…and this is a 
The town of Lockland, Ohio is another of those places that worships a graven idol, an ugly stone block with the ridiculous 10 commandments on it . They never read it, though, or they'd notice that Commandment #2 says they shouldn't worship graven idols…and actually, if they read them at all, they'd know that the only two that even come close to real laws in our nation are the ones that say don't kill and don't steal. The rest? Dross and superstition.
The town is being sued to have the nonsense removed, and of course the newspaper has to run a poll. Do you think that if we run this up to a good strong majority for removal that the city will send out a crew to dynamite the monstrosity?
Should Lockland be forced to remove the 10 Commandments from its town hall?
Yes 25.48%
No 74.52%
Politics
Comments
Posted by: formosus
|
October 7, 2009 9:23 AM
Wow. That monument isn't even attractively done. With most of the ten commandments monuments, you at least have some nice white marble carved by a professional. This set is just hideous.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 7, 2009 9:27 AM
Damn that is one horrendous "monument".
And it looks like shit too.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
October 7, 2009 9:29 AM
Yes 30.98%
No 69.02%
Posted by: Hideki
|
October 7, 2009 9:29 AM
Probably won't blow it up but voted anyway, you never know
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
October 7, 2009 9:33 AM
PZ, you just hate the Ten Commandments because you covet your neighbor's slave.
Posted by: shemp333
|
October 7, 2009 9:39 AM
Voted to have it removed... One question. I know it's in front of a town hall, but is it displayed on government property or private property? If it is private property they definitely have the right to display them. They could display a pic of the FSM if they wanted.
I'll have to go searchin' for the answer I guess.
By the way. This signing in is a pain in the ass. I had to try 5 times until it let me through. The first 4 it said I was FORBIDDEN. What gives?!?!
Posted by: Chiroptera
|
October 7, 2009 9:40 AM
From one of the first comments on that story:
If you're a firm believer...fine. If you're an athiest...fine. Let's just hope you don't turn into a tree when you die so they make you into paper and then print the Bible on you.
This is just weirdly funny.
Posted by: Denise
|
October 7, 2009 9:43 AM
I am glad I am not the only one who thinks it could be removed solely on the grounds the it is effing ugly.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
October 7, 2009 9:49 AM
@Chiroptera
The unfunny commenter who wrote that is also unoriginal and obviously a Dane Cook fan.
Posted by: brianjordan
|
October 7, 2009 9:52 AM
Now 44.57 Yes. A way to go, but still climbing.
Posted by: mck9
|
October 7, 2009 10:08 AM
The one about bearing false witness is also embodied in the laws about perjury, libel, and slander.
Posted by: Doug Little
|
October 7, 2009 10:09 AM
Just broke the 50% barrier. Poll is officially Pharyngulated!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 7, 2009 10:11 AM
Which means he is more than likely, a total fucking meathead and dumbass.
Posted by: Doug Little
|
October 7, 2009 10:11 AM
Signing in under Typepad worked first time for me. No Problems.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 7, 2009 10:17 AM
Hmm, seems this is part of a bigger complaint over apparent discrimination. We will have to keep watching and see if there is anything to that. Or whether the guy is just trying to cause trouble. I hate newspapers...they are so irritatingly vague.
Posted by: iasasai
|
October 7, 2009 10:22 AM
Something close to home!
And it's nice to see that the poll has already swung back to favoring sense - 55% for removal!!
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid
|
October 7, 2009 10:23 AM
engraven idols?
Posted by: politas
|
October 7, 2009 10:25 AM
Well on the way to thorough Pharungulation. Currently 57% Yes
Posted by: Evolving Squid
|
October 7, 2009 10:32 AM
Had to sign in under typepad 3 times to make it work, but it seems to be functioning now.
Posted by: Zifnab
|
October 7, 2009 10:33 AM
Well, that or the newspaper. Freak'n liberal media!
Posted by: Eric
|
October 7, 2009 10:37 AM
I voted "yes" of course, but it's things like this that give us atheists a bad name. The sign was up there for ages until this guy suddenly noticed it and became instantly offended; quite honestly I'd probably walk right past it without giving it a second glance.
I mean, it's like "Merry Christmas": Since (to me) Christmas has no religious meaning and is purely a secular event, I'm not bothered by such greetings. "Merry Christmas" is akin to "Good Morning" in my book, and the 10 Commandments are no different.
And $500,000 in punitive damages? Really? Did the sign fall on him & cause injury? Was their malicious intent on the sign's part? Was he somehow assaulted by the sign?
Even if he wins his case and the sign is removed, the only thing x-tians will think is that the guy is just an asshole. If we atheists are to advance our cause, this isn't really the way to go about it.
Posted by: ArmandTanzarian
|
October 7, 2009 10:40 AM
Done and done. "Yes" is the majority now.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 7, 2009 10:44 AM
Your concern is noted and rejected. We need to get religion and religious monuments out of the public sphere, and back where it belongs, in churches and homes.Posted by: formosus
|
October 7, 2009 10:51 AM
@7,9,13 re: Dane Cook joke
The most annoying part of that joke is that it could be quite funny. A person with the woo-soaked belief that they turn into a tree when they're done deserves to be mocked. But Dane Cook is a shitty comedian, and his delivery is terrible. I mean, think about if Louis CK told that joke. Replace 'Atheist' with 'New Age moron' and 'Bible' with 'Science Textbook' and you have the premise for a great joke.
Posted by: Alverant
|
October 7, 2009 10:56 AM
I disagree on how the commandants against stealing, killing, and lying are part of our laws. 1) those taboos existed before the OT and NT were written 2) as George Carlin pointed out those commandants are flexible, "it all depends on who's doing the killing and who's getting killed" and all of us know that to many christians lying for Jessus is acceptable.
Posted by: Sgt. Obvious
|
October 7, 2009 10:56 AM
If you think about it, though, isn't stealing one of Dane Cook's jokes a sort of poetic justice?
Posted by: Trug
|
October 7, 2009 11:05 AM
Voted yes, numbers are looking good.
I do agree with #21 about the damages portion of the lawsuit though. I can see that the sign needs to come down, but to try for $500K? That's just greedy. It would have been better to sue just to get the offensive thing taken away.
Posted by: ButchKitties
|
October 7, 2009 11:07 AM
It's funny how the Commandments that coincide with our laws are not at all exclusive to Judeo-Christian belief. It doesn't take divine revelation to figure out that societies function better if murder and theft are outlawed, and the Hebrews were not the first group to notice this. Pretty much every law code ever has addressed those issues in one way or another.
There are a few Commandments that are exclusively Judeo-Christian, and wouldn't you know it? When the Commandment is exclusive to Abrahamic religion, we have a specifically enumerated right to break it. The First Commandment and the First Amendment are in direct opposition to one another, and we all know which of the two is legally binding.
Posted by: Heinen
|
October 7, 2009 11:19 AM
As you command!
Yes (3939) 68.61%
No (1802) 31.39%
Utterly pharyngulated
Posted by: Kausik Datta
|
October 7, 2009 11:19 AM
Those who find the $500K damages exorbitant probably did not read through the description of the lawsuit. From the linked article,
IMO it is more of a discrimination lawsuit albeit with religious underpinnings.Posted by: Bob L
|
October 7, 2009 11:21 AM
Good going on the city of Lockland's part. They made the 10 commandment's look like a trash can. You think they could have shown some style and had a carving of Charlton Heston coming down from the mountain and handing them out like the Supreme Court has, but no, just saw a trash can in two and paint them on.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
October 7, 2009 11:27 AM
The comments are humorously pathetic. One gent tried to say the first and second laws of thermodynamics proves the existence of god. When called on it, and asked to state those laws, he drolly replies: "I'm sorry you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics."
Hah-hah! That's such a good one.
Unfortunately, that seems to be typical of the level of "debate" in the comments.
The more I learn about people, the more I dislike the majority of them. I find myself wishing the Christians were correct, and that god would hurry up and rapture their asses, and raise the average IQ by 50 points.
Armageddon and an eternity in hell would be a small price to pay.
Posted by: JackC
|
October 7, 2009 11:29 AM
Odd it seems that the Supreme Court will also be deciding the case of the cross in the Mojave desert - written about extensively in Peter Irons' book "God on Trial"
JC
Posted by: Creature of the Universe
|
October 7, 2009 11:35 AM
Eradication by dynamite would be my preference but the tree would have to be protected. A good ole demolition by several jack-hammers would work very well too. (or just pull the darn thing out using an old pickup truck and chains....and drag the whole mess to the town dump)
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
October 7, 2009 11:38 AM
Yes - (3049) 63.14%
No - (1780) 36.86%
Total Votes: 4829
Posted by: bobxxxx
|
October 7, 2009 11:41 AM
Should Lockland be forced to remove the 10 Commandments from its town hall?
Yes (4507) 71.25%
No (1819) 28.75%
Total Votes: 6326
1,819 Christian theocrats in one town. That's disgraceful.
What's the difference between a Christian theocrat and a Muslim terrorist?
Nothing.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
October 7, 2009 11:42 AM
Woops, they showed me the results from when I opened the window, not the current results. Current tally is:
Yes (4622) 71.74%
No (1821) 28.26%
Total Votes: 6443
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 7, 2009 11:49 AM
I like how they worded the question -- or, rather, I don't like how they worded the question. Should "Lockland" be "forced" to remove something from its (very own, personal) town hall? As if the city were a monolithic thing, a person who is of one heart, one mind, and one religion, and some outsider (that is, a resident) is going to come in and commit an act of violence against it, right in its own home, and take away its stuff.
All the city wants is to do its own thing, and citizens are hurling constitutional principles at it. What meanies. How rude.
Leave Lockland alone! Waaah!
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
October 7, 2009 11:50 AM
Can I not have a strong opinion on this one and still be a True AtheistTM?
It seems to me that getting hung up on stuff like non-secular ugly monuments is a waste. How does it make you do something or prevent you from doing anything?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 7, 2009 12:07 PM
Well there is this little thing called the Constitution.
But fuck it.
Who needs that?
Posted by: Unaspammer
|
October 7, 2009 12:08 PM
The court case I would like to see is the one where a city government gets in trouble for selling the land displaying the ten commandments to an interested private citizen, to avoid having to remove them.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
October 7, 2009 12:19 PM
It's not obvious that the constitution forbids this.
"Establishment of religion"? Really?
What do you suppose the authors of the Bill of Rights meant by that phrase?
Posted by: Rev. El Mundo de Guevara
|
October 7, 2009 12:21 PM
See comment#34. My only other recommendation would be to have a marching band on hand to play a cheerful song as the piece of shit is dragged off to the landfill.
One more thing: I hope tha landfill that's chosen was rated favorably by the EPA to hold toxic materials because this piece of dung is much more toxic than asbestos.
~Rev. El Mundo
Posted by: FreeThinkingHard
|
October 7, 2009 12:21 PM
There's a danger here in looking like we're petty cranks on religiosity and tradition. It's not a blatant vehicle for government-sponsored Christianity when no one notices it until someone gets hung up on the hypocrisy of the town displaying supposed Christian values while the it violates them in its small-town, day-to-day minor law enforcement.
But the wall separating church and state needs maintenance. Here's a tiny hole in it, but one that's become an unconsidered commonplace in Lockland's civic life til now. As a principle of Constitutional integrity and secular governance, it's got to go, along with so many other little cracks in that wall. As a teaching point (if the message can get out), it's a lesson that a religion-driven pattern of government can slip in subtly, quietly, in ugly little ignored monuments as much as in Big Headline Issues.
Posted by: MrFire
|
October 7, 2009 12:28 PM
Well-said.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 7, 2009 12:28 PM
I'll trust the bulk of Supreme court rulings on this subject, that this is an establishment of support for the religions that use the ten Commandments and there for violates the establishment clause.
Do you think they'd put up the Dharmaśāstra or Sharia?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 7, 2009 12:31 PM
ugh
therefore, no space.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
October 7, 2009 12:34 PM
My classification of atheist issues (not necessarily comprehensive):
Issues where there must be no compromise
Teaching science
Not teaching superstition
Official oaths and pledges of any kind
Equal rights issues
Issues which must be addressed but where there can be compromise
Anything to do with government funding
Petty bullshit
This monument
A cross or something on some town's coat of arms
See what I'm driving at here, even if you'd break it down different?
Posted by: JackC
|
October 7, 2009 12:34 PM
Have a peek at Irons' book noted above - it specifically goes over the cases involved with the Mojave Cross - over the past 80 years or so. It is really depressing.
Long and short of it - the (Public) land surrounding a cross was sold to a private party to avoid the litigation involved in an order to have it removed.
And it gets worse from there.
JC
Posted by: sqlrob
|
October 7, 2009 12:37 PM
How about the federal government?
Posted by: bobxxxx
|
October 7, 2009 12:44 PM
Abdul Alhazred (#48), since when did not respecting our constitution become "Petty bullshit"?
Posted by: Anri
|
October 7, 2009 12:45 PM
Well, I'm not exactly sure, but as the Rev. BDC noted, we're pretty certain what modern legal interpretation of that phrase means, and this seems in pretty clear violation of that.
Standard disclaimer, IANAL, ignorant of specifics of relavant caselaw, yadda yadda...
Posted by: Rev. El Mundo de Guevara
|
October 7, 2009 12:48 PM
See comment#34. My only other recommendation would be to have a marching band on hand to play a cheerful song as the piece of shit is dragged off to the landfill.
One more thing: I hope the landfill that's chosen was rated favorably by the EPA to hold toxic materials because this piece of dung is much more toxic than asbestos.
~Rev. El Mundo
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 7, 2009 12:52 PM
So you consider the establishment clause petty bullshit.
OK, got it.
Can you go ahead and lay out what other parts of the bill of rights you think are petty bullshit?
The Forth amendment maybe? Unreasonable search and seizure?(they're just trying to catch the bad guys! It's petty to feel violated that I was pulled over because I had a Grateful Dead sticker on my car).
By allowing towns to do this sort of thing it is what opens the door to your personal "I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE" list you provided above.
Explain to me the difference in practice with a town hall promoting Christianity on their property (paid with everyone's tax dollars mind you) and asking a government employee pledge an oath or say a prayer?
When you're done there, explain how this isn't an equal rights issue (hint: Dharmaśāstra or Sharia?).
Posted by: Anri
|
October 7, 2009 1:00 PM
A good example being that we derive laws or morality from an ancient holy book of some sort, yes...?
Because we can be certain that a monument stating that there is no god would be equally welcome....
right?
Given that there was no government action involved in... what? On government land? At the taxpayer's expense?
Oh... um, ok.
I think the problem is not that we don't get where you're coming from, just that we don't agree with you.
I might be wrong, though.
Posted by: shatfat
|
October 7, 2009 1:12 PM
I don't have enough time in my day to bother with a fake login to that Cincinnati paper. Otherwise I would have asked the Christians there why they keep saying "Jesus, Jesus" when the commandments clearly state "you shall have no other gods before me [Yahweh]"?
Oh, and apropos of nothing, Lilith and Asherah need to form a First Wives Club.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
October 7, 2009 1:16 PM
This is "establishment of religion"?
De minimis non curat lex
Petty bullshit. This is why we will lose when the important stuff comes up.
Posted by: shatfat
|
October 7, 2009 1:18 PM
The missing option is:
No, they should be shamed into removing it.
I'm thinking some Hindu-inspired rituals to take PZ's comments to their absurd logical conclusion--treat it like a lingam. Surround with garlands of flowers, bath in honey and milk, hold a two-day festival with face paint and street food. Build a temporary pagoda for it and strew it with garlands and prayer requests (Japanese style). Play some high medieval Christian tunes, like gaudete, christus ist natus mixed in with some baudy numbers, a la Carmina Burana.
End the festival with some stirring agit prop. From a podium a particularly thick-skinned provocateur will give a Poey speech on the commandments, delving into each one and its supposed connection to US law, and ending with a jeremiad against the OTHER ten commandments (whichever one is not carved in stone in OH) as a perfidious communist-catholic-zionist-illuminati plot. The talk will end with staged heckling by "audience members" who denounce the speaker as an ignorant Calvinist stooge who doesn't keep Kosher laws.
After that, they might scuttle away with their silly stone idol for good. Well, I can dream.
Posted by: RichardMNixon
|
October 7, 2009 1:19 PM
Eh, my political philosophy is firstly to leave well enough alone. Are they really hurting anything? They're as much a cultural icon as a religious one now, certainly most Christians don't even bother with the sabbath one. Doesn't seem worth the cost of removal to me. I also don't see what they have to do with rottweiler attack or police discrimination. Are police discriminating against him because he's an atheist? And he thinks that will change if he gets rid of their commandments?
I agree they're pretty hideous, but the town hall doesn't look like it would win any architecture awards either...
Posted by: Bobber
|
October 7, 2009 1:21 PM
How fortunate you are to live at this point in history, in this part of the world.
The American Revolution began a little more than 125 years after the end of the Thirty Year's War, when millions died as a result of the mingling of religion with government. Differences in religion have caused, or have been used to justify, oppression, slavery, and mass murder. There is a reason for the First Amendment, and if you can justify the erection of religious monuments on public property because most people believe in the validity of the Ten Commandments, then you obviously have no problem with a town that is 95% Christian and 5% Jewish setting up a cross, complete with nailed Jesus, in the front lobby of the town hall. After all, most citizens of the town believe in Jesus.
Government is there to represent the interests of ALL the people as best it can. It can't do that if it declares, through a monument, a preference for one group over another. A government employee should be free to live his or her life according to the Ten Commandments, but in no way should anyone have cause to believe that public policy might be made based on them - and that's what this monument does.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
October 7, 2009 1:22 PM
#58
I'll go for that.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
October 7, 2009 1:24 PM
#60
What a sorry self-righteous peroration.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
October 7, 2009 1:27 PM
Actually, it is obvious this tasteless monument is forbidden by the establishment clause. As for the intention behind the establishment clause, it was meant as a wall separating government from any particular church. Thinking that the 10 Commandments don't breach that wall is the same as thinking the U.S.A. is a Christian nation; Christian zealots think using religious propaganda shared by most Christian sects and using such a general word as "Christian" in government matters are impartial acts that do not violate the establishment clause since they don't advocate a particular brand of Christianity.Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
October 7, 2009 1:28 PM
#60
I cannot see Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine getting the screaming whim-whams about this monument.
You're fortunate to live at a time when you have the luxury of getting worked up over piddly-ass shit.
Posted by: shatfat
|
October 7, 2009 1:28 PM
I'm not sure what Abdul sees as 'important stuff', but it seems like any ground we cede becomes the passage to ram the invading hordes through. The armed forces have chaplains, so now we have serious proselytizing in the military and religious nuts carrying out a jihad in occupied territories. (Yeah, that should be awesome for our foreign relations in the future.) We had "Nature's God" in the Declaration of Indepedence so now we have "ceremonial deism", ie, no room for atheists in public life.
Do you think we're unreasonable? What about the Muslims who want Muhammed's image covered in the relief of "the Lawgivers" in the Supreme Court building? Non-Muslims would like to see the historical carving unmolested. But it's a religion, can't offend 'em? Hell, Ashcroft draped Blind Justice at great expense because he was offended by her bare boob (which symbolizes Truth--clearly, it was blinding his tender Goddist eyes). Who's assaulting a public monument now?
We only have freedom from religion in this country because we have been aggressive about fighting the theocrats in court. Don't be naive about these ten commandment monuments--they come from the heart of the Christian dominionist movement, as part of a propaganda strategy to replace our civil rule of law with the Bible in the minds of the public.
IMO, as American atheists and agnostics, this is the most important work we do. Your mileage may differ...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 7, 2009 1:34 PM
Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus
We get it. You think the establishment clause is petty.
Maybe you should give Roy Moore a call and tell him how petty you think it is that the Supreme court ruled against him.
Posted by: CJO
|
October 7, 2009 1:37 PM
This is why we will lose when the important stuff comes up.
Wait, what? Among the issues you identify as non-petty is science education. How are we doing? Are we losing because we got the 10 commandments taken down from a courthouse? This isn't the first time this has come up, and it's clear that it represents an official recognition of a particular religious view, which tacitly excludes other religious views, including secularism, which, yes, amounts to "establishment."
I just don't get what you're trying to say. You also identify equal rights (for atheists I assume) issues as important non-bullshit concerns. What about equal rights for Muslims and Hindus and Shamans and whoever else in the justice system? Why should they have to stand before a display of others' religious commandments when they seek justice from a secular judiciary? It may be largely symbolic, or a perception issue, but you're fooling yourself if you think symbols and perceptions are irrelevant when it comes to governance and the prosecution of justice.
This is how we will show we mean business before other stuff comes up. Some of it will be more important, yes. But I fail to see how hiding our views and generally appeasing wannabe theocrats in out of the way places puts us in a stronger position "when the important stuff comes up."
Posted by: Bobber
|
October 7, 2009 1:38 PM
To have made that entertaining you needed to repalce "peroration" with a word that begins with an "s". Otherwise, your non-argument is noted and discarded.
I'm sorry, I missed the part where there were crowds of atheists staging theatric protests around the monument, and haranguing passers-by while burning copies of the Bible. Your threshold for "screaming whim-whamism" is very, very low. As far as Jefferson and Paine, I'll not play that game.
I'm not worked up, although I see you are no stranger to projection. No, I'm merely giving you advance warning for when that inch becomes a mile, and then you wonder where the secular republic disappeared to.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
October 7, 2009 1:39 PM
What do I think important?
I quote myself (see above)
In short, anything that compels religion or constrains atheism.
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 7, 2009 1:41 PM
Abdul Alhazred #57 wrote:
It's not really petty if it's invariably used as the 'clincher' argument, when the important stuff comes up.
Mottoes and monuments have symbolic value. Symbols don't actually do things themselves; they only stand for principles shared by a group. Their practical value then -- their power and force -- comes into play when they're used to buttress or support an argument by indicating the common ground we all share, as part of the group. In this case, the United States.
It is very hard to find any important or significant violation of church-state separation which doesn't have its advocates referring to either "In God We Trust," "One Nation Under God," or 10 Commandment monuments like this one -- not just as examples of places where they got away with it, but as the actual principles of the United States. God exists, and we are under Him -- and His laws. The rest follows.
Basic principles can't be petty. Mottoes and monuments are only 'petty' if they're not really taken as principles, but as anachronisms, works of art, or cultural icons which don't actually mean anything, they're just fun, interesting, traditional, or part of the landscape.
That may be how we may personally choose to take them -- by putting up a cute traditional manger scene under our "Christmas" tree, say -- but that's not how most people take them. I suspect that until and unless you've been repeatedly confronted with the problem of arguing that the National Motto doesn't really mean what it says -- it's just culturally interesting -- when you're trying to fight against what you consider a real problem, then you're going to underestimate the 'petty' problem of symbols.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 7, 2009 1:42 PM
And on what do you base that amazing claim? Your need to defend your viewpoint?
Posted by: Nemo
|
October 7, 2009 1:43 PM
Gotta love the "Zoom" button on that page.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 7, 2009 1:44 PM
And this government display of an unarguably religious set of rules isn't doing this how?
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
October 7, 2009 1:48 PM
A. How do you know? Just because you can't see something doesn't make it not so. Michael Behe can't see how the baterial flaggelum evolved, and yet it did.
B. Even so, what makes the framers' original feelings about that law more relevant than modern interpretations?
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
October 7, 2009 1:49 PM
The monument just sits there. It doesn't make you do anything.
Sorry to make you cry.
Posted by: Dreamer
|
October 7, 2009 1:49 PM
I wish these articles would include a listing and explanation of the Ten Commandments.
You know, like respecting the Sabbath and keeping it holy? I wonder if Lockland closes all businesses on Sunday.
How about "No gods before me"? (#1) Do they allow non-Christians into the town? They're sinning!
Only four of the ten commandments can reasonably be called "basis of law". The remainder are about idols, the sabbath, one god only, etc.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 7, 2009 1:49 PM
I have to correct myself here.
That would be District court.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
October 7, 2009 1:50 PM
Since this ugly trash-can of a monument cannot be seriously taken as a work of art, part of the landscape, or just for fun/interest, it is going to be really hard to argue for keeping it. It is plainly an "In your face, atheists!" kind of statement.Posted by: Anri
|
October 7, 2009 1:51 PM
Hey, AA's got a point here... if these guys had really thought that the seperation of church and state was important, they would have made sure to write it down somewhere.
Maybe even mention it somewhere in the law, possibly someplace prominent, like near the beginning of a section or something.
Pity they forgot to do that, really.
Posted by: shatfat
|
October 7, 2009 1:51 PM
I cannot see Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine getting the screaming whim-whams about this monument.
I guess you don't know much about them, then.
Remember that part in the Constitution where they stated there would be no religious test for office?
England had been through a series of religious upheavals, and with each new monarch/dictator there had been a new official religion and accompanying purge of government officials/employees who adhered to the wrong creed.
Paine was especially revolted by what he saw as government and monarchical tyranny. I don't think he would have taken very kindly to a government telling him how he should worship. (He was in exile for much of his life for his outspoken views, having to flee from country to country to escape prosecution.)
Jefferson wrote while president that the USA was "in no way founded on the Christian religion". He was trying to broker a treaty with a Muslim nation at the time. Do you think he would have appreciated Christian monuments in the Capitol belying his diplomatic aims? I doubt it.
In the Federal triangle, the Supreme Court building has an image honoring "the Lawgivers" including Moses and Mohammed. There isn't actually an engraved "ten commandments" because the idea behind the carving is that these men conveyed the idea of law, rather than specific laws themselves (which, of course, are in the Constitution--duh!). After all, the US was a new nation with a new government, and hence went to the drawing board and designed new laws.
In other words, saying US law comes from the Bible is disrespectful of the founders who sweated out over many conferences over many years how to construct a constitution--which, by the by, was used as a template for many other countries in the centuries to come. In a very real sense, the US Constitution has only one antecedant--the Magna Carta--although that document is much more limited. We take it for granted now that so many countries have constitutions. Countries without, like the UK, look like oddballs. (There's a movement in the UK to adopt a constitution, though their body of law mostly amounts to the same thing, now.) Well, before the US, constitutions were a theoretical construct debated by political radicals! In the 18th century, most countries worldwide were ruled by kings.
It's a great thing that governance worldwide has improved since the 18th century, but it's a shame that we can piss on our heritage like this and take it for granted. No, supplanting the Constitution and the Founders (and their guiding philosophical leaders across the pond in France and England, as well as the local influence of the Iriquois Confederacy who had a republican form of government) with the Bible and Christianity is no petty matter.
Was it a petty matter when Iran adopted Sharia law in 1979?
Oh, and IMO the Supreme Court's relief is a romanticized, mainline Protestant view of history. It ignores real lawgivers like Hammurabi and Solon. And, oh heck, Napoleon, politically "hot" as he might be. (State of La., there ya go.)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 7, 2009 1:52 PM
sigh
You obviously don't have an argument beyond acting like a child, just give up.
Posted by: CJO
|
October 7, 2009 1:53 PM
Sorry to make you cry.
Don't flatter yourself, pissant.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
October 7, 2009 1:53 PM
Sorry to make you cry.I'm not crying. I'm groaning over your block-headedness.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 7, 2009 1:53 PM
AA just refuses to get it. But then, nothing he says is of interest to us either.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 7, 2009 1:54 PM
It makes me wonder why my secular government is identifying with a religion.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
October 7, 2009 1:56 PM
Enjoy your suicide cult without me please.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
October 7, 2009 1:56 PM
blockqoute fail. (Now I'm crying.)
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
October 7, 2009 1:56 PM
Kindly stand in front of all of the Jewish, Muslim, Hindu etc. parents of soldiers who died serving their country and have to be memorialized by a monument that extols a religion that wants to see them all wiped out and converted to Christianity and say that, thanks.
The small stuff is what creates the milieu that allows people to say "America is a Christian country" with straight faces, and then legislate accordingly. As Sastra just pointed out, the small stuff is what justifies the big stuff. The small stuff is the constant, neverending drops in the bucket that spill over and cause laws like DADT and DOMA. Justifiable anger is not a nonrenewable resource. Using it on monuments won't use it all up, I promise. Pointing out the hundreds of small ways that every religion and nonreligion but Christianity is marginalized in this country is important.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 7, 2009 1:57 PM
And why they have such a disdain for the Constitution bolstered by decades of court rulings.
Posted by: Bobber
|
October 7, 2009 1:57 PM
Yeah, the historically- and constitutionally-ignorant comments of do-nothing cheerleader secularists always bring tears to my eyes.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 7, 2009 1:59 PM
IMO, that would be the optimal solution. You are the first atheist I've met that I think is completely moronic regarding this particular issue. I also think you're a bit full of yourself for reasons unknown to this thread. Oh yeah, and...
As far as "petty" goes - ur doin it rite.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 7, 2009 2:02 PM
Suicide cult?
Seems to me that not only do you know shit about the constitution, you don't know shit about atheism.
Are you really a religious loon in disguise?
Come on little guy, fess up.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 7, 2009 2:05 PM
I've also gotten the impression from reading the posts that this poster is early in their years, and perhaps not being completely honest regarding their philosophical position.
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 7, 2009 2:06 PM
Abdul Alhazred #75 wrote:
No; as I said, it just inspires, encourages, and justifies the people who do want us to 'do something.'
I've got a question for you: what if, instead of someone wanting the monument to be removed, there was no monumnet, and instead someone was agitating that they should get one? The 10 Commandments needs to be on the courthouse lawn. Would you support it, or at least go along with it?
Or would you be arguing that no, we ought to leave well enough alone, and just leave the space empty as before? Don't mess with starting up a lot of nonsense.
An argument then, not on basic principles of freedom, but based on the principle of inertia.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
October 7, 2009 2:09 PM
Please don't go AA! You're my favorite concern troll today.
:,-(
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
October 7, 2009 2:13 PM
There is no God (or gods). That is atheism. I have no doubt in my mind it is a fact.
Your party line on top of that is not atheism, it is merely your party line.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
October 7, 2009 2:15 PM
A concern troll? You mean not a Real AtheistTM?
http://abdul-alhazred.mee.nu/
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 7, 2009 2:16 PM
Ok then explain what you meant by suicide cult? I have no "party line" I was reacting you your ridiculous charge of suicide cult.
And when you are done actually address the arguments laid out above instead of continuing to dodge and cry because you don't like it.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 7, 2009 2:19 PM
You can be an atheists and a concern troll at the same time.
Now instead of screaming about taking your ball and going home (yet still coming back) how about actually addressing the various arguments put forth by Sastra, Carlie, Shatfat and myself among others
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
October 7, 2009 2:23 PM
Then what's with the snide suicide cult remark? We do things that make Christians, who happen to be the majority, mad, so we are suicidal for doing it? Why, that would mean you are a faitheist.Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 7, 2009 2:24 PM
You speak with such authority. Outstanding!
IMO, the opinions I've read from you are complete rubbish. Oh yeah, and your comment at #96 doesn't really address the spirit of the comment at #92. Something about a suicide cult I think was the point.
Whatever dude. If you have such weak reasoning and a fickle stance regarding the constitution, you're no high climber in my book. Take your authority, put it in your Abdul pipe, and schmoak schmoak schmoak.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 7, 2009 2:31 PM
Perhaps he's implying that if there are no gods, then there's no point to life. Atheists might as well all just commit suicide. I mean come on, what's the point of living?
Just a wild guess.
Posted by: sqlrob
|
October 7, 2009 2:35 PM
Really?
“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity” Thomas Paine
Posted by: kopd
|
October 7, 2009 2:35 PM
There is no God (or gods). That is atheism. -Abdul Alhazred
Well, yes and no. More accurately, atheism is: I'm not convinced there is a god or gods (up to and including the position that there indeed are none).
Atheism is not an assertion that the supernatural unequivocally do not exist. It is the rejection of bald assertions that they do exist. Your definition excludes agnostic atheists.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
October 7, 2009 2:36 PM
Urban Dictionay lists 5 definitions for Concern Troll. Check out definition #4:
Looks to me like the show fits. (While you're at it, also check out definition #2. That one fits you to a tee almost as well.)
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
October 7, 2009 2:38 PM
In the part of the world where I come from, display of religious messages on public propert is routine.
And the intent is clear: this is state endorsed. You have no freedom of conscience.
I think it is important to make a position when governments get involved blatantly in matters of conscience. To theocrats, silence means acquiescence.
Anyone who doesn't care of course can stay away. It doesn't make this a worthless cause. There are many things I don't care about but I don't demonise those who do. And frankly I don't see what is "suicidal" about dissent, unless you are living under the inquisition.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
October 7, 2009 2:41 PM
Perhaps, but that would be stupid. (grin) Point or no point, it only happens once. I would think that knowledge would inspire people to want to hang on as long as possible.Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 7, 2009 2:46 PM
And I for one like to think of a flip-side to the definition. That would be something to the effect that all things being equal, religion has shown itself consistently to be a hideous evil concoction meant to divide and control using fear, ignorance, and indiscriminate brutal violence if necessary. It must be challenged at all times in all places, but especially as it attempts to leach into secular government.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 7, 2009 2:53 PM
I completely agree.
Someone thinking gods are real, however, would not. I've heard the quip before from religious people. Basically asking the question: "...well what's the point of living if God doesn't exist?" - or some more elaborate illogical gyration. They are so in love with themselves and their concept of "higher power" that their egos make life and the act of living unimportant in comparison. They simply can't imagine how anyone could find purpose without those things.
Posted by: John Marley
|
October 7, 2009 2:57 PM
Related:
I heard a similar story on NPR this morning.
This is what started it:
WTF do xians find so hard to understand about this issue?
Posted by: John Marley
|
October 7, 2009 3:02 PM
That very issue is part of the case I mention in comment #110.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 7, 2009 3:04 PM
It's all part of the bigger "WTF do some Christians find so hard to understand about a lot of things" picture.
Posted by: bobxxxx
|
October 7, 2009 3:06 PM
We lose important stuff? Can you provide just one example?
I noticed science education has always won in court. For example there was the Dover trial.
I suggest do not be so willing to suck up to Christians. They will take advantage of that while laughing at you for being a wimp.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 7, 2009 3:06 PM
John, come on man. The reason the request was refused is obvious. Everybody knows that Buddhism is wrong and xtianity is right. Geesh.
You need to get right with jesus brother.
Seriously though, I read about that one too. I'm with you. What's not to understand? They do like to take every opportunity to proselytize though don't they? They just are so certain they're right, and they know what's best for everyone else. IMO, that's all they're trying to accomplish with crap like this. In their mind, it's just a matter of gettin' the Word out.
They are creepy, deluded people in my view.
Posted by: kopd
|
October 7, 2009 3:07 PM
@lose_the_woo in #108
I agree with every bit of that. I was just pointing out that it's not necessary in order to be a "True Atheist." :-)
Posted by: Tulse
|
October 7, 2009 3:09 PM
In a word: windows. Specifically broken and Overton.
Even if one sees this as a minor issue (which I personally don't), I think the justification for addressing it is similar to the principle behind the Broken Window Theory of policing: If you don't attack the visible small issues, people are encouraged to engage in bigger and bigger violations. By letting these casual violations of the Separation Clause stand, you are essentially giving ground. By fighting against this, even if it seems petty and extreme to you and your opponents, you push the Overton window further toward secularism.
Posted by: John Marley
|
October 7, 2009 3:11 PM
I was beaten to it a few times.
Heh, I guess I should read the entire thread before commenting.
Posted by: MikeyM
|
October 7, 2009 3:23 PM
These are the Catholic Ten Commandments, which means both good news and bad news for the town:
Bad news because it's even more clear that the monument endorses one religion (Catholic) over another (Protestant)
Good news because the commandment barring graven images (this monument) isn't in the Catholic version.
Posted by: John M
|
October 7, 2009 3:56 PM
Heading towards 90% now
I enjoy just about everything on this blog - 'Pharyngulation' she ze best.
Posted by: Bob L
|
October 7, 2009 4:10 PM
Abdul Alhazred #75 wrote "No; as I said, it just inspires, encourages, and justifies the people who do want us to 'do something.'"
Don't be willfully ignorant; the Christians Domonists sit around in their own little closed communities and circle jerk to lies about the evil atheists. They spent the whole 70s, 80s, 90s fighting a strawman atheist who never existed. If they want justification for their actions they will just manufacture one like they have in the past.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
October 7, 2009 4:15 PM
I'm still wondering how wanting the town to remove a blatantly religious, not to mention ugly, monument makes me a member of a suicide cult.
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 7, 2009 5:01 PM
Bob L #120 wrote:
something -- but then you're quoting my response to him from #94, so I'm not sure if you're addressing him or me. I'll assume it's me.
Probably; but not all Christians are Dominionists, or hardliners who create the lies. Many if not most simply follow an easy or plausible lie created for them. The "petty" little symbolic expressions which link together church and state -- such as having "In God We Trust" as the national motto -- actually help them build up a reasonable case that it's fine for the United States, as a country, to go on and act according to the "God" it has already officially acknowledged.
A lot of people are swayed by that argument, because it does seem to follow. The courts claiming that it's just "ceremonial Deism" fools no one. It's probably not going to be a mistake then to do the right thing, and not hand them a very nice rope to hang us with, on the theory that they'd just weave together a crappy piece of string without it.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
October 7, 2009 5:02 PM
There's plenty of reason to get rid of these religious monuments on public property. The monotheists are a bunch of holier-than-thou bullies, and they've gotten away with this shit for far too long. It's overdue that people start pushing back.
Just listen to 'em do the victim whine every time something like this comes up and it's apparent they need to be given boundaries.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
October 7, 2009 5:07 PM
Huh ... well the Constitution is certainly not based on any religious guff nor are most laws (Federal or State). There are probably still many religiously inspired laws though and they need to be struck down - most of them only promote bigotry, hatred, and inequality.
I'm pretty sure the "don't screw your neighbor's wife" is another commandment which is a law in many places, but that's grounds for a civil suit not a criminal case, and stoning isn't allowed.
Posted by: Marcm2k
|
October 7, 2009 5:39 PM
Wouldn't the 10 commandments - carved in stone represent a graven idol? I mean, it's not actually their god, and it is carved in stone. To make monuments to them, isn't that breaking their own commandment?
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 7, 2009 5:51 PM
It's ok though, remember, xtians are forgiven.
Pretty neato trick, huh...?
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
October 7, 2009 5:52 PM
Note how the wording of the poll is subtly muddied to make different people think different things. People are not necessarily answering whether, in general, religious monuments should be displayed on public grounds, but whether a particular locality should be forced to remove its religious monument.
Based on this wording, there are a number of conceivable arguments possibly running through the minds of "No" voters that hardly reveal what they think about the separation of church and state as a concept or general policy:
[1] While I believe in the separation of church and state, and I would emphatically vote not to erect this monument, I also believe that, under our Constitutional system, each state has the jurisdiction to decide such matters for itself. I do not believe that the federal government should force this locality to remove the monument.
[2] While I believe in the separation of church and state, since the monument is already up, I do not believe this locality should simply be forced to remove it. Rather I believe that they should be given an option either to remove it, or to display a number of other historical depictions or tributes to other religions alongside of it, so as not to advance one particular religion, and to conform to the most recent of Supreme Court rulings on such matters.
[3] While I personally would vote not to erect this monument on public grounds, as I believe in a wholly secular government, I do not believe this particular locality should be forced to remove its display, as the Constitution's Establishment Clause does not actually cover such displays.
While I reject all three arguments, I think it must be noted that we cannot infer that people who vote "No" necessarily believe that the monument is in its proper place. The wording of the poll is likely designed to confuse people.
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 7, 2009 5:53 PM
Marcm2k #125 wrote:
No, for the same reason a spiritual hierarchy of Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Mother of God, the Devil, angels, demons, and thousands of saints all with different roles to play is referred to as "monotheism."
Posted by: shemp333
|
October 7, 2009 5:55 PM
I'm gonna say something that many people are afraid to say. Jesus was an Uncle Tom!
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 7, 2009 6:00 PM
shemp #333 wrote:
I don't think anyone was afraid to say that. I think they didn't think of it.
Huh?
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
October 7, 2009 6:07 PM
Abdul Alhazred:
Precisely what the founders meant by the term "establishment" makes for interesting academic discussion actually.
But here's an even more interesting legal conundrum:
The First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ." It does not read, "Neither Congress nor state legislatures shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Given the explicit reference to Congress in the First Amendment, a reference not found in any other article of the Bill of Rights, isn't the First Amendment actually antidisestablishmentarian vis-a-vis a state's powers to establish its own religion?
In other words, doesn't the text actually prevent Congress from both establishing a national religion and from proscribing the establishment of state religions?
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 7, 2009 6:16 PM
Liveliest Crib #131 wrote:
My understanding is yes, as Jefferson acknowledged in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. The Bill of Rights did not necessarily apply to the states -- though he hoped someday it would. That changed with the 14th amendment.
Posted by: Wisunka
|
October 7, 2009 6:21 PM
The "yes" count it up to (10303) 83.16% for removing this eyesore. I voted YES strictly on the grounds that it is ugly as the sin it warns you against. If its private property and they want it up there, for Heaven's sake get something well done and attractive.
I'd suggest putting up The Golden Rule instead, but then no one would pay any attention to it, much less follow it.
I had trouble signing in too. I was FORBIDDEN. Kinda like the sound of that actually, but it was a pain. ;)
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
October 7, 2009 6:25 PM
Sastra:
Indeed. And legally, your answer is the correct one. But I was trying to highlight that the First Amendment's proscription of state establishment is not as self evident as many seem to think it is. :)
I am also personally compelled to point out that the Ninth Amendment should be sufficient for the job. That poor little Ninth Amendment. The Fourteenth has been severely gutted by the Court, but the Ninth has been all but omitted.
But good grief, the Ninth Amendment proscribes any construction of enumerated rights that denies or disparages unenumerated rights. For crying out loud, just because the First Amendment only explicitly restricts Congress does not mean that states necessarily have the power to establish their own religions. That would mark a proscribed construction of an enumerated right.
;)
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
October 7, 2009 6:26 PM
The 14th Ammendment takes care of that (see Everson v. Board of Education).
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
October 7, 2009 6:32 PM
SciencePundit,
Yep, Fourteenth Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine.
Of course, we can't be too complacent. :)
Not all rights in the Bill of Rights have been deemed Incorporated. (I'm not sure how many people understand that.) And there is already more than one justice on the Supreme Court that believes that the Establishment Clause should not be Incorporated. :(
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
October 7, 2009 6:43 PM
Indeed. Frank Buono, the man who brought the lawsuit against the National Parks Service, is a practicing Roman Catholic:
Why?
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
October 7, 2009 6:46 PM
By the way, just to add to the discussion a bit . . .
I think the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments are the most important in the Constitution. I also think that's why theocrats, authoritarians and conservative judges do their best to undermine them.
They apply directly to the issues at hand concerning our freedom from the establishment of religion, and indeed, all of our freedoms. It behooves us all to study them, and seek to fortify them.
The courts have already done a great job largely eliminating them from the Constitution.
Posted by: Jeff R.
|
October 7, 2009 6:59 PM
Let us not forget that the bible is one of the most powerful arguments for atheism.
The decalogue, as discussed here, is an incredibly useful tool for debunking christian dogma. As such, I would be delighted to see it endorsed and displayed by some municipal pinhead.
Catch is, its very existence on public property - presumably with official consent and approval - implies that somehow this monotheism takes precedence over civil legislature. Either that, or it enjoys some sort of undeserved preference. Either way, it unfairly intimidates non-believers.
On that basis (never mind the aesthetics of the ugly structure) it must go.
Put it in some looney's front yard instead, and maybe replace it with a tasteful representation of -say- the Constitution.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
October 7, 2009 7:19 PM
The president of the United States just traded away freedom of speech for "peace" with religious fanatics.
http://www.wgntv.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-un-un-free-speech,0,608583.story
... and you guys are worried about what?
Going back a bit, I'll admit when I said "suicide cult" that was excessively hyperbolic. "Non-survival-oriented political philosophy" is a more just formulation for what I meant.
Posted by: CJO
|
October 7, 2009 7:32 PM
Classic concern troll move, asshat. "Since you're talking about [x], I'm going to blither petulantly about how you are now (somehow, never detailed) obviously completely unconcerned about [y]" Where [y] is the concern troll's hobby horse.
Many adults can actually think about one thing while still retaining information about and interest in others. It's a mundane talent you might consider having the basic fucking decency of crediting your interlocutors with.
Posted by: Yubal
|
October 7, 2009 7:35 PM
Just did my part....
Yes 11061 83.94%
No 2116 16.06%
Does anyone has the (approx.) total number of votes briefly after PZ linked to the poll? We are up to 13177 now and I just wonder how that poll would look else :/
Posted by: Yubal
|
October 7, 2009 7:45 PM
Never mind
#29 gave me everything I need :)
Yes (3939) 68.61%
No (1802) 31.39%
giving 7122 YESs 314 NOs between 11:19 AM to 7:35 PM
Posted by: Kamaka
|
October 7, 2009 7:47 PM
... and you guys are worried about what?
Mr. Alhazred, these "minor things" are wedges the theists use for coercion. I took no end of shit in high school for refusing to stand and say the Pledge of Allegience. I had a real problem with the "one nation under god" statement. OK, they told me, you don't have to say it, but you have to stand. I wouldn't do it and they hassled me endlessly.
The theists are bullies that need boundaries drawn for them, even on the small things.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 7, 2009 7:49 PM
A. Blatant disregard for the 1st amendment
B. Theocracy creeping into America
C. Laws based on religious viewpoints instead of secular reasoned logic
D. Kowtowing to religious sensitivities
E. Disingenuous posters barking out poorly formed authoritative opinions without merit
F. All of the above
F.
Posted by: Grant N
|
October 7, 2009 7:53 PM
dross (plural drosses)
1. Waste or impure matter
2. Worthless or trivial matter
3. Residue that forms on the surface of a metal from oxidation
4. The impurities in metal
5. A waste product from working with metal
Again, another admirably awesome attribution acquired, adroit acumen acknowledged and an anachronistic anal affliction ascertained.
IOW, good word PZ. Usual insight (minions bowing). And another bronze-age 'pain-in-the-ass' example exposed.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
October 7, 2009 7:58 PM
@CJO #141: In Abdul's world, being in the Book of the Month Club means you only get to read that one book each month.
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
October 7, 2009 8:01 PM
We have extra special penalties for drug possession with 1000 feet of public buildings, at least here in jolly religion-sodden Colorado Springs. (laws that remain on the books, despite the recent minor decriminalization of cannabis).
We also have buffer zones where pedophiles are ordered to stay away from schools, playgrounds, etc.
Personally, I wouldn't be happy until similar buffer zones existed for religious iconography being anywhere near schools, playgrounds, courtrooms, libraries, etc... esp. seeing as religion is both an opiate and a promulgator of child abuse.
But that's me. (yes, I am being a bit silly, and I do understand why this would not work)
The observations amassed against Abdul the concern troll are quite apt. The one that resonates with me is the slippery slope argument. All it took was a government full of spineless theocratic right-wing morons to steamroller an exception to the establishment clause, smearing "In God We Trust" and "God Bless America" all over the fucking place... and in over two generations the damage has still not healed. It is used as an excuse to perpetuate the lie that the country was founded on Christian principles -- and is now so indelibly burned into the American psyche that almost everybody thinks this bullshit came from the founders (through God, mind you). It's more than 50 years after the Eisenhower-era assault on the Constitution, too.
It has had the effect of weakening the push to rid the military and the Congress of taxpayer-supported chaplain positions, and now stands in the way of garnering public support for reversing faith-based initiatives -- or even reversing the trend where we seem to pick stupider and stupider people to represent us, based solely on their sleeves and the size of the Jeebus platitudes embroidered on them.
Build up that wall. Fix those goddamn cracks, already. And then quit tinkering with it; it's not so hard to understand. And no, this is no small matter.
Posted by: Gordy
|
October 7, 2009 8:28 PM
Wisunka #133
Actually, I think this is a great idea. It's not exclusively Christian by any reckoning, but even the most hardcore fundies couldn't deny that, according to the Bible, Jesus said it.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Wouldn't that be a message that we could all accept on public buildings? And I would love to hear certain right wing nuts having to force this one through gritted teeth whilst trying to keep smiling :)
Seriously, if we asked for the 10 commandments to be replaced by the golden rule, they would either have to agree or explain why not, and how could they counter an idea like this without making a mockery of their own religion?
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
October 7, 2009 9:44 PM
Gordy:
Oh, it really wouldn't be all that difficult for them, and their inanities would be picked up by the right-wing noise machine and repeated enough times to seem sensible.
What would they say? How about . . .
Oh, the Golden Rule is excellent, and no one would object to its being there. But it cannot replace the 10 Commandments in either a theological sense, or, more importantly in an historical sense. For it is the 10 Commandments that truly affects the world we live in today, and that affected the thoughts of our founders. It's not establishing a religion to recognize the impact it has had on our founders, but it would diminish that impact to replace it merely with the Golden Rule. And that's not good for either religion or America.
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
October 7, 2009 9:48 PM
#149 Wordy / #133 Wisunka:
That might work, but only if this caveat was placed below in parens:
"...but only if you are not sado-masochist, unless the party or parties being done unto happen to be masochists as well and nobody gets hurt for real."
Hmmm. This could get tricky.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
October 7, 2009 10:19 PM
A little Dane Cookery:
"I mean, think about if Louis CK told that joke."
And he probably did. *rimshot*
"Replace 'Atheist' with 'New Age moron' and 'Bible' with 'Science Textbook' and you have the premise for a great joke."
Nah, it would still sound vindictive and bullying to my ears.
Posted by: Gordy
|
October 7, 2009 10:31 PM
@ Liveliest Crib #150 > I don't have a Bible to hand to check, but didn't Jesus reportedly preface the golden rule with something along the lines of "the old ways are gone, from now on there is just one commandment..."? If so, any Old Testament vs New Testament debate in the Christian community could be very interesting indeed!
Can anyone check this for me? Do the thousands of Pharyngulites possess even a single Bible between us? :)
@ sasqwatch #151 > Explicit mention of sado-masochism on public buildings at the behest of the religious right? I can't think of anything more amusing!
Posted by: RogerJH
|
October 7, 2009 10:36 PM
Latest result (10:30 pm Oct 7)
Yes (12203) 84.78%
No (2191) 15.22%
PZ's poll bomb blasts away at graven idol.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
October 7, 2009 10:46 PM
Gordy:
Did he? I'd have to check. S'been a long time since I've actually read through the infernal book, and having been raised in a Jewish home, the New Testament was not made readily available.
If memory serves, though, I thought Jesus said something to the effect of "I have not come to abolish the old law, but to fulfill it," and explicitly claimed that all the Old Testament laws remained intact.
In any case, even if the Jesus of the Bible did announce that the Golden Rule was the new and only commandment . . .
[a] It wouldn't have the slightest effect on the theocrats who would impose the 10 Commandments on all of us in Jesus' name; they're quite happy to maintain contradictory beliefs, always mistaking dissonance for depth.
&
[b] For those religious moderates on whom it would have an effect, there's always the crutch of rationalization. As I'm sure you well know, if there's a Bible passage they don't like, it's really just a metaphor for something they do like. So, I'm sure the statement would just be a metaphorical way of looking at the old commandments -- a way of summing up their spirit, but not a literal renunciation.
But hey, it is always fun to throw their own book back in their faces, and watch them scramble. :)
Posted by: Kamaka
|
October 7, 2009 10:52 PM
Do the thousands of Pharyngulites possess even a single Bible between us?
Why sure! I swiped a Gideon bible from a motel room to check up on some shit in Leviticus. But it's not really swiping if they want you to read it!
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
October 7, 2009 11:16 PM
You know, I know a million comics have skewered the 10 Commandments, but I feel like throwing my two cents on that already overflowing pile of pennies. According to Wikipedia, the following is the text from Exodus 20:2–17.
So, there are other gods, but I'm supposed to give you priority?
So, you will punish my great grandchildren for something I did before they were born, but I'm supposed to love you? You're not jealous; you're an asshole.
Oh, and, could you get on with smiting of all those people around me who wear your son's execution device around their necks, and who bow down to the same in their churches? I mean, you've got a lot of smiting to do, Mr. Jealousy.
For an omnipotent, omniscient being, your mastery of language sucks. What the hell does that mean? Wrongful use? Even when I'm not supposed to take your name "in vain," I don't know what it means. I've heard some clever interpretations, but frankly this commandment is just meaningless drivel.
So, I can keep my slaves as long as I don't work them on the seventh day of the week. And that's because you rested after six days of creating the universe.
I must ask: Why did you have to rest again? And why did it take you six days? I mean, couldn't you just have snapped your cosmic fingers, and !Voila! have a universe? Or is that too tiring? Need more rest?
Never mind. Back to my slaves . . .
The reason I should honor my parents is to attain a long life on some land? Weird. And, suppose my parents tell me to violate the commandments? Then what? Is that one of those paradoxes that ends the universe it took you six tiring days to make?
Okeedoke. Seems like a biggie, though. Why number 6?
No worries there. The law of the land won't let me marry my partner in the first place.
No problem.
How about against my brother? Or my slaves?
Wait a minute, you already told me not to steal anything, and I was totally down with that. Now I'm not even allowed to want the things I shouldn't steal?
You know what? I already know not to murder and steal. You didn't need to tell me. So, on second thought, deity dude, choose someone else.
Posted by: Woof
|
October 8, 2009 12:39 AM
Liveliest Crib FTW!
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
October 8, 2009 1:03 AM
...Pharyngulites possessing even a single Bible...
Every time I'm in a foreign country (which includes Utah, BTW... even though I'm next-door in Colorado), I pick up
a Gideon or Mormon tract.
I have bilingual Bibles in Russian, Thai, Swedish, Dutch, Carib, and Spanish... and Utah'n. (the Utah tract doesn't have an English translation, though)
Posted by: Grant N
|
October 8, 2009 3:19 AM
To make reading the bible/qur'an/book of mormon even more fun, try The Scripture Project over at Sam Harris' The Reason Project site.
Luke 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
Like counter-espionage work, it exposes the inherent counter-intelligence of the oft copied and scribe embellished, pagan plagiarizing, misogynistic and bigoted texts. Oh, I forgot, these writings are really only about truth and love.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 8, 2009 7:57 AM
Red herring much? This isn't a zero sum game, I can be pissed about that and about people putting monuments to specific religions on tax payer property.
Why do you have such a hard time getting this idea, an idea upheld by the highest court in our country, through your thick skull?
I also notice you keep conveniently ignoring every single thing put forth that destroys your "it's petty"
argumentwhine.Posted by: Cosmic Teapot
|
October 8, 2009 10:03 AM
Yes. I bought mine from a charity shop so that I could:
a) study the bible for myself.
b) help the homeless in some small way.
Posted by: MrFire
|
October 8, 2009 10:54 AM
Liveliest Crib:
Just wanted to add the Supremacy Clause, for good measure:
And the Supreme Court decisions derived from it, e.g. McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819:
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
October 8, 2009 11:00 AM
I've got a copy of the Good News New Testament, a Nuevo Testamento, three English Bibles, the Book of Mormon, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Bhagavad Gita, The Chicago Manual of Style, and Strunk & White's The Elements of Style. Will any of those do?
Joking aside, my favourite online bible resource is the Bible Gateway. They've got a multitude of versions; a feature I use to bone up on my Swahili.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
October 8, 2009 1:29 PM
,
Heh, while I would agree that the Supremacy Clause should apply the Bill of Rights to the states, the Court has never agreed. Without Incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment, none of the rights in the Bill of Rights limits the states. And not all rights are Incorporated.
Posted by: tagnostic
|
October 8, 2009 11:20 PM
So, extrapolating, I could get a big ugly rock, set it up next to theirs and paint the words "There is no god, but you still can't lie, steal or kill" and that would be protected?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 9, 2009 12:59 PM
that sounds dirty
Posted by: Tor Hershman
|
October 14, 2009 10:41 AM
Which of the Ten Condiments states that ‘Thou shall not make any holiday parody songs about priests and choirboys’ ‘cause I REALLY screwed that one up? ;-)
http://www.soundlift.com/band/music.php?song_id=82930
Stay on groovin' safari,
Tor