Jackson Free Press

[verbatim statement] April 21, 2005—Governor Haley Barbour yesterday signed Senate Bill 2486, that authorizes the display of "In God We Trust," the Ten Commandments, and the Beatitudes at public buildings and property in Mississippi. "When I went to Yazoo High, we started each day with prayer and a Ten Commandments monument stood right outside the front door, on the grounds of our school," said Governor Barbour. "Those were good things back then, and they would be good things today."

Barbour has the Ten Commandments on display in his Capitol office.

Previous Comments

ID

137740

Comment

So it seems that Mr. Barbour does not believe in American-style freedom.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-21T11:36:30-06:00

ID

137741

Comment

In honor of Mr. Barbour's signing, the Jackson Free Press has decided to post the Beatitudes: Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 3) Blessed are the meek: for they shall posses the land. (Verse 4) Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Verse 5) Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. (Verse 6) Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Verse 7) Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. (Verse 8) Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Verse 9) Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 10) ó St. Matthew

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-21T11:48:24-06:00

ID

137742

Comment

PUKE! If this was about posting codes of law from various cultures and religions, I'd have no issue with it... But, it seems like a clear case of Mississippi endorsing a particular religion. Curious to see if this sparks ANY controversy.

Author

kaust

Date

2005-04-21T11:55:55-06:00

ID

137743

Comment

If you don't like it, don't look at it. Thats what I have to do with Television programs that offend my moral values. But then, I realize that I'm not entitled to go through life without being offended- and you may not feel that way. By the way, by saying we Trust in God, whose religion are we endorsing? And yes Knol, puke, I hate this new Howard Dean strategy of qouting scripture in order to further the political motivations on the left- it is just as cheap as the Republicans preaching to Democrats about what our moral values should be.

Author

bluedog

Date

2005-04-21T12:32:59-06:00

ID

137744

Comment

bluedog, obviously your name doesn't mean you're a bleeding-heart liberal. If God is capitalized it means we're endorsing the Judeo-Christian god. Every other religion I know of believes in gods (yes, plural) or has a specific name for the higher entity. God (capitalized) is not like the Southern use of Coke in this case. It's not a blanket endorsement of all religions. Your whole comment about "don't like it, don't look" is not applicable in this case. This is not something I can turn off and will soon be facing plenty of children on a daily basis. If you don't think it's an issue being FORCED on children, tell that to a person I know who has to deal with her Wiccan 1st grader that comes home crying every other day because she is FORCED to say UNDER GOD during the pledge. It's not an option for her to just shut up or else she will be thrust further into the spotlight and chaos. These quotes are going to be ALL over the place... From my reading, I could go to get a driver's license and have a Biblical quote presented to me while standing in line. I assume, bluedog, you'll support me when I petition to get the Four Noble Truths plastered right beside the 10 commandments since you're so open to having religious texts and aren't easily offended by our government endorsing one or the other.... On a sidenote, aren't we "freeing" Iraq from a religious-drenched and religiously-powered government? Just a thought.

Author

kaust

Date

2005-04-21T12:45:12-06:00

ID

137745

Comment

[quote]The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read: Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances. One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins. You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW. This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters. To you first I address a subject that must be agitated. As a result, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861: Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition. [/quote] - Source Now, you tell me which god or goddess we're endorsing, bluedog.

Author

kaust

Date

2005-04-21T12:46:41-06:00

ID

137746

Comment

This is a dangerously slippery slope. I don't care if the individual wants to worship a pink elephant, but the "state" has no business endorsing religion of any kind. Mr. Barbour is perhaps better suited for a revival tent than the governor's mansion. Preach on preacha!!!

Author

El Canario

Date

2005-04-21T12:55:29-06:00

ID

137747

Comment

"God (capitalized) is not like the Southern use of Coke in this case. It's not a blanket endorsement of all religions" - KNOL See, this is exactly what you, and your friends, fail to recognize. While you have done some impressive historical anaysis of the term, looking at history does nothing to explain what the term GOD means to people today. While GOD endorses my JudeoChristian God to you, you can't speak for others here. The fact of the matter is the meaning of God is subjective. And while it stands for one thing to you, it means something completely different to others. The historical context doesn't explain an individuals view of what that term means. So yes, the term God can be a blanket endorsement because the meaning of "God", "GOD", or "GoD" in that statement probably, in reality differs for every one us.

Author

bluedog

Date

2005-04-21T13:07:15-06:00

ID

137748

Comment

bluedog, you obviously did not read the posted text from the U.S. Treasury site that CONFIRMS which god "In God We Trust" references. It was a group of Christians that nurtured the idea into reality.... So, if it was intended that way, it is that way. Perception is one thing... Reality is another. (That sounds uncannily familiar, eh?) The reality is this: God is the Judeo-Christian diety... You know, the only God that gets capitalized. Every other religion I've dipped my toe in does not do such a thing. I'm not confused about this... Look at the sponsors... Look at the organizations that have been printing these materials... You won't see any Buddhist temples lining up to help... You want see the Muslims down the street passing these out. It's simply evident and no smokescreen of vagueness can remove the hard, cold, historical facts. To take it all a step further, if it's not about the Judeo-Christian god, where's the equal reference to goddesses?

Author

kaust

Date

2005-04-21T13:15:21-06:00

ID

137749

Comment

If you don't like it, don't look at it. Bluedog, you are SO missing the point. This is about what the STATE is establishing, not about whether or not someone can turn away. If the state were posting text from the Qu'ran on the walls of Yazoo High, I bet Barbour wouldn't be saying, "Just don't read it." He would be kicking and screaming because the state was establishing a religious he didn't agree with. This is about government staying out of the business of religiousóthus ensuring freedom of religion for everyone, not just whoever happens to have the most political power at the time.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-21T13:22:10-06:00

ID

137750

Comment

Thomas Jefferson also failed to buy your argument as well, bluedog. Face it: You are favoring the establishment of religion in a country build on a foundation of religious freedom. Dress it up however you want, but believers in true freedom can follow the basic logic that if you allow establishment by the state of one brand of religion, there is NO freedom of religion. I'm for freedom, and I won't stop standing up for it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-21T13:24:03-06:00

ID

137751

Comment

And this is downright offensive: And yes Knol, puke, I hate this new Howard Dean strategy of qouting scripture in order to further the political motivations on the left- it is just as cheap as the Republicans preaching to Democrats about what our moral values should be. Do you truly believe that right-wing Republicans have some kind on lock on faith or on the scriptures just because they claim to be the voice of the moral? People who don't give a damn poor people are not moral, no matter how they package it. And there's some pretty basic scripture to back that up.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-21T13:31:27-06:00

ID

137752

Comment

One other needs to be posted. What ever happened to And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. Matthew 6:5 (NIV) While I am very uneasy about the state establishing a religious preference by posting the various Christian and Judeo-Christian statements and documents, the worst part of the whole thing is that it is SO a political/campaign ploy. While it nods of approval from a large group of southern voters, Babar and the others really don't have a strong personal connection to any of it.

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-04-21T13:31:28-06:00

ID

137753

Comment

You're right, GDI. The part that makes me the angriest is that Barbour, and Republicans and Dems alike who supported this, KNOW that it's unconstitutional and that taxpayers will have to pay to "defend" their poilitical idiocy in court. It's the worst kind of cheap pandering for votes. OK, race-coding is the worst, but this isn't far behind.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-21T13:33:04-06:00

ID

137754

Comment

I don't speak for Mr. Barbour- and I never suggested he agrees with me on the issue, and I'm not missing your point, I just don't agree with it here. I just don't have a problem with the phrase "In God we Trust"- I don't think it endorses anyone ( and btw I frankly don't care about the capitalization, or what the folks that coined the term meant for it stand for). What they meant by the term doesn't amount to a hill of beans to me and it still doesnt speak for what the term means to people today. Look, do you think the historical context of the Democratic Party reflects the sentiment of its members today? Of course not, nor do I think the roots of this statement has anything to do with what it means to people today. As much as you want too, you can't say that when we all read that term we all think of the same diety. But Ladd, I agree with you and Canario ,this is a road better not traveled. I dont have a problem with this phrase, but I can see where trouble lay ahead when folks get carried away getting religion and government tangled together.

Author

bluedog

Date

2005-04-21T13:39:29-06:00

ID

137755

Comment

"When I went to Yazoo High, we started each day with prayer and a Ten Commandments monument stood right outside the front door, on the grounds of our school," said Governor Barbour. Wouldn't it also be true that, when he went there, wise and moral old Yazoo High was segregated? Just askin'.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-21T13:41:35-06:00

ID

137756

Comment

I admit to you, bluedog, that "In God We Trust" doesn't bother me *as much* as the state forcing the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes on people, precisely because it's more vague and inclusive. But even that is not completely inclusiveósome people do NOT trust in "God," and that is their right as Americans. And the Constitution is about protecting the rights of that one guy, not the majority. It can't work any other way. And the hypocrisy bothers me as much as anything elseóthat politicians who don't follow the scriptures or any other moral teachings except when it benefits them politically try to walk all over our Constitution in order to get votes. Disgusting.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-21T13:44:40-06:00

ID

137757

Comment

Ladd, your missing my point this time. What I said is that I am disgusted that now Howard Dean and other lefties wants to mimick the Republicans and qoute scripture to justify their motivations- use the bible for a poltical ploy. I don't like the Republicans doing it, and I certainly don't think we Democrats need to try to play the same silly game. (And I am not assuming you are all Democrats.)

Author

bluedog

Date

2005-04-21T13:45:36-06:00

ID

137758

Comment

And -- if you truly believe the religious and spiritual teachings you espouse, you KNOW they can't be forced. And you respect them too much to try to force them. You share them, and you live them, and you hope and pray others follow suit. It's about deeds, not cheap political ploys.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-21T13:46:57-06:00

ID

137759

Comment

Look, do you think the historical context of the Democratic Party reflects the sentiment of its members today? Of course not, nor do I think the roots of this statement has anything to do with what it means to people today. As much as you want too, you can't say that when we all read that term we all think of the same diety. The law allows the Ten Commandments, In God We Trust and the Beatitudes to be published on the walls of goverment buildings. It is, at best, establishing a Judeo-Christian God as the "God" in "In God We Trust." In this context, it's a great idea of both what you're agreeing with and what you're disagreeing with, bluedog. Religion is not an absolute, and it can't be prescribed for everyone, particularly in a free society. Thus, goverment has *no* business promoting one...or even two.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2005-04-21T13:49:02-06:00

ID

137760

Comment

Here, Here, Ladd. While it may not be our style, this whole situation is probably someones idea of "sharng" the faith. Ya'll have a good evening.

Author

bluedog

Date

2005-04-21T13:50:07-06:00

ID

137761

Comment

I can see that there may be a point in there, bluedog, but this is not the same thing as voting for something unconstitutional. It is not up to you or me to determine when someone is quoting scripture in a cheap wayówhether Howard Dean or Haley Barbour or George Bush or anyone else. You CAN'T know that. However, you can know that when these politicians vote for an unconstititional establishment of religious that they know full well what they're doing and why.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-21T13:50:46-06:00

ID

137762

Comment

While it may not be our style, this whole situation is probably someones idea of "sharng" the faith. I'm not sure what you're saying, or who "our" is. Hopefully, you're not saying that elected officials should be passing laws to "share" their brand of religion. That's establishment, unconstitutional and anti-American.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-04-21T13:51:40-06:00

ID

137763

Comment

Incredible. Tell me this isn't strictly political maneuvering. I just looked Senate Bill 2486 up and the bill deals with a whole lot more than these postings. Out of everything in the bill, the posting of Ten Commandments et al are only two sentences in the entire bill (Section 6(1)&(2)). Also, it only allows the postings. It does not require them. [quote]AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 31-11-3, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO ASSIGN ADDITIONAL POWERS AND DUTIES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION RELATING TO PARKING SPACES FOR STATE EMPLOYEES WHO WORK IN THE WOOLFOLK BUILDING, THE CARROLL GARTIN JUSTICE BUILDING OR THE WALTER SILLERS OFFICE BUILDING; TO AMEND SECTIONS 27-104-7 AND 29-5-2, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO REVISE THE DUTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION RELATING TO PARKING FOR STATE EMPLOYEES WHO WORK IN THE WOOLFOLK BUILDING, THE CARROLL GARTIN JUSTICE BUILDING OR THE WALTER SILLERS OFFICE BUILDING; TO AMEND SECTION 29-5-77, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION TO ENFORCE LAWS ON CERTAIN PROPERTY OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF STATE INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING AND THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; TO AMEND SECTION 31-7-13, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO CLARIFY THAT PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS MAY ONLY INCLUDE ALLOWANCES FOR CERTAIN LIMITED AND SPECIFIED ITEMS AND AMOUNTS; TO AUTHORIZE THE DISPLAY OF "IN GOD WE TRUST," THE TEN COMMANDMENTS AND THE BEATITUDES AT PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND PROPERTY IN MISSISSIPPI; TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION TO LEASE TO VENDORS UNTIL JANUARY 1, 2006, THE PROPERTY AT THE OLD FARMER'S MARKET; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.[/quote]

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-04-21T16:03:29-06:00

ID

137764

Comment

If this was about posting codes of law from various cultures and religions, I'd have no issue with it. I would. Absolutely. "The day that this country ceases to be free for irreligion it will cease to be free for religion - except for the sect that can win political power." -- Justice Jackson's dissent in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952). -- Tim

Author

Tim Kynerd

Date

2005-04-21T16:08:51-06:00

ID

137765

Comment

Hey! Just read the last bit of the bill. Does that mean that Doris and Nell Cody will be at the Farmer's Market until January 1, 2006? This is such a stupid political ploy. Drives me insane that Leland Speed and the MDA spout all the Creative Class stuff about "need for diversity" to improve economics in the state, and then Barbour and the Legislature pull this kind of idiotic move that is guaranteed to annoy and/or exclude a healthy percentage of people who live and work in Mississippi. Now, that's foresighted. Except, not. On a happier note, my very favorite rendition of the Beatitudes is by Sweet Honey in the Rock. You can listen to a sample of it on Amazon

Author

kate

Date

2005-04-21T16:30:46-06:00

ID

137766

Comment

On a happier note, my very favorite rendition of the Beatitudes is by Sweet Honey in the Rock. You can listen to a sample of it on Amazon Mine is from Little Shop of Horrors: They say the meek shall inherit You know the book doesn't lie It's not a question of merit It's just demand and supply. They say the meek gonna get it And you're a meek little guy! You know the meek are gonna get what's coming to 'em By and by OK, that's more of a riff on the Beatitudes than the actual Beatitudes themselves. But it's a catch tune. I don't even think there's a song that makes fun of In God We Trust. :-)

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2005-04-21T16:45:58-06:00

ID

137767

Comment

Of course, there's In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash, which is a great book by Jean Shepard, who also wrote (and narrated) A Christmas Story, which has become an annual favorite of Christians and, probably, non-Christians alike. Which begs the question...why am I rambling so much today? (And, yes, that's actually not begging the question, but it seems to work so well in that context that I wish that's what begging the question meant.)

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2005-04-21T16:48:30-06:00

ID

137768

Comment

LADD: "However, you can know that when these politicians vote for an unconstititional establishment of religious that they know full well what they're doing and why." What is really amazing to me is that some politicians honestly appear *not* to understand why this sort of thing is unconstitutional. It's one thing to know something is wrong and do it anyway; it is entirely another (and in some ways worse) to be so ignorant as to not even know that it is wrong in the first place. Reminds me of Tom DeLay's recent quote about our country's "out-of-control judiciary thumbing its nose at Congress and the President" (paraphrasing him). My question is: did he ever learn about the separation of powers doctrine and/or our government's system of checks and balances (or some other time during his 50-odd years on this planet), or is he really that fucking ignorant?

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-04-21T17:04:38-06:00

ID

137769

Comment

Our language is constantly evolving. If you want to beg the question, by all means beg the question.

Author

emilyb

Date

2005-04-21T17:24:58-06:00

ID

137770

Comment

buck, either way, it's just too darned scary to contemplate.

Author

kate

Date

2005-04-21T17:45:31-06:00

ID

137771

Comment

The law is definitely unconstitutional (it affirms a pure preferentialist interpretation of the Establishment Clause--even Scalia is an accommodationist, so I expect the law to be struck down 9-0 in the unlikely event the Supreme Court actually hears the case), the authors know it, and the authors know it'll be struck down. The only reason this bill is being supported is because when the law is struck down, that might mobilize the evangelical/theocratic base against "activist judges" for a future election. I would call it more silly and pandering than scary; governments are not permitted under the law to post the Beatitudes and Ten Commandments in a context that implies endorsement, period. The law's chances of surviving a court challenge are exactly zero. bluedog, repeat after me: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If you want to affirm a preferentialist intepretation of the establishment clause, welcome to the extreme far right--even Dubya doesn't support giving special government endorsement to Christianity over other religions, which is why his faith-based initiatives office is interfaith, why he releases statements celebrating Ramadan and Yom Kippur, and so forth. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-04-21T20:05:13-06:00

ID

137772

Comment

It's technically "respecting an establishment of religion"; I've got 1.5GHz fingers and a 1.33GHz brain. But you get the idea. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-04-21T20:07:24-06:00

ID

137773

Comment

Sighs...here we go again.............. First, the legislating morality issues.....then the clinton leseur and marriage amendment issues... NOW THIS!!! It's really late, so I'll just copy and paste what i wrote on other threads moons ago.. This pretty much says all as to what I think of the issue as well: God allows others the freedom of choice,including freedom to sin - and even curse both His name and Christís sacrifice if one chooses to do so!!! (Shocking, Isn't It?!?!?!?!?!) Government policies based ultimately and exclusively on religious doctrines cannot change the non-savedsí hearts, mindsí and soulsí (this makes government policy irrelevant to oneís spiritual condition, which is why government policies forbidding merely personal sins are ultimately pointless) Therefore, governments cannot actually lead people to Christ or any other deity. Since governments cannot lead people to Christ or any other deity, it follows that government policies enforcing personal morals that are based solely on religious grounds is undue interference in our lives as surely as many government economic and property regulations are likewise undue interference in our lives (in other words, government ought not be a bureaucracy in matters of personal morality). Now if even God Himself wonít force people to obey His commands, then isnít it frankly arrogant and presumptuous for we humans to insist that we introduce into our civil law codes laws against personal sins (i.e. ones that are only between the person and God)? I myself see no reason to doubt it! I'm still open to the possibility that the USA was created for the purpose of having a law code based on God's law, but all the arguments I've heard are sounding pretty worn!!! (CONTINUED)

Author

Philip

Date

2005-04-22T00:51:25-06:00

ID

137774

Comment

I think Christians (esp conservative ones) worry that our government allowing such-and-such sinful practice will be a bad influence on a community, especially on "impressionable children". To that, I say: Even if such-and-such is a personal sin, the most this idea proves is that we should teach kids and youth the following: (1) Governmentsí (any of them) are not in the business of getting people to conform to Godís Will, nor are they in the business of ministering / educating them in the word of God. The former is the job of God Himself ALONE, the latter the job of INDIVIDUAL Christians themselves (acting in a distinctly NON-governmental capacity). (2) Governments are solely in the business of (a) providing for the physical safety of people, safeguarding the peopleís political liberties, and the protecting the peopleís and businessesí earthly property; (b) enforcing governmental laws that are broken by individuals, and (c) act as the referee of last resort in disputes between two or more parties who cannot come to a civilized, legal, and amicable agreement. There are other things one can add too, but not all people would agree with them. I only bring up the duties of government that I think practically everyone can agree about. Therefore, even if such-and-such is a personal sin, it still does not prove that the government ought not recognize "unbiblical practices". It is the INDIVIDUALíS responsibility to choose to follow Godís Will on his/her own free accord!!! Government prohibitions against personal sins (including homosexual marriages) will not help save a person one iota any more than the Prohibition Era ban on alcohol did. The conclusion I draw: Societies which think God called on them to use government to approve His will are NOT the kind of Governments God wants His hame associated with! (And I say this as a Presbyrterian)

Author

Philip

Date

2005-04-22T00:57:15-06:00

ID

137775

Comment

Yes, those previous posts weren't precisely on topic, since they did not directly deal with the God, Beatitudes, and Ten Commandments bills.... Nevertheless, the above is what you get when you have a society thinking that governments ought to bring up God's name at every turn. There's something about using the Lord's name in vain ... #2 on the list i think. Isn't government and society using God's name as a prop for a government or a culture's values TAKING HIS NAME IN VAIN!?!?!?!? Also, there's something in one of the gospels where (I believe, but could well be wrong) Jesus himself told the Pharisees "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you!". The more times change the more they stay the same, I suppose!!

Author

Philip

Date

2005-04-22T01:02:29-06:00

ID

137776

Comment

I was thinking... You could probably go so far as to say these "Family" organizations and the WACKY (not all but the wacky ones) evangelicals and political powers are setting our government up as a false idol (from a Christian perspective). Let me put it this way... According to Judeo-Christian thinking, God is the lawgiver. All laws come from him. As these fundies begin to incorporate their interpretations of the Bible into our governmental policies, they effectively make our government the lawgiver of the people (rather than their own God and His Word). So, the government becomes an idol. In theory, once the government becomes an idol (representing the laws of God in a diluted format surrounded by other laws that are humanist, socialist, etc), those Christians that pledge allegiance to that country and its laws become idolators in their own God's eyes. For me, the problem goes beyond the fact that I'm an atheist/humanist/quasi-socialist and laws like these endorse a specific set of religious laws. The bigger problem (from my perspective) is this signals a deep corruption within the church and its leaders. It would seem they don't clearly understand the words they claim to know, feel, breathe, eat, sleep and live by... In all reality, many of these fundies and evangelicals are the Pharisees of the Bible -- flaunting their religion, their money, and their power all while pretending to be filled with the Spirit. So, while they corrupt our governmental system, it would appear they are corrupting their own churches. Separation of church and state exists to protect both systems from corruption. You'd think many would have learned that in Sunday school while talking about the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Author

kaust

Date

2005-04-22T07:36:47-06:00

ID

137777

Comment

Knol, I agree with you. This reminds me of the people who show their "patriotism" by turning the flag into t-shirts, shorts, swim suits, etc. Or hang a flag in their yard, and leave it there for a year or so, until it's a tattered rag. In this case, it's "let's display the 10 commandments everywhere" because that PROVES we're CHRISTIAN. It ain't the display of the symbol that proves anything, folks. It's one's behavior. Please, let's let sacred symbols be sacred. Let's not use them for advertising or for political purposes. It's cheap, sleezy and meaningless.

Author

kate

Date

2005-04-22T07:43:24-06:00