in a court house which would have engraved on it Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance and Jefferson’s Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom with all those nasty references to "Almighty God" and then dare the Courts to claim that these displays were actually forbidden by the Establishment Clause. The sad thing is, I am sure they could find more than a few far-left judges who would be zealous enough to take the bait.

Let's steer this issue back to the center before we are the ones who are (if we allow it to happen -then rightfuly) painted as the know-nothing zealots.

MIKE

Is that this monument was placed specifically to advance the cause of a state religion.