|
|
If the people want religious verses or sayings on or in a government building, there is an absolute right for that to be allowed as long as no religion is being restricted by the government.
Government is totally restricted from influencing or regulating legitimate religion.
Religion is completely unrestricted from having total influence on government.
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Interesting note on this bill that everyone might find interesting. It was co-authored by former Louisiana Tech football player and and now Oklahoma Lt. Governor Todd Lamb.
Just to get the actual text out there:
Article 6; Clause 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
My view is that all governmental activities are viewed as suspect. Each and every one. That includes posting the Ten Commandments on a public building. Why would one do that in light of a very clear intention of the framers to separate church and state?
So, the best I can explain myself, I don't want the Ten Commandments on my public buildings. Hell, I don't even want to claim any public buildings. They are necessary evils. I would be against that being done locally or at the state level. However, I sure don't see why federal courts would want to get involved in what we write on our walls at the state and local level. Oklahoma ia arguably ill advised to put the Ten Commandments on a public building, but I don't see where that is my business, because I live in Louisiana. Nobody is advocating that the church take over the Oklahoma government.
But, the most important reason I don't like it is that I think it makes Christians look like they are winning some kind of political battle putting their mark on a political building. I can't think of a building that I want to claim that belongs to the government. Why would I want to put my mark on it. It's like two dogs seeing who can pee higher on a tree. Just let it go and spend your energy spreading the gospel as Jesus commanded us to do.
It's time to close the doors to the Temple of Janus.
I think it's more the idea that the religious and moral icons/guidelines that were the foundation of our country are being allowed to be dragged out of said institutions (as trophies I might add) after 100's of years.Taking prayer and the 10 Commandments out of our schools, after being there for 100's of years, sure turned out to be a good idea of liberals right? Not! Heading out on vacation so I wont be able to reply for some time unless connections allow (probably will). Besides, some would say I need a break from BB&B as well.
I hate to admit I had no idea that was the case but the good ideas are usually Tech related.
He's slowly becoming a political giant in this state. Very popular with the people in Oklahoma, I see big things in the man's future.I hate to admit I had no idea that was the case but the good ideas are usually Tech related.
That's a pretty weak come back....Of course there is a big difference between the two, but the principles of the 10 commandments, the idea of placing them in prominent places as a reminder of them, the idea of having leaders and a country that is obedient to God, etc has NOT changed....not to mention that the 10 commandments existed before they were written; i.e., they are written on peoples minds even before the law existed.
Symbols have meaning. This country is so politically correct that we might as well fly white flags...oh, but then again, someone would complain that the white flag is racist or that it interferes with the building's architecture or that it is too big or that it represents surrender or........ And as I looked at the short list of things that would offend people, I noticed that without even trying, two of them were "offensive" because they are symbolic.
We can't run away from offending people, so we might as well display things that we, in this case our elected officials (our representatives), display symbols that are meaningful to us and to hell with those that don't like it.
It's only weak if you don't put the knowledge of the difference between the two civilizations into the equation. There is a lot of meaning in that response. Once writing became more than a way to count livestock, most city states posted their laws in a public place such as the gates of the city or at what was their form of the courthouse; c.f., Draco.
The Ten Commandments were the law of the land in Israel. God was at its head. The laws would have been posted at the city gates so that when people came into Israel, they knew what the law was. Trust me, some of the cultures at that time had some customs and laws that would have drastically differed from the Ten Commandments. They needed to be posted at the city gates.
We are in a completely different situation. This country is a country founded to a very great extent on freedom of religion. We do not in any way limit citizenship to professed Christians. In fact, I have no desire whatsoever to limit our citizenship to Christians. The Ten Commandments are not the law of the land. I want the Hindus. I want the atheist. I want the Muslims. The Buddhist. I want them all. Not only does it makes it so much more easy to share the gospel, but we can learn from some of what they bring from their cultures.
What made ancient Greece and the United States so beneficial to the state of mankind, especially the poor, was that we both were not afraid to accept the best of what other cultures bring to the table. No, I'm not saying to accept the religion of Buddhism, but I am saying that those who come from Buddhist backgrounds have things to offer that would make our country stronger.
Again, I also think government is a necessary evil. It is sad that even Israel rejected God as their direct leader. We have to have the damned human government, but I don't trust the government at best, and loath it most of the time. I certainly am fearful of consolidated power. So, again, I don't want my God's laws on those buildings that represent the power of our human government to oppress me or the Buddhist.
Jesus wants us to come to him voluntarily. We don't need the monuments of human arrogance and power lust to spread the Word of God.
It's time to close the doors to the Temple of Janus.
What about the 10th amendment to the Constitution that powers not granted to the federal government by the first 9 Bill of Rights nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively to the states or to the people??
So IMO, the states should have much more authority to dictate the business of each state.
Again, in a previous post, I made it clear that it is none of my business how Oklahoma decorates their buildings, and it certainly is none of the federal government's business either.
This argument is purely academic. My position is that the Ten Commandments don't belong on political buildings, and we as Christians shouldn't be putting our mark on those buildings because those buildings in no way shape nor form represent Christianity. The Ten Commandments are not the law of the land in Oklahoma nor of the United States.
We as Christians should be spending our time and effort in maintaining the house of the Lord, and let the politicians worry about how they decorate their monuments to their earthly power.
It's time to close the doors to the Temple of Janus.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote