?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

epiphanyofhope said this in response to the article I posted about the 2.5 ton graven image.
2003-09-08 22:15 <link>
Such a shame... Totally misunderstand the context of everything in the Bible...


So I responded with:
*sigh* You are the shame.
2003-09-09 12:21
You are an idiot. I'm sorry, but there's a couple things you need to understand:

A) There wasn't any 'context' to understand in that article because the only thing out of the bible it covered was the 10 commandments. There was no context to the 10 Commandments, they were exhibited 'as is', there weren't any lines of scripture between them, ie: no context.

B) That article was a very accurate portrayal of how americans that don't proscribe to the christian religion feel about a judge attempting to press his beliefs on us. You may not have a problem with the "basic moral code" represented there, but I do. So do many many people, some of whom were our "Founding Fathers". You may recall that in this country, we have something called Freedom of Religion. That means all religions, not just yours. Until it's ok to post a copy of the Wiccan code of faith in every courthouse across the country, I don't want to see your commandments there either.

C) Whether you appreciate it or not, "Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me" is a plain and grevious violation of the aforementioned freedom of religion.

If you have any questions as to why people see it as a problem, feel free to e-mail me at x_rumour_x@livejournal.com, or post in response to this. I have no compunction about taking sides in this particular dispute and really would like to hear how you can justify a federal judge putting a 2 and a half ton graven image in a courthouse. If you are going to be stereotypically closemindedly christian, you can keep your idiosyncratic bullshit to yourself.

-X

Comments

( 20 comments — Leave a comment )
silvermongoose
Sep. 9th, 2003 07:40 pm (UTC)
People like *that* are the reason that I don't commonly talk about my religion, and try to avoid religion talk in general, as my opinions come forth with a complete lack of tact and hit people too close to home. I almost let my dog loose on the last missionaries that came to my door, because when I politely stated that I am quite content with my religion, and not interested in theirs, they wouldn't leave. I try to respect freedom of religion for all people, but its hard to when the courtesy is not returned. And I horribly misspelled courtesy a second ago, I'm off my game this morning.
digitalgoth
Sep. 9th, 2003 07:50 pm (UTC)
Missionaries that come to my doorstep are probably some of the most fun I have at home. If you don't have a chance to answer the door naked, then inviting them in and then getting naked before sitting down to talk usually sets the conversational tone in your favor... if they stay. Then I usually went into a nice little conversation about how I was aware that I was going to burn in hell for all eternity, and sure, that scared me. Then I asked them "What if I'm right and you're wrong? What if my beliefs are correct and yours prove to be completely fabricated?" At this point, they do one of two things:

A) "I don't know what your beliefs are." To which I politely respond, "THAT'S BECAUSE I DON'T GO AROUND TRYING TO FORCE THEM ON ANYONE, NOW GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY HOUSE."

or

B) "I'm not sure, why don't you tell us." To which I politely respond, "You mean you don't know what my beliefs are?" See option A) again...

They're so much fun. :)

-X
silvermongoose
Sep. 9th, 2003 08:10 pm (UTC)
Fuckers wake me up and I'm not exactly playful in the mornings.
kragen
Sep. 9th, 2003 08:11 pm (UTC)
you have to admit it was a pretty stupid article, though
I mean, from the author's vocabulary being so limited they have no hope of understanding the text they're commenting on (they apparently didn't even know what the word 'thy' means, confusing it with 'my') to having no clue about the sequence of events they're commenting on (thinking the Levitican code came before Moses?) to just arguing that the commandments are "silly", apparently simply because they don't agree with them. They even somehow think that a sheet of text is an "image".

It is, in fact, true that the commandments are the basis for our legal system, insofar as they were one of the first written codes of laws, although of course our current laws mostly aren't based on individual commandments.

I agree with the author's sentiment that promulgating the commandments as written (especially with the original penalties, namely, death) would violate our constitution and generally be an abomination; when written, though, they represented a big improvement over the simple caprice of kings.

The stupefying ignorance and rancor in the article you quoted doesn't help those of us who want to uphold the first amendment. It simply drives a wedge between Christians who support the first amendment and non-Christians who support it.
digitalgoth
Sep. 9th, 2003 08:28 pm (UTC)
Re: you have to admit it was a pretty stupid article, though
Kragen. You and I have -never- seen eye-to-eye about religion. As has been most recently proven by the fact that the only posts of mine that you really reply to with a great deal of thought are the ones where I am talking about religion.

I fully agree with you saying that the ingorance in said article is reprehensible and is a bad way of driving a wedge. However:

1. I agree with his views, no matter how badly he worded them.
2. I am not alone.
3. I would rather have a wedge there than missionaries on my doorstep.
4. I don't "have to admit it was a pretty stupid article" because I don't happen to think it was. I will admit that it's a badly written article, but that the author does convey a rather strong sentiment of mine to an audience that is quite accustomed to his vocabulary.

-X
djsparkydog
Sep. 9th, 2003 09:14 pm (UTC)
Re: you have to admit it was a pretty stupid article, though
Well, BEING christian, I myself can't say I agree with all the commandments, and certainly not all the punishments.

Do you know why that's okay? When the big JC showed up, (and I'm paraphrasing here) There was a "what came before doesn't mean dick" clause. So posting a 2 and a half ton rock full of Old Testament laws is at BEST, a really JEWISH thing to do.

Now, all that aside, ahem :

SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. PERIOD. NO EXCEPTIONS, NO "MOST OF US AGREE WITH IT." THEY STAY SEPERATE AS IS DICTATED IN THE DOCUMENTS PUT FORTH BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS. Forever and ever, Amen. Biyatch.
digitalgoth
Sep. 9th, 2003 09:18 pm (UTC)
Re: you have to admit it was a pretty stupid article, though
In order for there to be a true "freedom of religion", there needs to be a separation of church and state. I wish that this judge would realize he is free to practice his religion -because- of the separation that he is so avidly trying to violate.

-X
wasurera
Sep. 9th, 2003 11:20 pm (UTC)
Re: you have to admit it was a pretty stupid article, though
It's Alabama. It's the Bible Belt, and that belt holds up the pants of many-a-bible thumper. They don't admit to other religions having any bearing on anything.
elvendude
Sep. 10th, 2003 06:29 am (UTC)
Re: you have to admit it was a pretty stupid article, though
I would have to disagree that it is the basis of our current legal code. Certainly, it influenced our current legal code by being one of the most widespread sets of belief when the foundations of that code were laid, but very few sets of laws have ever been based on purely religious texts and codes. What our legal codes are based on are primarily the English system of legality which developed from the legal systems of the Empires of Rome and Greece, which were developed from, yes, a code of rules made to govern nomadic herders. But, truly, law has never been "the simple caprice of kings". Since Hammurabi (the first known set of written laws, admittedly quite brutal, but they weren't exactly in the land of milk and honey) laws have been written, and generally duelly followed in the legal system unless it's a period of unrest.
tymeschizm
Sep. 10th, 2003 12:04 am (UTC)
i saw a few points in what people said about the article that were true.

mainly that it was badly written.

seperation of church and state is one of the truely unique factors in american life. sure, communist russia / china have tried similar, but they way they create zelots out of ideals forces the party into the same position as the church.

if we were to cease fighting seperation of church and state, then we would lose one of the things that makes america truely unique.

however... i'd like to point out that in your point B), you make a vocabulary mistake. i belive that instead of "proscribe" you mean "ascribe." however, this word is still not quite accurate to the meaning that you are trying to convey. i think the term "hold with" is your best bet.... (if, of course, you remove the "to" that you have after proscribe.) go go grammar nazi lowell!

digitalgoth
Sep. 10th, 2003 12:41 am (UTC)
\As*cribe"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Ascribed; p. pr. & vb. n. Ascribing.] [L. ascribere, adscribere, to ascribe; ad + scribere to write: cf. OF. ascrire. See Scribe.]
...
2. To attribute, as a quality, or an appurtenance; to consider or allege to belong.

You're exactly right with my mistake. I commonly switch those two words around. Thank you for catching my error. :)

_X
silvermongoose
Sep. 10th, 2003 03:32 am (UTC)
Hey, if you're gonna correct his word usage, check out your own spelling.
tymeschizm
Sep. 10th, 2003 04:25 am (UTC)
fuck spelling, who needs that shit.

big difference between spelling and grammar...
digitalgoth
Sep. 10th, 2003 04:36 am (UTC)
Don't you mean: "Fuk Speling!" instead?

_X
tymeschizm
Sep. 10th, 2003 04:41 am (UTC)
f00k sp33l1n6.
digitalgoth
Sep. 10th, 2003 04:43 am (UTC)
er. you mean "phuck 5p3||1n6"

_X
elvendude
Sep. 10th, 2003 06:31 am (UTC)
diction, damn it! not grammar, diction!

-Nazi
silvermongoose
Sep. 10th, 2003 09:39 pm (UTC)
Yeah, spelling is easier.
elvendude
Sep. 10th, 2003 06:34 am (UTC)
I have to disagree that there is no context. Certainly, the Commandments in and of themselves are presented without context, but, truly, you have to take into account the context of the culture in which they were created and applied. IE, the much bandied about nomadic herders, for whom this stuff made a lot more sense than it does for your average american.
digitalgoth
Sep. 10th, 2003 06:21 pm (UTC)
I would tend to agree, however;
The commandments' context in no way comes into play when we're talking about them as a symbol of "justice and right" as Judge Moore said. If that's all he wants them there for, then their context doesn't matter in the least. What does matter is that people will simply not ignore the context of them being the -christian- commandments. While I personally have no problem with the general message that the commandments themselves convey, I do have a problem with the message that it is okay to mix religion in with the justice department.

As the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in ordering the removal of Judge Roy Moore's 5,300-pound monstrosity on July 1:

"Every government building could be topped with a cross, or a menorah, or a statue of Buddha, depending upon the views of the officials with authority over the premises. A creche could occupy the place of honor in the lobby or rotunda of every municipal, county, state, or federal building. Proselytizing religious messages could be played over the public address system in every government building at the whim of the official in charge of the premises."

That's the context. That's the problem.

_X
( 20 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

November 2008
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30