Judge Orders Removal of Oklahoma Ten Commandments Monument Within 30 Days

[lax16]

And that’s fine, but I have exposed several major flaws with that article. With that being said if the topic were to come up again would you once again direct people to that article?

That would be ONE of them, yes.

And that’s fine about not wanting to do the researching, but you made a truth claim that the Church did not endorse slavery. I have shown that not to be the case (and I still have other items I could link to if that’s not sufficient). If asked at another time, would you again state that the Church did not endorse slavery considering the several pieces of evidence I’ve shown to the contrary?

Please feel free to link other sources and I will read them and respond as best I can.

I’m quite open-minded, but as it stands now I have not heard or seen any evidence that shows that either God was against slavery or that the Church was. If you or anybody else can provide evidence I will change my mind. As an open-minded person who has actually done the research I can do nothing else but state that the God character in the Bible and the Catholic Church have shown to endorse and propagate slavery.

That’s an interesting point. I will look into it as soon as I can. Not that my commentary adds up to much.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

If you find the Catholic arguments weak, then you might study the Jewish arguments. They are accessible on the Internet. Or, as I previously stated, you may start a new thread so that we can discuss these issues.

Looking back over the thread, here is how slavery ended up being a tangent on this topic:

• Lax16 said “We are all grateful for the bravery of Abraham Lincoln and yet he gives credit to God.” Right there we have slavery and right there he says that Lincoln’s bravery in (among other things) abolishing slavery in the United Sates was credited to God.
• DaddyGirl rightly pointed out that Lincoln’s deeds in abolishing American slavery run counter to God and to the Bible. This is in keeping with the topic of hanging the 10 Commandments in public places, showing that our sense of right and justice is often not in line with that of the Judeo-Christian god.
• Lax16 responded asking if anyone beat a slave because of the Bible (which is an oddly structured question, but I get where he’s coming from).
• DaddyGirl, again on point, stated that those in America supporting slavery used those passages in the Bible to defend the practice. She even gave several quotes from people at the time.
• Lax16 then said that sure maybe Protestants used the Bible to defend slavery, but no way did the Church do so.
• At that point I made a gave a litany of well-reserarched evidence showing Lax16 was incorrect.

I will more than happily cease talking about slavery here assuming there are no more incorrect statements being made on the matter.

 

[lax16]

Looking back over the thread, here is how slavery ended up being a tangent on this topic:

• Lax16 said “We are all grateful for the bravery of Abraham Lincoln and yet he gives credit to God.” Right there we have slavery and right there he says that Lincoln’s bravery in (among other things) abolishing slavery in the United Sates was credited to God.
• DaddyGirl rightly pointed out that Lincoln’s deeds in abolishing American slavery run counter to God and to the Bible. This is in keeping with the topic of hanging the 10 Commandments in public places, showing that our sense of right and justice is often not in line with that of the Judeo-Christian god.
• Lax16 responded asking if anyone beat a slave because of the Bible (which is an oddly structured question, but I get where he’s coming from).
• DaddyGirl, again on point, stated that those in America supporting slavery used those passages in the Bible to defend the practice. She even gave several quotes from people at the time.
• Lax16 then said that sure maybe Protestants used the Bible to defend slavery, but no way did the Church do so.
• At that point I made a gave a litany of well-reserarched evidence showing Lax16 was incorrect.

I will more than happily cease talking about slavery here assuming there are no more incorrect statements being made on the matter.

Why not start a thread on the topic? I am sure others will have more to say.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Why not start a thread on the topic? I am sure others will have more to say.

If you want come on over to the Why does God allow slavery in the bible? thread. The more the merrier!

Just know that it only touches on God, slavery, and the Bible and not on the Church’s endorsement of slavery.

 

[lax16]

If you want come on over to the Why does God allow slavery in the bible? thread. The more the merrier!

Just know that it only touches on God, slavery, and the Bible and not on the Church’s endorsement of slavery.

Sounds good! It is definitely an interesting topic.

 

[BobCatholic]

The official position is secular, meaning that the state is neutral on matters of religion. It would be just as wrong for a courthouse or public school to have signs saying “There is no god,” as it is for signs to say that the Christian god is real and must be worshipped.

There is no way the government is being neutral here. They are anti-Christian at the least, and pro-atheist at the most.

If the government were being neutral, there would be a court order requiring the land to be opened up to all religious symbols. “sure, you can keep your symbol there, but you also have to allow the other religions to have theirs”

But that was not the order.

The government has not been neutral because that’s not how SOCAS is being interpreted. Atheism is the official state religion, comrade.

 

[meltzerboy]

There is no way the government is being neutral here. They are anti-Christian at the least, and pro-atheist at the most.

If the government were being neutral, there would be a court order requiring the land to be opened up to all religious symbols. “sure, you can keep your symbol there, but you also have to allow the other religions to have theirs”

But that was not the order.

The government has not been neutral because that’s not how SOCAS is being interpreted. Atheism is the official state religion, comrade.

According to what you propose, however, the number of symbols that might be (theoretically) required to satisfy everyone’s religious beliefs would be too numerous. Thus, better none than all. Further, atheists would not be satisfied that any religion, let alone a whole bunch of them, is being showcased and endorsed on state property.

 

[Doormouse]

if people want to have monuments of their God put up why not?
if they don’t, they don’t. wouldn’t you think it would be as easy as that?
to take away monuments of peoples God, wouldn’t that be atheistic? that would be answering to people who have no God at all, wouldn’t it? I mean if you have no interest in God that’s your fault. the rest of us who do, celebrate, and love our GOD.

 

[EIF5A]

if people want to have monuments of their God put up why not?
if they don’t, they don’t. wouldn’t you think it would be as easy as that?
to take away monuments of peoples God, wouldn’t that be atheistic? that would be answering to people who have no God at all, wouldn’t it? I mean if you have no interest in God that’s your fault. the rest of us who do, celebrate, and love our GOD.

I don’t know who they’re fighting for, the atheists.

If they’re atheists, a religious monument means nothing to them.

How odd that those without religion are “offended” by it. Are they being forced to recite the Ten Commandments?

“I’m not offended, but I feel like I should be offended, so I’ll be offended.”

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

if people want to have monuments of their God put up why not?
if they don’t, they don’t. wouldn’t you think it would be as easy as that?

The issue is that this is on the state capitol, a public ground that is supposed to serve all members of the state. It is meant to be inclusive not exclusive. There is nothing preventing groups or individual citizens from putting up their own monuments on private property – whether it be a home, church, mosque, or business.

to take away monuments of peoples God, wouldn’t that be atheistic?

Absolutely not. It would be secular, meaning neutral on the subject of religion.

that would be answering to people who have no God at all, wouldn’t it?

Again that is not correct. Saying that a government will not discuss or suggest which religion is true is not the same as claiming that there is no god. If the state were to put up banners stating atheism is accurate, it would be just as non-secular as banners that say a certain religion’s god exists.

I mean if you have no interest in God that’s your fault. the rest of us who do, celebrate, and love our GOD.

Not giving special privileges to a certain portion of believers by allowing their writings on public ground in no way limits their ability to celebrate and love their god. It is merely being fair to all of their citizens who may or may not feel the same way.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I don’t know who they’re fighting for, the atheists.

If they’re atheists, a religious monument means nothing to them.

Atheists are fighting for everyone. When the United States first started in most states there was a great deal of oppression toward Catholics. Some governments wanted to fund certain Protestant churches with taxpayer money. Luckily the idea that government should be neutral on religion took hold and it remains (in varying degrees) to this day.

And I would say that these religious monuments mean something not only to atheists, but to any non-Christian. It means something politically. Allowing such monuments on public ground would tell non-Christians that they are second-class citizens and that the government is not immune to showing favoritism.

How odd that those without religion are “offended” by it. Are they being forced to recite the Ten Commandments?

I’ve always believed that offense alone is not sufficient reason for a government to act; but this isn’t just about offense. It’s about the rule of law. It’s about the protection of equality that at one time or another has helped every religious group. No group is special or will be allowed to gain access to public ground that other groups may not.

“I’m not offended, but I feel like I should be offended, so I’ll be offended.”

All religious groups have people who feel and act this way. Don’t suggest that any group is immune from such behavior.

 

[josh987654321]

christiannews.net/2015/09/12/judge-orders-removal-of-oklahoma-ten-commandments-monument-within-30-days/

The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner. - Psalm 118:22

 

[abucs]

Luckily the idea that government should be neutral on religion took hold and it remains (in varying degrees) to this day.

Withdrawing God from education, politics and welfare is not in any way neutral. It is on the extreme.

Regarding slavery : interesting audiobook from a book written by Thomas Sowell - Black Rednecks and White Liberals.

youtube.com/watch?v=ao7FKReHYKY

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Withdrawing God from education, politics and welfare is not in any way neutral. It is on the extreme.

If schools said that there is no god, then that would be extreme and not neutral – in the same way that if a public school today says there is a god.

You don’t like that (your specfic flavor of) God was withdrawn from public life. But was it right to be there in the first place. The state being an advocate for (your specific flavor of) God was not neutral. It had a special place in public affairs that other faiths and non-faith did not have access to. Being secular isn’t going from a neutral position to an extreme position, it’s going from an extreme position where the government endorsed a certain religion to now being neutral.

 

[BobCatholic]

Absolutely not. It would be secular, meaning neutral on the subject of religion.

How does silencing one religion’s (or multiple religion’s) voices “neutral”? If Atheists put up an atheist plaque and it got taken down, they’d be screaming loud about the government’s lack of neutrality.

SOCAS only goes one way, when the official religion of the government is atheism.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

How does silencing one religion’s (or multiple religion’s) voices “neutral”? If Atheists put up an atheist plaque and it got taken down, they’d be screaming loud about the government’s lack of neutrality.

SOCAS only goes one way, when the official religion of the government is atheism.

In secularism atheism is just as “silenced” as the multitude of religious voices are. Christians are upset because they once were in a priveleged position in American government institutions. Now we apply a truly neutral position in such matters and give no religious position (or anti-religious position) any privelege.

If you’re conflating atheism and secularism, that’s where the misunderstanding is.

 

[meltzerboy]

If schools said that there is no god, then that would be extreme and not neutral – in the same way that if a public school today says there is a god.

You don’t like that (your specfic flavor of) God was withdrawn from public life. But was it right to be there in the first place. The state being an advocate for (your specific flavor of) God was not neutral. It had a special place in public affairs that other faiths and non-faith did not have access to. Being secular isn’t going from a neutral position to an extreme position, it’s going from an extreme position where the government endorsed a certain religion to now being neutral.

Exactly. Public entities have no business endorsing religion in general or a specific religion. That does not mean religion should not be spoken of in the context of history and civilization, however. Insofar as religious schools are concerned, I once taught at a Jewish school (yeshiva) where the history teacher taught about the history of the Church in the context of Western civilization; but care had to be taken neither to endorse nor adversely criticize Christianity.

 

[meltzerboy]

Exactly. Public institutions have no business endorsing religion in general or a specific religion. That does not mean religion should not be spoken of in the context of history and civilization, however. Insofar as religious schools are concerned, I once taught at a Jewish school (yeshiva) where the history teacher taught about the history of the Church in the context of Western civilization; but care had to be taken neither to endorse nor adversely criticize Christianity.

 

[abucs]

Mike you are of course entitled to use your own language and phrases such as ‘your God’.

However I see these phrases as inaccurate and self serving because it tries to define the conversation as a problem between different gods (created in the minds of different people) which your view of secularism solves.

Now you are an atheist and entitled to see the world as you would, but why should an atheist way of looking at the world ‘your god’ ‘his god’ ‘my neutral solution without any (made up) god’ be accepted as the basis for defining the education system for us all? That is clearly not neutral.

Gong back to language : I think a more accurate phrase would be Christian conception of the divine, Hindu conception of the divine etc.

In this way it is much more clearly seen that a removal from the public square of the divine altogether does not create neutrality. It strongly (and thus unjustly) favours those who would see the world without divinity. And it quite obviously over time has created a larger and larger pool of people who share that vision.

It removes the divine from history, from the progress of humanity, from how we should relate to Creation including other beings as well as how we view ourselves. It removes the divine from any shared vision of where we should be heading as a society. In short such an education system allows and thus encourages godless philosophies and thought ahead of thought that would consider the divine. This is clearly supporting the atheist position. The result of gradual de-Christianisation in favour of godlessness give proof to this.

Many atheists like to tell us that the Christian concept of the divine (my terminology) is no different to the flying spaghetti monster etc etc. But an atheist school system would not be teaching there was no flying spaghetti monster. It just would not give any time to incorporating such views into the curriculum.

It is no accident that everywhere there has been secular education where the population has been taught to look at the world without God and think of their own reality and their personal relationships without God that that population has gradually started to live and act as if there is no God.

It is quite obvious that the population is being enculturated into a non God way of living.

That cannot in any way be described as a neutral position. It is on the extreme.

A Catholic education system moves people towards Catholicism.
A Moslem education system moves people towards Islam.
A secular education system HAS DEFINATELY MOVED ALL POPULATIONS IT HAS BEEN ENGAGED WITH towards godlessness.

A secular education system is thus not neutral and when having the sole use of public moneys it is clearly unjust.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Mike you are of course entitled…

Public schools in the United States may (and do) legally offer comparative religion courses – provided that no particular religious viewpoint is endorsed or privileged. Those courses certainly aren’t “godless”.