Judge outlaws prison group's Bible program

You have totally missed the point of Nolan's post.

googled a better image

Is it clear that is Moses holding the 10 Commandments? One need not see the words to know what it is. The others seem to be looking in Moses' direction.

No, I got the point. All of those are respected. I agree. Religions have always been respected as law makers. It just so happens Moses with the 10 Commandments is the biggest one. For good reason. The Supreme Court also prays to the God of Moses. Or so it would seem.

So... they're Jewish?

Right, so call the sculptor himself a liar, and feed me some crap from a conservative, anti-homosexual website...

UH, look at what your quoting, and then look at the picture. See anything "enscribed" upon them? I don't. Now that's not to say that they may not be a representation of the commandments, but they appear blank to me.

And again, the doors and the frieze within are referencing the first ten amendments.

This is according to the damned sculptor himself! --

"According to Weinman, the designer of this frieze, the tablet visible between the two central male figures, engraved with the Roman numerals I through X, represents not the Ten Commandments but the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, collectively known as the Bill of Rights."

The fact is - Moses was used because he was a lawgiver - not because of his religion - facts that are substantiated by the sculptors themselves.

"Judeo-Christian (or Judaeo-Christian) is a term used to describe the body of concepts and values which are thought to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity, and typically considered (along with classical Greco-Roman civilization) a fundamental basis for Western legal codes and moral values." ---wiki

LOL! I was thinking that too.

Even if that is Moses, which isn't really clear, that doesn't mean it's an endorsement of Judaism. It would be a reference to Moses the law giver , just as the images of Charlemagne, Mohammad, Solomon and Octavius are. The US used to put the head of Mercury on the dime, does that mean they were endorsing Roman religions?

The whole point here is that the government shouldn't be giving money to sponsor religious teaching from any faith. If people of any faith want to come into the prison and evangelize to the inmates that's perfectly fine, but they need to get private funding to do it (and the prisoners shouldn't get special treatment for attending, redemption is it's own reward.).

Personally I think a lot of good comes from these types of programs, but the government shouldn't be involved.

Yes, hold onto that straw for all it's worth, disregard the sculptor's own words, and completely disregard that there are representations of "heathens" on those sculptures too.

Bingo.

And all this time I thought our laws were based on the Code of Hammurabi. Thanks for clearing that up!

I'll be perfectly honest and say I'm not sure either way about the original issue which is basically the seperation of church and state.

However, Kven please take a second look at something....



It does NOT say that Moses's presence represents God or Christianity and it never mentions the ten commandments. It states his figure is a representation of one of three civilizations in history. It is likely that the blank tablets he is holding are merely to emphasize that Moses is the figure depicted, much like we tend to view a tall top hatted figure as being representative of Abraham Lincoln... It is a visual used to identify the person.

The artist himself has stated his intent. To say that there is another explanation is like telling me that the cassarole I just cooked for my Mother and brought over to her is not in fact meant for my mother but for someone else instead and then ignoring my protests that it I made it for her. It is fine to stand by your beliefs and to point out things in the world which may support your beliefs. But if the person who created the thing you are pointing at is telling you that you are wrong.. then you are wrong.

EDIT:


Oh and no they are not looking in Moses' direction, frankly I've never heard anyone suggest that before. The three figures are simply gazing off in three different directions.

I think it was either bill hicks or george carlin who said that If churches dont pay taxes why should they get services that are paid for by taxes....

If Churches want services they should pay taxes... If they dont want to pay taxes then when the church catches on fire instead of calling the fire dept they can pray for rain.

just thought i would interject some humor in there. I too am against taxes paying for anything religious at all. Seperation of church and state should be absolute. God has no place in government. At least he shouldn't in america.

Neurosis

Show me where in the founding documents it says the government can't assist religions. Please don't point to the 1st amendment, because it clearly says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.."

No state religion (no gov. established religion), no laws prohibiting free exercise of religion. That's all there is, no separation of church and state at all. You have been mislead.

Well, it's about how you interpret that line Kevn.

A lot of people see it as a guarantee of separation, because it can be interpreted as a clause to prevent the favoring of one religion over another, thereby keeping the government out of religion and vice versa - a stance to which the Supreme Court has been leaning more and more towards since the mid-nineteenth century.

Certainly decisions like the commandments being removed from courthouses, nativity scenes disallowed on public land, and student-led prayer at public school events being disallowed illustrate this.

Here are a few examples:

Engel v. Vitale

Abington Township v. Schempp

Wallace v. Jaffree

Lee v. Weisman

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe

In my opinion, Neurosis has not been "misled", but is rather an adherent of the belief that the Establishment Clause, along with the Free Exercise Clause, are guarantees of separation. As I said above, since the mid 1800s and even more so since Justice Warren in the 60s, this has been the prevaling stance take by the Court.

Depends on who you listen to though in the end...

Personally, I think I will go with James Madison, since he is considered the father of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and said, "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."

Furthermore, Jefferson wrote, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Then, Ulysses S. Grant who said to "Keep the church and state forever separate."

I am going to defer to Madison, Jefferson, Grant, and the Supreme Court

Also, this is not a "Founding Document" but Justice Hugo Black wrote in 1947:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

"On the other hand, regardless of what people here say, the USA is officially seen as a christian country, be that right or wrong, and there aren't many countries where the government would go against the wishes of the dominant religion."

I must protest this. The USA may "be seen" as being a Christian country, but this is just observation from others. You can say that America "is seen" as an obese nation, and you would be correct in highlighting that many Americans are overweight. You would be wrong, however, to conclude from this that America is officially a nation based around being overweight.

America has no state religion. America does not model its government, laws or law-making process on religion. America is NOT a Christian country. It is a SECULAR country that has many Christians living in it, that has many similarities in its laws to Christian values (because of the large Christian influence in its voting public), and many of the trappings and traditions of a previous age when religion and state were closer ("In God we Trust", similar to the British Queen's title of "Defender of the Faith". This does not make America a Christian nation.

What the hell do you mean by "officially" anyway? What official decides the religious persuasion of a nation?

"Show me where in the founding documents it says the government can't assist religions."

There have been other laws written since those first founding documents.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.."

As constitutions go, yours is very ambiguously worded. Does "respecting", in this context, mean "to give respect to", or "regarding"? Does "establishment of religion" mean "to start a religion" or "a religious establishment"?

Kick away the crutch of your constitution and remember it is not THE law authority in your country; merely, it is a declaration of the guiding principles behind your laws. Base your arguments on the legality of state-sponsered religion on the massive amount of legislature
created since your country's inception, not just the few documents that started it.

Musuko.

as well as size of the corpus callosum.

Jesus believed in seperation of Church and State as well.

“Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s "

I really like that scene in "History of the World" by Mel Brooks I think where Moses comes down from the mountain and says (with three Tablets in his arms)

"I bring you these 15" (drops the 3rd Tablet becuase its hard to carry, looks down then says) "TEN! commandments"





-PS i thought he smashed the commandments becuase the people had become idol worshipers during his trip up the Mountain.

SO when did he have time to Pose for those 2 tablet shots?

Well my former girl friend's dad was an Army chaplain, and a Rabbi, and a psychologist. he spent most of his time listening to service members troubles about thier marriages, duty-related injuries, and substance abuse issues than about religion.

He was, however, empowered to deliver last rights to Catholic service members, etc. I always thought that kind of ecumenical cooperation was a lesson in getting along with each other.

When the Delta crash happened in Dallas, he was home on leave and was mobilized to the crash site to help with the families. I don't think any of the folks he talked with that day cared if he was Jewish, Christian, or Buddhist. They wanted someone to talk to and comfort them.

My guess is your question is should the Army be paying them. Why not? In my experience they perform a valuable service. Besides, the armed services have often been on the front line of tolerance issues (unofficially). Many service members came back from WW2 and Vietnam with a different feeling about race issues based on serving with all kinds of people. And wasn't it an Army base in Texas where they had an official Wiccan contingent?

The fact that the US governement has been in the past and is now domminated by Christains

- Does NOT mean the enforcement of the Christain religeon and Moral code is what was intended.

-Nor does it mean that the first ammendment was not intended to provide a seperation of church and state.

Instead it means that Numerous law makers have been unable, over the years, to abide by the actual Tennants of the founding of our governement.


The qoute you seem to hate and misunderstand -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

It helps to remember that the Constitiution was written in the late 18th century - The English Language was more formal than it is today. And the term respect had a weightier meaning than it does in common speech Today.

A close definition i believe, would be this one - (from thinkexist.com number 5.)

Respect -
To take notice of; to regard with special attention; to regard as worthy of special consideration; hence, to care for; to heed.

My point being the Statement from the constitution you think is vague and narrow - is neither vague , nor narrow in scope.

I'm too busy to dig out the article I wrote on this subject, so I'm posting someone else.
---------------

Regarding the term Judeo-Christian
by Lis Riba

The term "Judeo-Christian" was invented during World War II, when Christians started realizing how rude it was to rail against the Nazis for violating "Christian decency" since so many of the Nazi victims were Jewish. It was a superficial attempt to appear diverse and inclusive. Usually when I see the term used, the author actually is only talking about Christianity, and thus denies the truly different nature of Judaism.

The term Judeo-Christian does not have a lengthy history.

"It was during the Hitler years that American philo-Semites invented the 'Judeo-Christian tradition' to combat innocent, or not so innocent, language that spoke of a totalitarian assault on 'Christian civilization.'"
Peter Novick, Holocaust in American Life

That sentence footnotes Mark Silk, "Notes on the Judeo-Christian Tradition in America," American Quarterly 36 (Spring 1984), pp.65-85, which I have read, but can't seem to find right now.

Here's what the Oxford English Dictionary says about the history of the term:

The earliest use of the phrase "Judeo-Christian" came in 1899 Lit. Guide 1 Oct. 146/1: "The total abandonment of the Judaeo-Christian 'continuity' theory." This sentence implies that Judaism and Christianity are NOT equivalent though there may be some continuity from one to the other.

The next use is in 1910, Encycl. Brit. VI. 494/1: "The Clementine literature throws light upon a very obscure phase of Christian development, that of Judaeo-Christianity." Again, it's "very obscure" and only refers to a brief "phase" of Christian development. It doesn't apply to contemporary practices or beliefs of the two faiths or imply broader grounds for comparison between the religions.

Then comes WWII, with a 1939 reference in New English Weekly 27 July 237/2 to "The Judaeo-Christian scheme of morals" which fits in with Novick and Silk's comments that this was an attempt at universalizing "Christian" terms and shoehorning Jews in as a matter of inclusiveness.

The earliest reference to a "Judaeo-Christian deity" wasn't until 1957, and it wasn't until 1960 that "Judeo-Christianity" appeared.

As Novick and Silk point out and the OED verifies, the phrase "Judeo-Christian" was initially adopted out of altruistic motivations -- trying to rally and unite the nation. "Christian society" accomodated Jews by inclusively saying "Judeo-Christian" instead.

Unfortunately, all too often, that word merely replaces the word "Christian" without any deeper look at the underlying concepts, thus evoking a popular image that Judaism and Christianity have more in common than they actually do. Usually, that errs by making Judaism seem more Christian than vice-versa.

I remember an amusing/annoying letter to the Boston Globe from someone that praised the Christian Coalition's devotion to "Judeo-Christian values" and listed the organizations that embody those values -- all 100% Christian groups, none REMOTELY Jewish.

It's like use of the universal male -- you have to be careful when it switches from general to specific or it falls apart.

There are some missionary and proselytizing groups who purposely blur the distinction between the faiths to lure the less educated away from Judaism. And because of this mistaken notion of "Judeo-Christianity," in the last year or so, I've often found myself having to correct other posters' misconceptions about Judaism, explaining over and over again that Jews do NOT follow various Christian beliefs and practices.

I think the term "Judeo-Christian" is overused and usually misused. It really should only apply in certain very limited circumstances, because the differences between the religions are so broad and fundamental that its rare to actually refer to both at the same time.

All I ask is for people to be careful when they're using the term to make sure they're referring to BOTH religions.

A few quotes for whoever is interested:

"It is a mistake to believe that Christianity is the decendent of modern Judaism. Instead, it is much closer to the truth to state that from the matrix of ideas surrounding the end of the Second Temple era emerged two religions, Christianity and rabbinical Judaism, both of which claimed continuity with the original religion. They are not parent and child; they are brothers. As were Cain and Abel."
John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity, 1999

"Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity; and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism."
Rabbi Eliezar Berkowitz,
chairman Jewish philosophy department at Hebrew Theological College, 1966

Thanks, I wasn't aware that there were non-christian Chaplains. I am a veteran myself, so it just goes to show one doesn't necessarily know all about a subject even having been immersed in it (the military).

That said, I think that hiring trained mental health counselors would do just as well, especially after seeing what you've said about the types of issues your friend's father fielded. He was likely exercising his psychology skills much more than his theogolical skills, so what's the point of having the religious connection really?

I forsee a day when military chaplains will be a thing of the past.

As far as last rites go - I don't think that a Muslim's family would be too thrilled about having a Rabbi or a Priest performing last rites on their family member. Perhaps they check the dog tags though (hopefully) before performing any religious rites - which then brings about the issue of equal representation, and which is where I see a constitutional issue.

On the ecumenical cooperation thing - are you sure that's the reason? Or was it just because there are a fair percentage of service members who are Catholic? I have a suspicion that they may just be trying to kill two birds with one stone, versus being tolerant.

If prisons can't get religious funding from the taxbase because it can be viewed as a breach of the separation of church and state, why should the military?