»1587200 Posted November 17, 2003 Report Posted November 17, 2003 Nov. 13: "A special court today ordered the removal of Alabama's suspended chief justice, Roy S. Moore, after unanimously finding that he had committed ethical breaches in a dispute over church, state and the Ten Commandments that gained national attention" * Thoughts, comments? *-Sited from the New York Times
Bueshtak Posted November 17, 2003 Report Posted November 17, 2003 I heard something about that, but I fell alseep :/ Anyone fill me in on what exactly happened? I'd do it, but I'm in class right now and the teacher is coming over...
Dr Brain Posted November 17, 2003 Report Posted November 17, 2003 I think he shouldn't have been forced to remove it, but I think that as a Judge, he should have compiled with the court order.
»1587200 Posted November 17, 2003 Author Report Posted November 17, 2003 Bues, a chief justice of the Alabama supreme court was removed from office after he refused to remove a momument of the ten commandments from the enterence of his court building.
Bueshtak Posted November 17, 2003 Report Posted November 17, 2003 Ahh, I did see something about this, and my opinion, who cares? Just people -*BAD WORD*-ing...I understand why they wouldn't really want it there, but -*BAD WORD*-, does it really matter? The world will not end if that thing just sits there...
Aileron Posted November 17, 2003 Report Posted November 17, 2003 Not my exact opinion, but I'll agree with that.
Guest DeathToYou! Posted November 18, 2003 Report Posted November 18, 2003 Bues, a chief justice of the Alabama supreme court was removed from office after he refused to remove a momument of the ten commandments from the enterence of his court building. That's pathetic, whether or not you're catholic or christian, or any other similar religion, I'm sure any sane person can agree that the ten-commandments have nothing but good intentions in telling people how to behave. For a court-room, I would only think there SHOULD be one.
Guest DeathToYou! Posted November 18, 2003 Report Posted November 18, 2003 Bues, a chief justice of the Alabama supreme court was removed from office after he refused to remove a momument of the ten commandments from the enterence of his court building. That's pathetic, whether or not you're catholic or christian, or any other similar religion, I'm sure any sane person can agree that the ten-commandments have nothing but good intentions in telling people how to behave. For a court-room, I would only think there SHOULD be one. oh yeah, and whether there should or shouldn't be, the answer to this, which I agree with whole-heartedly is: "Who cares?!" god, I'm sick of people being nailed for stupid--*BAD WORD*- reasons related to law these days. I can't walk down the street full of druggies without the cops stopping *ME* because they think that *I* look suspicious. People are sick when it comes to picking on people who won't protect themselves from moronic accusers, and then sit around picking their nose against any REAL criminal.
Guest feef Posted November 18, 2003 Report Posted November 18, 2003 Ah, secularism. They're imposing an ideology, and they're doing it in the name of the Cons!@#$%^&*ution. It's intellectually dishonest from people that otherwise supposedly pride themselves on intellectual honesty. (Although that's silly of me to say... I know it has nothing to do with that.) I think the Judaism and its deriviatives are a bunch of hogwash and mostly spout intollerance, injustice, ignorance, etc., but even stupid ideas must benefit from the freedom of expression lest nothing except state-approved ideas do. (And besides, most people recognize the bible as a bunch of hogwash, which is why they hold extremely liberal interpretations of some of the most popular passages and ignore the rest as though none of it exists). I think it is important to seperate state power from religion (although religion can serve as the inspiration for policy), but preventing people from displaying and promoting religion on public or state-owned property seems suspect. Part of me approves of this, but then part of me would like to see all religions banished on the grounds of being stupidly destructive and weak.
»1587200 Posted November 18, 2003 Author Report Posted November 18, 2003 1. "catholic or christian" - Catholisim is Christianity 2. "most people recognize the bible as a bunch of hogwash" - I'll debate the authenticity of the Bible any time with ya if you want (notice I said "debate"). 3. The U.S. was founded on God and Christianity. "In God We Trust" is the motto of this nation, a nation where half the population doesn't care about what is right and wrong, hence forth they have no reason for even concidering the Bible as truth. A nation where its "o.k" to abort a baby before it's born, yet its murder to put it in a bag, sufficate it, and put it under your mattress right after the child is born. 4. "mostly spout intollerance, injustice, ignorance" - Please give examples of where you see "intollerance, injustice and ignorance" in Christianity. I do realize there should be a seperation of church and state in a country where people can freely express their religous beleifs and opinions, but the fact still remains, the laws that this country was built upon, the laws that are still enforced today, were based on Christianity, reguardless of weather you accept it or not. I was watching the news on this subject, and a guy said that the monument should be removed because no one is above the law, referring to God. From my personal standpoint, if anything is "hogwash" it would be that statement.
Guest DeathToYou! Posted November 18, 2003 Report Posted November 18, 2003 1. "catholic or christian" - Catholisim is Christianity sorta... I mean, if you call a "christian' catholic, and they're very religious, they won't appreciate it. It's like calling a protestanta catholic.. almost. 2. "most people recognize the bible as a bunch of hogwash" - I'll debate the authenticity of the Bible any time with ya if you want (notice I said "debate"). I mostly agree that the bible isn't really somethign that should go into a court, but the 10 commandments are definately not hogwash, that's common sense. I mean, any person in their right mind knows that each of those guides/rules on that are reasonable and good whether you believe your soul or whatever depends on it or not! >=p 3. The U.S. was founded on God and Christianity. "In God We Trust" is the motto of this nation, a nation where half the population doesn't care about what is right and wrong, hence forth they have no reason for even concidering the Bible as truth. A nation where its "o.k" to abort a baby before it's born, yet its murder to put it in a bag, sufficate it, and put it under your mattress right after the child is born. 4. "mostly spout intollerance, injustice, ignorance" - Please give examples of where you see "intollerance, injustice and ignorance" in Christianity. I do realize there should be a seperation of church and state in a country where people can freely express their religous beleifs and opinions, but the fact still remains, the laws that this country was built upon, the laws that are still enforced today, were based on Christianity, reguardless of weather you accept it or not. I was watching the news on this subject, and a guy said that the monument should be removed because no one is above the law, referring to God. From my personal standpoint, if anything is "hogwash" it would be that statement. The nation being built on christianity is also a poitn I agree with, I've never actually been part of a courtroom, but I DO believe they make the people on trial swear they're telling the truthe while having their hand on a BIBLE, hmmph.
Aileron Posted November 18, 2003 Report Posted November 18, 2003 Well, I agree that religion should hold precidence over government. I also agree that the US is primarily christian. Thus, when we do away with religion, even on public property, we risk destroying our culture. Thus, such decisions should be decided slowly and carefully, not rapidly by a handfull of protesters. As for the Catholic/Christian thing, the distinction lies in the many groups of protestant wannabes. Catholicism is the one true form of christianity, the others are just immitators. Also, I hope people whos name begins with "M" refrain from posting here. ...I'm ticking everyone off today.
MonteZuma Posted November 18, 2003 Report Posted November 18, 2003 I haven't read the whole story, but lets face it....this judge was trying to make a religious statement. He should give up on that and stick to being a judge.
Guest feef Posted November 19, 2003 Report Posted November 19, 2003 >>"most people recognize the bible as a bunch of hogwash" - I'll debate the authenticity of the Bible any time with ya if you want (notice I said "debate"<< You must accept it on faith alone. If you also accept empirical evidence that you believe supports it, then so must you accept empirical evidence that contradicts it. I tend to avoid making !@#$%^&*umptions, and when !@#$%^&*umptions must be made (such as a few core maxims relating to the applicability of empiricism, etc.) then I tend to make as few of them as possible. That's the engine driving science and technology, which has been remarkably useful. That doesn't mean it's the only way, or even the right way, but we must start somewhere and it seems to work well enough. >>The U.S. was founded on God and Christianity. "In God We Trust" is the motto of this nation, a nation where half the population doesn't care about what is right and wrong, hence forth they have no reason for even concidering the Bible as truth. A nation where its "o.k" to abort a baby before it's born, yet its murder to put it in a bag, sufficate it, and put it under your mattress right after the child is born.<< There's no doubt that most of the first settlers were puritans and religious zealots. That's part of the reason they came to America, so they could practice their religion without being persecuted. That's also why the US forefathers were so cognizant of the need to seperate religious and state power as they just left a nation embroiled in this conflict. And not all the forefathers were religious, and even fewer of them were specifically christian. As Thomas Paine said, "My country is the world and my religion is to do good." >>4. "mostly spout intolerance, injustice, ignorance" - Please give examples of where you see "intolerance, injustice and ignorance" in Christianity.<< A good reference can be found at: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com I don't agree with all their interpretations (when liberal interpretations weren't likely meant or the meaning was unclear), but I think you might find it alarming and maybe even revealing.
SVS Posted November 19, 2003 Report Posted November 19, 2003 This issue is simple, whither or not he should of been forced to remove the monument does not matter. By ignoreing a court order to remove the monument he stuck his toungue out at our entire judicial system. Why would a person that would make a mockery out of the system be allowed to remain an integral part of it?
»1587200 Posted November 19, 2003 Author Report Posted November 19, 2003 Time to rabbit trail from my own topic empirical? I don't think 20 people consi!@#$%^&*ues as empirical. The whole religion of Christianity started with one man, and has become the most wide spread religion on the planet. Explain to me how 12 people sharing their views and beliefs is empirical. The romans, who at the time knew death very well, pronouncing Jesus dead, stabbing him in the heart, guarding his tomb, still had no explination for his missing body. People can debate that the dicpiles stole the body, but after Jesus was crucified, there were few left. And who would try to steal the body with romans guarding it? Why would these people be stoned, boiled in oil, crucified, be-headed, mocked, beaten, etc for a lie? They had nothing to gain and everything to loose. Would you give your life for something you mocked? I know I wouldn't. Explain to me why within 50 years of the death of Jesus the strongest empire on the planet (romans) fell to christianity. The christians didn't show up with swords and kill everyone and make them believe, so how is that empirical? They showed up, shared what they believed, and people started experencing the same. Now, if you want to use something like the spanish inquision for a reason to call christianity empirical, I can debate that too Christiantiy was already wide spread by the time the spanish inquisition started. Just about every major religion has had their periods like this. Islam was, and still is, being spread "by the sword" so to speak. Either way, the origin of Christiantiy was not started by empirical motives. It was started by a few who shared their story, and had people believe. The apositle Paul didn't go to Corinth with a sword and make people believe like the romans so often did. Now, to get back on the topic, SVS does make a good point about Moore basicly mocking the system by refusing to follow a court order, and I'd have to say I agree with him. The part that ticks me off is that the court order never should have been put in place. And if they want to make a court order to remove a 10 commandments monument, then they should make one to remove all crosses from national cemetaries (sp?), the site of the Oklahoma City bombing and WTC center, as well as court orders to remove crosses from road sides where people died. Its the same basic princible. I don't see a difference between a 10 commandments monument in a court house and a cross on a grave in a national cemetary (sp?) run, operated and owned by the government.
MonteZuma Posted November 19, 2003 Report Posted November 19, 2003 Why would these people be stoned, boiled in oil, crucified, be-headed, mocked, beaten, etc for a lie?People do dumb stuff for dumb reasons all the time. Many people have been tortured or commited suicide in the name of their religion or some other crackpot cause (DONT DRINK THE KOOL-AID!). Lots of people die in the name of Islam. Doesn't mean we all need to convert. Explain to me why within 50 years of the death of Jesus the strongest empire on the planet (romans) fell to christianity.....There were many economic factors in the fall of the Roman Empire. English historian Edward Gibbon wrote a historical masterpiece in the late 1700’s, !@#$%^&*led "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", which describes many of these (Nardo 11). One of the reasons he listed is excessive indulgence and decadence by the upper class, at the expense of the state and the rest of the common people. (Nardo 11). Other historians and scholars have come up with many other reasons, including changes in climate which caused a decline in agricultural production, driving up prices (Nardo 11). In addition, "class wars" between the rich and the poor caused much tension within the empire. Also, waves of plague and disease spread through the densely populated cities, killing huge amounts of people and disrupting economic production and social stability (Nardo 11). Slavery was another economic problem, with slaves doing much of the work, benefiting the upper class, while the common people were out of luck (Dorrington). Since there were few jobs for commoners, most lived in poverty. In order to take care of this problem, the government established the Dole, which was a form of welfare for the impoverished citizens. Huge amounts of money were spent in order to feed the hungry population, as well as to provide entertainment to placate them, such as circuses (Gill). The Roman Emperor Nero is said to have started the fire which burned Rome in 64 A.D., which caused much devastation, destroying huge swaths of the city (Tacitus). In addition, the conquest of new territories stopped about two centuries after the birth of Christ, halting the influx of slaves and war loot (Dorrington). To top it off, the patricians in Rome imported huge amounts of luxury items from distant lands, and Rome was importing far more than it was exporting. This huge amount of money pouring out of Rome caused a large trade deficit (Rempel). Finally, huge amounts of corruption in the government bureaucracy caused much discontent among the people, as well as economic losses (Gill). The second group of factors was sociopolitical decay. One of the major problems of the imperial period was that there was no specific way for a new emperor to be chosen after the reign of an old one had ended. This often caused wasteful and divisive civil wars when an emperor died (Dorrington). Between 180 and 285 A.D., all but two of the 27 emperors who ruled met violent deaths (Rempel). Since Rome was a dictatorial system, much damage could be done if a bad emperor took power. For example, the insane emperor Nero is said to have caused the fire which destroyed much of Rome (Tacitus). Since lead was used in Roman plumbing and cooking vessels, some historians have cited lead poisoning as a factor in the fall, claiming that it caused brain damage and may have caused some Roman leaders to act illogically (Grout). In the third century A.D., the Roman Emperor Diocletian split the empire into two halves: eastern and western. He ruled over the Eastern Empire and moved the capital to Turkey, and appointed an emperor to rule the Western Empire. He did this because he felt that the empire had become too large and complex to govern under a single authority. While this did make the empire easier to manage, it also weakened it as a whole, and much feuding occurred between the two par!@#$%^&*ions during the next several centuries (Hooker). In addition, many historians cite the coming of Christianity as an occurrence which weakened the empire, since not only did it change traditional Roman beliefs and value, it also created much conflict and tension between the Christians and the followers of the old pagan ways (Nardo 11). Finally, during these times of economic, social and political upheaval, the Roman military was weakening, and suffered a series of stinging defeats at the hands of the Germans and the Huns, as well as various minor barbarian tribes. One of the reasons for these defeats was that the Empire’s borders were huge and ever-expanding, and defended by only approximately 500,000 troops, when 3 million or more were required to effectively secure the border (Dorrington). In addition, many barbarians were able to wreak havoc if they got through the border defenses, since there was then nothing between them and the Roman cities. The emperor Diocletian realized this, and adopted a change in military strategy: instead of putting troops on the border to defend it, he concentrated mobile divisions of troops away from the border, ready to respond if an incursion occurred (Nardo 41). This strengthened the empire’s defenses, but as more and more troops went to Italy to fight civil wars, the military was weakened further (Dorrington). In addition, when the empire split into east and west par!@#$%^&*ions, it’s military strength was halved (Heitman). As the empire slowly grew more and more corrupt, the people’s sense of patriotism diminished. Soldiers were not longer fighting for "The Glory that was Rome" (Heitman). Due to this, fewer Romans were enlisting the military, new forms of conscription had to be enforced, such as mandating military service for the sons of veterans. This was extremely unpopular, and desertions were widespread. To combat this, the military went so far as to brand new recruits with hot branding irons so they could be identified if they deserted. Such cruel treatment further weakened the morale of the Roman army (Nardo 43-44). Finally, barbarian tribes were able to repeatedly crush the weakened legions, and march to Rome (Rempel).http://home.rochester.rr.com/kjmpage/fallofrome.htm The part that ticks me off is that the court order never should have been put in place. And if they want to make a court order to remove a 10 commandments monument, then they should make one to remove all crosses from national cemetaries (sp?), the site of the Oklahoma City bombing and WTC center, as well as court orders to remove crosses from road sides where people died. Its the same basic princible. I don't see a difference between a 10 commandments monument in a court house and a cross on a grave in a national cemetary (sp?) run, operated and owned by the government.There is no law stopping people of other faiths having monuments with their own icons in any of those places. But the main difference between all of your examples and the case of the Judge is that a court house is not a religious shrine (or memorial to the dead for that matter) and should never be. For the sake of impartiality, the Law and Religion must be seperate. Monte
Guest feef Posted November 20, 2003 Report Posted November 20, 2003 >>empirical? I don't think 20 people consi!@#$%^&*ues as empirical. The whole religion of Christianity started with one man, and has become the most wide spread religion on the planet. Explain to me how 12 people sharing their views and beliefs is empirical.<< I don't understand how your answer relates to my question. Perhaps you misread? >>The romans, who at the time knew death very well, pronouncing Jesus dead, stabbing him in the heart, guarding his tomb, still had no explination for his missing body.<< Jesus was a common name, and many people, often leaders, !@#$%^&*umed the !@#$%^&*le Christ. The four gospels are the authorities relied upon to prove the reality of Jesus Christ, but they were written long after his alleged time, in a different language, and in a different place. They also contradict and disagree with each other, nor is there any evidence for the gospels (Mathew, Luke, etc.)--they appear to be made up names or forgeries just to give the books an appearance of importance. Political leaders needed a messiah, so they invented one that lived in the past. That's not to say there never was a man by the name of Jesus who went around doing swell things and was eventually executed, but sadly no one wrote a historical do-*BAD WORD*-ent for him. Additional edit: Oh, and I didn't even bother to address the extraordinary claims made about him. (Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence... the "evidence" provided doesn't even offer a compelling case for the mundane claims, however.) As far as your question about the Roman Empire. It was at its height around the year 120 AD, and lasted a long time after that. And one doesn't need to rely upon some fuzzy notion that Jesus Christ, long since dead, sowed the seeds of its ruination. Unlike Jesus, we have some pretty good records on Rome and what things probably contributed to its eventual decline.
Aileron Posted November 20, 2003 Report Posted November 20, 2003 The point was, as I see it, that 12 guys changed the religion of an entire empire against the will of politics. Face it, given how there was a link between religion and state back then, it is a miracle in itself that they managed to survive long enough to spread their word, let alone that fact that their word spread long enought and far enough to change the mindset of the dominant power. That is difficult enough, but the Romans were more likely to torture a person to death than adopt their way of life. This in itself doesn't prove Chistianity is correct, but it does prove that it is a respectable belief.
»1587200 Posted November 20, 2003 Author Report Posted November 20, 2003 People do dumb stuff for dumb reasons all the time. Many people have been tortured or commited suicide in the name of their religion or some other crackpot cause (DONT DRINK THE KOOL-AID!). Lots of people die in the name of Islam. Doesn't mean we all need to convert.Granted, people do dumb things for dumb reasons all the time in the name of their religion. But would you die for something you know you fabricated? Its like saying the pen is blue when its really red. You know its red, everyone else knows its read, but you say its blue just to mess with them. Someone threatens to kill you for it, would you still say the pen is blue? If someone was willing to whip you then crucify you, would you still say the pen is blue? The four gospels are the authorities relied upon to prove the reality of Jesus Christ, but they were written long after his alleged time, in a different languageOther historians from other parts of the world acknowledge the presence of a man named Jesus who performed miricles. Josephus, a jewish scholor (I realize he was not from a different part of the world) acknowledged that Jesus existed. Plato of all people even said there was a man named Jesus who came from Isreal and traveled to India. To say "no one wrote a historical do-*BAD WORD*-ent for him" would be wrong. The gospels have acctually been dated to within 10 years after the death of Jesus, and Matthew was written in hebrew (Jesus was a jew, he lived in isreal, he was surrounded by jews, everyone spoke hebrew, he knew hebrew...) The apostile Paul wrote everything in Greek because everywhere he traveled to they spoke and read greek.
SVS Posted November 20, 2003 Report Posted November 20, 2003 You guys should of really made another topic for this... The majority of these posts are not really dealing with the issue brought up for discussion...
Guest feef Posted November 20, 2003 Report Posted November 20, 2003 >>Josephus, a jewish scholor (I realize he was not from a different part of the world) acknowledged that Jesus existed.<< First, I'd like to point out that there are people who believe in the existence of all manner of mythic creatures. If one needed only believe something exists for it to exist, then I humbly submit it is high time Elvis got crackin' on a new album. That said, there are those who claim the work you are familiar with is the result of an interpolater. Nothing is so simple when it comes to this subject, eh? There was a vested interest in perpetuating the myth and the church had the resources and dishonesty to do it. >>Plato of all people even said there was a man named Jesus who came from Isreal and traveled to India.<< Plato lived and died over 300 years before Jesus' alleged time. >>To say "no one wrote a historical do-*BAD WORD*-ent for him" would be wrong.<< That was said in jest to indicate the Jesus Christ depicted in the gospels never existed but other remarkable men, some perhaps even using the common name, Jesus, did and yet a mythical man of questionable moral conduct serving a questionable religious political motive recieves all the glory. >>The gospels have acctually been dated to within 10 years after the death of Jesus, and Matthew was written in hebrew (Jesus was a jew, he lived in isreal, he was surrounded by jews, everyone spoke hebrew, he knew hebrew...) The apostile Paul wrote everything in Greek because everywhere he traveled to they spoke and read greek.<< Nearly every credible religous scholar dates them over a hundred years after Christ's death. And Hebrew would not have been the language of Jesus, it would have been Aramaic given the timeframe. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament was originally written in Greek.
Aileron Posted November 20, 2003 Report Posted November 20, 2003 First off, it is Christ's deeds we are trying to disprove or prove, moreso than whether or not a guy named Jesus existed. As for your first point, you proved nothing. You !@#$%^&*ERTED that it was all a lie, based on the fact that it was possible to be a lie. However, in my opinion, given how the church managed to survive for so long and more importantly through vastly changing political atmosphere's, and coupling that with the place where it origionated, I highly doubt it is a 2000 year old scam. Besides, in case you haven't noticed, priests do not make that much money. Yes, the !@#$%^&*le does have its share of power and a decent wage, but not enough to make it realistic over this amount of time. As for the third point, your "questionable political motive" includes getting oneself killed on a cross. That is whether you are religious or secular because if you opposed Rome inside one of their provinces, that is where you ended up. Again, I cannot disprove you, because again you !@#$%^&*erted your point without proving it. However, I can say that your opinion is unlikely because most of the people who opposed Rome at the time got killed, an their movement with them.
MonteZuma Posted November 20, 2003 Report Posted November 20, 2003 Granted, people do dumb things for dumb reasons all the time in the name of their religion. But would you die for something you know you fabricated? Its like saying the pen is blue when its really red. You know its red, everyone else knows its read, but you say its blue just to mess with them. Someone threatens to kill you for it, would you still say the pen is blue? If someone was willing to whip you then crucify you, would you still say the pen is blue?I guess I would argue that they weren't lying. Just mistaken. Or maybe there was something else at stake. Like power or glory? I don't think the conversion of Rome to christianity can be seen as a miracle any more can the conversion of hundreds of millions of Asians to Islam.
Recommended Posts