I'm sure there will be an uproar over the Supreme Court decision concerning the Court's endorsement of' the concept of separation of church and state in the Ten Commandments case decided earlier today, or the fundamentalists will spin the decision as a favorable outcome permitting the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public places. And I'll get a few people riled up, but not everyone thinks alike in this country of ours.
Here's the deal with me. Henry VIII split from the Roman Catholic Church and declared himself the true head of the Anglican Church instead of the Pope. He ended up beheading two of his wives and divorcing three others, all in the name of religion. Freedom to worship as one pleases is not akin to freedom from imposition of religious dogma by the government upon its citizens. Prayer in public schools is imposition of religious dogma by the government upon its citizens. Posting the Ten Commandments in a non-historical context is the imposition of religious dogma by the government upon its citizens. And it is clear that the First Amendment was intended by the Framers of the Constitution to protect all citizens, especially those in the minority, from the will, whether it be well-intended or not, of the ruling majority.
I don't understand how this concept cannot be clear to people unless they are close-minded zealots.
I am not a member of any organized religion or religious group. It's difficult for me to reconcile many of my personal views with the tenets of any number of religions and religious groups. So, I choose to be a GDI.
Posted by Bill at June 27, 2005 11:35 PMAlright I agree with the separation of church and state. What I don't understand is why anyone would get so riled up over a picture or document that hangs on a wall. Do they get forced to read and conform to it? No.
I hate to point this out but there really is a huge difference between displaying an item of faith and say starting a holy war, a really huge difference.
I would hope that the more level headed would turn to the decision in Colorado that basically tells people a restraining order while legal, does not have to be enforced!
Posted by: Jeff A at June 28, 2005 07:46 AMOkay Bill, I have a headache this morning and am having a right hard time (you heard the accent come through there, didn't you?...happens when I am real tired)making reasonable thought connections, etc., so....I give, wtf is a GDI?
Posted by: VFH at June 28, 2005 08:49 AMJeff, a tempest in a teapot? Turd in a punchbowl?
I have to agree with Bill on this one. This country is teetering on the edge of the 21st century - cannot make up its mind if it wants real human sociological advancement and enlightenment, or a perpetual bog-like existence reliving the past. My own propensity to love all things old certainly is sympathic to the stay-the-same-course folks, but stagnation is not a pretty thing, either. Onward and upward, Brothers and Sisters in this endeavor they call Democracy!
Posted by: Cowtown Pattie at June 28, 2005 02:08 PMNow, if they had a display of historical sources which shaped our legal system, and threw in the 10 commandments, they might have gotten away with it. A stretch, true, and I'm not sure how you display common law, but slightly more credible to the masses.
I think it's stupid to pretend that our forefathers weren't religious, because some were quite devout in their Christianity. Others weren't. We need to remember that our ancestors decided *against* a state-religion. Could've. Didn't. They simply wanted the State to be neutral. (Ahem. That was a HINT, Mr. Bush!)
Don't be messing with Henry. ;-)
Posted by: lucy at June 29, 2005 01:23 AM