Welcome to Gaia! ::

It's not that I have rights and you have rights, it's that our rights are being violated.


No, that is completely and utterly incorrect.

Seperation of Church and State is to ensure that the National/State/Local government does not endorse/support anyone religion over any other religion. Furthermore, it is to ensure the free practice of any recognized religion. If the government has any hint of religious interference, in such a way that it excludes religions, the government is therefore supporting one religion over another, meaning that it is endorsing a religion, which is against the first amendment.


Nor are they required to either. Whether or not it offends you is irrelevant. It is the simple fact that the ten commandments being placed on government property implies restrictions on religion.

Don't like it? Move to a theocratic country.


If that where the case, this country would be an Extremist Christian Theocracy.

If words had no power of influence, you would have a point. Unfortunately, words have influential power.

It very well could, and to say that you are more than positive otherwise merely shows you are naive.

I would be apathetic if this were merely a case of being offended. However, it is not a case of being offended; it is a case of the government disregarding its own foundations.

It may have been brought up by one being offended, however, that does not change the fact that the government is blatantly going against what it says. Which ultimately results in a destruction of social contract.

I've always had a problem with that "America: Love it or Leave it" idea. I think if people have a problem they should try to solve it, they shouldn't just give up.

I'm not offended by the "Under God" phrase, since they don't specify which god they're talking about and it could just as well be mine. I tend to assume that it is, when it comes out of my mouth. However, it would be highly disrespectful to an atheist, or to a religion which only recognizes the divine in female form, or to a religion which does not embrace "God" as a person under which we could be under, but more as an underlying philosophy or principle. And because of this, I feel that it's inappropriate.

Regarding the Ten Commandments being posted in a court of law, it is problematic because by posting these religious laws in a center of federal law, one is showcasing them as an ideal- an example to be followed. Especially in a case where only one religion's laws are given such pride of place, it casts an uneasy shadow of doubt as to whether the laws being pronounced at this court are truly unbiased and secular. Even if there were religious laws from all over the world being displayed in our courts of law, what about those who don't believe in god? Or those who do, but don't want their god's name to be invoked in such profane matters? You say that if the judge is Christian then he should be able to deck the halls with his own religious beliefs? Why can't he hang them in his heart? Where they belong? Like the rest of us? Why create unnecessary potential for abuse of his position, and needless friction between other religious factions, by having a religious decree posted in what is supposed to be a non-religious forum? It's simply in bad taste, and inappropriate, and completely unnecessary.

The fact that taking it down is such a big deal makes it clear that those who requested its removal were correct to worry about it's being there in the first place. Apparently people are having a very hard time disassociating these religious laws from the secular ones our courts of law are supposed to be upholding.

Aethiests don't count. They celebrate Christmas a CHRISTIAN holiday, curse using the word god, celebrate valentines day (a religious based holiday), drink and celebrate on ST. Patrick's day, etc. They do religious things anyway, so why are THEY allowed to pick and choose? Doesn't anyone else get a say in this?

If we took out all religious icons, symbols, and the likes...We'd have to change the days of the week because they originate from Norse gods. Months would have to be changed and reformatted because they are based on the roman calendar (which originates around their religion). Even the word Calendar is roman. You would no longer be allowed shorter hours or the day off on Sundays because sabbath and resting on a Saturday or sunday is a religious thing. School would be on during weekends because the sabbath origins wouldn't be in affect.

As far as holidays and marketing, you wouldn't be allowed to publically display that stuff because it would be "offensive" and there's seperation of church and state. No more drinking on St. Patty's day, or discounted drinks on that day because SAINT Patricks day revolves around a saint. No more advertising Christmas things on TV (which, really..would be a plus anyway because Christmas songs annoy me..). For that matter, saying "Happy Holidays" on TV wouldn't be allowed either because Holiday originates from "Holy Day". No more Valentines Day or valentines day greetings being sold because that holiday originates from SAINT Valentine. No more candy specials around halloween. None of that ESPECIALLY on military base stores because those stores are owned by the government.

Religion, whether anyone wants to admit it or not is a strong part of this culture and the world's culture. Its what makes us who we are. So if we were to truley seperate state and religion, we would have to completely reformat and re establish an entirely new culture. So in that sense there will never be seperation of church and state. Religion is too far intergrated with sociaty to try such a thing.