Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

Can the Alabama 'Ten Commandments' Judge Rise Again?

By Jeremy Leaming, Church and State. Posted September 7, 2007.


Ousted Alabama judge Roy Moore is waging war on church-state separation -- and you won't believe the far-out folks who are helping him.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Most lawyers and other Americans, says Roy Moore, don't understand the First Amendment's church-state provisions because they've "been indoctrinated in something that is not true."

Speaking at a "God & Country Patriotic Celebration & Conference" in Maryland in July, Moore claimed law professors and judges are leading people astray.

"They say God must be separated from life," Moore insisted. "As a Christian, God can't be separate from life. God has everything to do with law."

If you thought that former Alabama Chief Justice Moore had slinked off into a dark corner after being ejected from his state's Supreme Court, you thought wrong. The man known to many Americans as the "Ten Commandments judge" may be bowed, but he's far from broken.

Moore has not retreated from his advocacy of a society ordered by his version of biblical law. Instead, he is using his forced retirement from public office -- and his infamy -- to fuel a crusade aimed at spreading misinformation about church-state separation.

Just before the Fourth of July, he wound up as the main attraction at a Religious Right gathering in Severn, Md., where he and a string of far-right activists peddled "Christian nation" rhetoric, bashed Islam, belittled American culture and the federal government and displayed an alarming affinity for the neo-Confederate states' rights cause.

On the conference's first day during a panel discussion dubbed "The Myth of Separation of Church and State," Moore said, "I didn't come to my understanding of separation of church and state out of study or my intellectual ability, which is limited. I came through it out of experience."

Moore then elaborated on the lengthy court battles over his efforts to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings. He is best known -- and loved by the Religious Right -- for his defense of a large granite Commandments monument he placed in the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State and its allies challenged the religious display in federal court. Moore lost at all levels of the federal judiciary, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review his case.

Moore defied court orders to remove the 2.5-ton monument, and in 2003 he was ejected from the state supreme court. (The monument finally wound up in the atrium of the CrossPoint Community Church, the Gadsden, Ala., congregation where Moore worships.)

The "God & Country" conferees in Severn celebrated Moore's actions as heroic. The other speakers, including a fiery Maryland state legislator, a disgraced former military chaplain and a law professor dressed as a Christian crusader knight, argued that the nation's founders were deeply religious men who did not intend for church and state to be separate. America, they said, is morally bankrupt thanks to a list of usual suspects, such as gays, secularists, Hollywood and liberal politicians.

One of the conference's primary sponsors was Michael Peroutka, a Pasadena, Md., attorney who ran for president on the U.S. Constitution Party ticket in 2004. The party advocates for an extremely weak central government and a society governed by biblical law. So, beyond celebrating Moore as a Christian martyr of sorts, an anti-government sentiment was also easily discernable among the speakers and audience. (On the conference's final day, one attendee approached this writer to complain that "we don't have a free country.")

Rally speakers stoked those sentiments by repeatedly painting the federal government and many politicians as hostile to Christianity.

On the event's opening day, Peroutka said it was his mission to introduce attendees "to the enormity of the problem before us. We love our country, but when my country is inebriated or acting so, it's my job, it's my duty, to set it right."

Setting the nation right, in Peroutka's view, apparently means a radical dismantling of secular democracy and the creation of a fundamentalist theocracy. Peroutka and his attorney brother, Stephen, operate a Maryland group called the Institute on the Constitution (IOTC), which claims America was founded "as a Constitutional Republic of Sovereign States with a central government of purposely limited powers based on Biblical principles." The group, which lists U.S. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) on its board of advisors, disseminates reams of material by David Barton, a "Christian nation" activist.

Peroutka decried public schools for teaching evolution and wondered how youth could be taught self-respect if they are instructed that "we are just descended from primordial ooze." He also blasted law schools, higher education in general and the media for perpetuating a false picture about the form of American government.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: church and state, roy moore, god & country patriotic c

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Hypocracy
Posted by: mizipi on Sep 7, 2007 1:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the 10 Commandments states something like the following: Thou shall not use The Lord's name in vain. The so-called Christians have distorted Jesus's teachings. All one has to do is read the Sermon on the Mount. Whether one believes in Jesus or not, it is a great read.

Wannabe Christians, just like wannabe patriots, have to use symbols to prove their worthiness. Any true Christian or patriot is known by their actions, not their symbols and speeches.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wish...
Posted by: rbohan on Sep 7, 2007 3:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we liberals were half as interested in, say, getting these un-Christian bankruptcy laws turned around, as we are in making sure some backwoods town hall doesn't hang up a copy of the Ten Commandments.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A powerful tool...
Posted by: chomsky on Sep 7, 2007 4:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion is a powerful tool, used to control the populations.
That's why they they want to keep religion in politics...
Now, which one of the many different religions should we be forced to follow? Why should it be catholicism?
And see the "wonderful" things the catholic church and Spain governement did in the times of the inquisition... So evil.
And people wonder why science is declining... Science proves false many aspects of religions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A powerful tool... Posted by: babs
Why relevant?
Posted by: PJT on Sep 7, 2007 4:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whenever the people who want me to live according to precepts laid out in a book of Stone Age myths and interpreted according to Medieval superstition get a lot of attention, I find myself wanting to talk directly with these people to ask some questions. My first question is, "why is this relevant to me?" Let me take one example, the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Are these words to be understood as written 3,000 years ago or is the admonition applicable to contemporary society? The people who first wrote this down were Bedouins who kept many "wives" as well as concubines, or sex slaves. All of the women were essentially chattel, or property. The adultery commandment doesn't make much sense in that context does it? Or, are they really saying that it is OK for me to treat my women folk like property, to have multiple wives and sex slaves? The commandment would have to mean "don't violate your neighbor's daughter who is still in her father's house so she becomes damaged goods: worthless as property". Why should I waste my time trying to figure out the relevance of this rule to my life? P J Tramdack

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why relevant? Posted by: VZEQICVA
150 years ago?
Posted by: jw56 on Sep 7, 2007 4:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"A revolution has happened in America. It has happened over the past 150 years..."

Where was this country 150 years ago? That was just before the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. This tells you right where their thinking is. They won't be happy until the US is back where the South was pre-Civil War.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 150 years ago? Posted by: Xynyx
how many commandments do they need?
Posted by: smendler on Sep 7, 2007 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know why Christians get so het up about the Ten - Jesus gave us Two:

1. Love Your God
2. Love Your Neighbor

That sums it up quite nicely for me...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TOO MUCH USELESS BLATHER
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 7, 2007 7:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At some point in life (usually around age 7) we all know right from wrong. It's called the age of reason. We overcomplicate everything. Most people don't even know the Ten Commandments. But We all know when we're breaking one of them. That's what matters. We waste entirely too much time on stuff that doesn't matter. I know I'm not allowed to murder anyone or steal from them. Let's move one to more important stuff. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Beatitudes and Judge Moore
Posted by: sausage on Sep 7, 2007 7:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's funny how guys like Judge Roy Moore go on and on about how Christian they are, and how this is a "Christian nation" founded on the principals of Exodus 20, the so-called Ten Commandments.

Yet they ignore the most basic tenet of Christ's teachings.

Have you ever heard or read of one of these fundamentalist Bible-thumpers ever quote, or even mention in passing, Matthew 5:1-16, the so-called Sermon On The Mount which contains the core essence of Jesus' teaching in verses 3 through 12 known as The Beatitudes?

When I was a kid and part of a group of Boy Scouts working for a "God and Country" medal Matthew 5:1-16 was one of the few Biblical verses our Methodist pastor drilled into us.

I mean, I'm an atheist now but I still think that The Beatitudes is more in keeping with the spirit of our Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution than the bullying bombast of the Ten Commandments.

I'm a firm believer in the total separation of church and state, however when these Christian nutcases, like Judge Moore, rant and rave about putting up copies of the Ten Commandments in public places, liberal/progressive Christians, agnostics and even atheists raised in the Christian tradition should request that The Sermon On The Mount be given equal prominence. I'm sure Christian nutcases like Judge Moore wouldn't object. They, after all, are the ones who claim the United States is a "Christian nation."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» bettter version Posted by: TheCount
» RE: bettter version Posted by: Lauren
HE IS NEITHER
Posted by: Roverton on Sep 7, 2007 8:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...Godly nor a good American. Most Neo Christian's are actually following the philosophy of someone else, in an entorely different direction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religious fundamentalism is a mental illness
Posted by: mgloraine on Sep 7, 2007 10:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's time to get real with religious fanatics and stop them from impeding or derailing social progress at every turn. Why are we compelled to listen politely while they rant on about fairy tales and fables? Everyone engages in metaphysical speculation, but when imaginary friends and voices in the head control one's view of reality, that is mental illness. Someone should have this poor man institutionalized - he's clearly a danger to himself and others.

When myth and folklore become the basis of civil law and jurisprudence, social and intellectual growth is stunted or stopped cold. Remember what fun we all had during the Inquisition? Remember all that suppression of scientific advancement because it didn't fit the religious dogma? Remember the witch hunts and burning people at the stake?

How is this guy's notion of society any different than the Taliban's? If he really believes the nonsense he is spouting, he is delusional. If he doesn't, which is more likely, then he's using religion as a decoy to distract people from his greed and lust for power. Nothing new there, but people are eternally gullible and will swallow any moronic BS with a sanctimoniously intoned "God" thrown in as bait.

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That means that the government cannot create a state religion, or enforce one upon the people. That includes Christianity. We keep the govenment out of everybody's religion AND we keep everybody's religions out of our government. Sounds fair to me.

When politicians and lobbyists come to us with God as their topic, it means that they are either mentally unsound or trying to lay the groundwork for their next swindle. Hold on to your wallets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is what scares me
Posted by: im1013 on Sep 7, 2007 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with Anna about the relevance of the old laws, in that they are just common sense and reason. But what scares me the most about this article, and several others that I've read, is not the fact that there's a bunch of crazies out there that believe that our country should be run according to "God's Biblical Laws". What really scares me is that they are systematically taking over this country. They have somehow managed to infiltrate every conceivable level of government and power in this country (Bush and his "dominionists" included), without anyone even noticing!
The big question for me is, how do we protect our democratic society... or what's left of it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is what scares me Posted by: Lauren
Only Church
Posted by: JSquercia on Sep 7, 2007 10:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As far as I know the ONLY church being Investiagted by the IRS is a Calfornia Church whose pastor opposed the War in Iraq from the pulpet
As far as I am concerned those jerks can have their separate country for the Southern states , perhaps then we Blue states could keep our own money to do things like FIX our INFASTRUCTURE . Got to love the voters from ANNE Arundel who elect that MORON . Yes elect me and I'll make sure you NEVER see any benefit from your tax dollars .Please spare us that tired old argument about the Government has
no money and that it is all your money . I guess we could all have built the Intersatate Highway system on our own .
As one poster pointed out these people love the prohibitions entoned in the Ten Commandments but strenuously resist the Duties imposed by the Sermon on the
Mount and IGNORE the least among us ( Witness the President's refusal to approve an Expansion of the Child health Care Act) .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: agree we should let the South Posted by: jeffersonian
They should read a litte further or farther, whatever....
Posted by: jiggsh on Sep 7, 2007 11:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most "ultra-neo-right-wing conservatives" not only don't know the Full Ten Commandments, they fail to realize that they don't stop at Ten. Even most evangelicals don't read past the "Ten". If they had read a little more of the 20th Chapter of Exodus, past the "Big Ten" they would have seen the one about not creating an altar out of hewn stone. That is exactly what Judge Moore's block of granite is, is a block of hewn stone. And expressly forbidden by the Old Testament, they claim to hold in such high regard. If you don't believe...these are courtesy of www.blueletterbible.org/

Available Translations and Versions for Exd 20:25
KJV - Exd 20:25 - And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.
King James Version 1611, 1769

NKJV - Exd 20:25 - 'And if you make Me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stone; for if you use your tool on it, you have profaned it.
New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson

NLT - Exd 20:25 - If you build altars from stone, use only uncut stones. Do not chip or shape the stones with a tool, for that would make them unfit for holy use.
New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

NIV - Exd 20:25 - If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it.
New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society

ESV - Exd 20:25 - “‘If you make me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stones, for if you wield your tool on it you profane it.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles

NASB - Exd 20:25 - 'If you make an altar of stone for Me, you shall not build it of cut stones, for if you wield your tool on it, you will profane it.
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation

RSV - Exd 20:25 - And if you make me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stones; for if you wield your tool upon it you profane it.
Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.

ASV - Exd 20:25 - And if thou make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones; for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.
American Standard Version 1901 Info

Young - Exd 20:25 - `And if an altar of stones thou dost make to Me, thou dost not build them of hewn work; when thy tool thou hast waved over it, then thou dost pollute it;
Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info

Darby - Exd 20:25 - And if thou make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone; for if thou lift up thy sharp tool upon it, thou hast profaned it.
J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info

Webster - Exd 20:25 - And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou [shalt] lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.
Noah Webster Version 1833 Info

HNV - Exd 20:25 - If you make me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stones; for if you lift up your tool on it, you have polluted it.
Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info

Choose a version you are comfortable with.....
So if the judge had honestly read the "rest of the story" he would have known not to build an "altar" of hewn stone in the state house, much less any house. But as is the case, the "base" (for they are not right) have chosen to pick and choose the scripture to follow, rather than the whole book. In today's world we must learn to examine the truth and develop true understanding. Most of the "base" are not truly followers of Christ. Selah, Peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

At least these guys are funny...
Posted by: babs on Sep 7, 2007 11:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"...Lord, that we might fight the fight the way you want it fought, that we might hate what you hate, but that we might be godly in our hatred,..."

nearly did a spit take on that one.

I wonder who/what Jesus hates? And what exactly is "godly hatred"?

One step forward, five hundred steps back.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Pythonesque... Posted by: ABetterFuture
Heinlein
Posted by: Crazy H on Sep 7, 2007 4:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two of my favorite Robert A. Heinlein quotes...

"God created man in his own image. Man, in his gratitude, returned the favor."

"Man rarely, if ever creates a diety greater than himself. Most dieties have the manners and morals of spoiled children"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Moore's god-and-life hypocrisy
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 7, 2007 4:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"God can't be separate from life. God has everything to do with law." - Roy Moore

If that's the case, then he sure ain't fighting for it or he would first of all be pushing for a real change in foreign policy especially on this ILLEGAL war in Iraq and moreover stop our corrupt White House and Congress from dragging America further down the toilet in Iran.

Now for further proof on his hypocrisy, let's turn to domestic issues, well kinda foreign and domestic. Let's be honest, if God has everything to do with the law as he claims, then please explain to me the LAWLESSNESS both at home and abroad. I'd like to see Moore stand up for workers' safety right and protections and I'm pretty sure that the working class in Alabama or what's left of them anyway seriously need it a lot. And let's not forget the environment. I'd like to see Roy Moore push for a REAL change in environmental policies rather than remain silent on it even as the Congress and White House weaken and dismantle environmental protections for the public just to further stuff the coffers of their business cronies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

God has everything to do with law?
Posted by: donl51 on Sep 7, 2007 9:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who says?,were you there? was mankind even there? thats ''our'' interpretation,and it appears to me that man is interpreting it all over the place ! Christians beleive one thing,Jews another,then their are the moslems and like christians they're all over the lot!Then theirs the Evangelist,Mormons,Moonies,Budhists,and the other 10, I forgot, lots of gods ,religions,beliefs,rules and none of them have any place in government !! who's to say which one is correct? the ''true'' one 'eh? then we've the arguements,like we really need that ! You want to beleive in a god or religion do it in your own head,don't force it on me or anyone else !...I personally don't think man has quite emerged from the cave ..yet!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

May Secularism Prevail
Posted by: vasumurti on Sep 7, 2007 9:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1787 when the framers excluded all mention of God from the Constitution, they were widely denounced as immoral and the document was denounced as godless.

Opponents of the Constitution challenged ratifying conventions in nearly every state, calling attention to Article VI, Section 3: “No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

An anti-federalist in North Carolina wrote: “The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. Pagans, Deists and Mohammedans might obtain office among us.” Amos Singletary of Massachussetts, one of the most outspoken critics of the Constitution, said that he “hoped to see Christians (in power), yet by the Constitution, a papist or an infidel was as eligible as they.”

Luther Martin, a Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 wrote that “there were some members so unfashionable as to think that a belief in the existence of a Deity, and of a state of future rewards and punishments would be some security for the good conduct of our rulers, and that in a Christian country, it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism.”

Martin’s report shows that a “Christian nation” faction had its say during the Convention, and that its views were rejected.

The United States Constitution is a completely secular political document. It begins “We the people,” and contains no mention of “God,” “Jesus,” or “Christianity.” Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as the “no religious test” clause (Article VI), and “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (First Amendment)

The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase “so help me God” or any requirement to swear on a Bible (Article II, Section 1).

The words “under God” did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Similarly, “In God we Trust” was absent from currency before 1864.

The original U.S. motto, written by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is “E Pluribus Unum” (“Of Many, One”) celebrating plurality and diversity.

In 1797, America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington’s presidency and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

We are not governed by the Declaration of Independence. Its purpose was to “dissolve the political bonds,” not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based upon the idea that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. The Declaration deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, etc., and doesn’t discuss religion at all.

The references to “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence” in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Its author, Thomas Jefferson, was a Deist, opposed to Christianity and the supernatural.

It was Thomas Jefferson who established the separation of church and state. Jefferson was deeply suspicious of religion and of clergy wielding political power.

Jefferson, Madison and Paine’s writings indicate that America was never intended to be a Christian theocracy. “I have sworn upon the altar of God,” wrote Jefferson, “eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

better version here
Posted by: TheCount on Sep 8, 2007 12:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» sorry Posted by: TheCount
» RE: don't be sorry Posted by: Lauren
Good Article, Misguided Comments
Posted by: faultroy on Sep 9, 2007 3:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice to see a relatively well balanced article for a change. While I have no love for any fundamentalist group--far right or far left, I want to note that most of the Alternet commentators have not lived during the founding of this nation. If one reads the history of the United States (I'm talking about real history and not some saccharine sanitized version usually taught in our schools) one comes to the inevitable conclusion that these far right Christian promoters are definitely correct in their assessment of both the role of the federal government, and the role of Christianity in the forming of this country (by the way, from a belief standpoint I am an Agnostic). They are futher correct that the Federal government and the Federal Judiciary--in an effort to homogenize this country's plurality--has gone way overboard in forcing faith based groups to accept teachings and positions that fundamentally clash with their own.
The forced brain washing of children and adults to believe what our government "experts" believe is in the best interests of "the state," is what is actually causing these far right and far left groups to survive and flourish. And, this is perfectly clear when reading some of the bigoted and Nazi-like commentaries at the conclusion of the article which have no basis of fact.
Whether one believes in God is not really the question-- or even important for that matter. What is important, is the acknowledgement that these "Commandments," were originally instituted to "govern," individuals and existing nations and emerging nations. The fact that we exist today as one of the strongest and most vibrant nations on earth is a testimony to the efficacy of these alleged God given "commandments."
To say otherwise is truly a distortion of both reality and historical facts. It is not these Christian groups that are undermining USA society, but rather faux Progressives and Revisionist Democrats and Liberal Republicans bent on both rewriting history and at the same time giving a false, bland, one-size-fits-all spin that ultimately stands for nothing and leaves most ideological groups unsatiated.
Today, the average American is hungering for some kind of moral stability. With the massive divorce rate, the wanton destruction of the American Family through well intentioned though disastorously misguided government intervention, the systematic elimination of American Jobs to Corporate self interests; we are a prime candidate for ideological revolution. While these groups look small and innocuous now, they are building the logistical infrastructure to take over when a clear ethical and moral majority consensus is not readily available. And, they have the historical correctness of interpetation to make it rationally feasible.
I am far more concerned with the inflexible positions of Nazi-like Liberal Progressives than I am about right wing Christian Conservatives. It is not these Christians that are proselytizing their religious convictions that are the most dangerous, but the systematic proseltyzing of new age faux liberalism under the disguise of pluralistic acceptance that is the real danger and will ultimately destroy our the country as we know it today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Quotes of some of the Founders (and our first treaty)
Posted by: thornwolf on Sep 9, 2007 7:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness." [George Washington, address to Congress, 8 January, 1790]

"If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists...." [George Washington, to Tench Tighman, March 24, 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover]

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." [Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782]

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." [Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom]

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." [Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789]

"I wish You could live a Year in Boston, hear their Divines, read their publications, especially the Repository. You would see how spiritual Tyranny and ecclesiastical Domination are beginning in our Country: at least struggling for birth." [John Adams]

"Checks and Ballances, Jefferson, however you and your Party may have derided them, are our only Security, for the progress of Mind, as well as the Security of Body. Every Species of these Christians would persecute Deists, as soon as either Sect would persecute another, if it had unchecked and unballanced Power. Nay, the Deists would persecute Christians, and Atheists would persecute Deists, with as unrelenting Cruelty, as any Christians would persecute them or one another. Know thyself, human Nature!" [John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, 25 June 1813]

"When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." [Benjamin Franklin, letter to Richard Price, 1780]

"Gentlemen, we are not, nor have we ever been a Christian Nation... The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or Mohammedan nation." [John Adams]

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." [Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813]

"...the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..."
[Treaty between USA and Libya, signed at Tripoli, November 4, 1796, and at Algiers January 3, 1797; Senate advice and consent to ratification June 7, 1797; Ratified June 10, 1797; Entered into force June 10, 1797; Proclaimed by the President of the United States June 10, 1797]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why bother?
Posted by: Dboy on Sep 9, 2007 5:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why even bother with articles like this? The people who live in Alabama are not going to be able to read it anyway. What we have here is smart people having a discussion about stupid people. So seriously, why bother?

dboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A simple, little word to ponder....
Posted by: talkville on Sep 10, 2007 3:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Theanthropy.

There's a bit of urgency in it too, in these days of Grand Imperial Might and Purely Benevolent Intentions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Two Comandments
Posted by: edraven on Sep 10, 2007 10:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thou shalt not Kill nor steal. The rest are not connected to any laws. It didn't take a supreme being to point out that killing and stealing are bad.

I would consider following God's law. If ther were any.

Ed Graham

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why are these passages never mentioned?
Posted by: eyeswideopen2 on Sep 11, 2007 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why are the following passages never mentioned? . . . They follow the "ten commandments" in the book of Exodus.

Exodus 21: 1-8
1. Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.

2. If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

3. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

5. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

6. Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

7. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

8. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

If this sounds like instructions for slavery and the selling of your daughter, it is.
Judge Roy Moore, do you endorse this also??????

There are many more passages that are never mentioned, I suggest you read them for yourselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]